Data sharing practices of health researchers in Africa: a scoping review protocol

Abstract

The aim of the review is to map the existing evidence regarding the data-sharing practices of health researchers in African countries. This review will also identify perceptions; barriers; facilitators; ethical-, legal-, and author-reported recommendations; as well as institutional-and funding-related aspects that are being considered by African health researchers on data sharing in Africa and, as a result, identify areas for development and improvement in health care on the continent. Introduction:The sharing of health-related data has been widely discussed in the literature. However, sharing health-related data has yet to become a common practice among health researchers in Africa, which bears a large burden of health diseases globally. The sharing of health research data could lead to greater development and improvement in health care in Africa.Inclusion criteria: This review will incorporate studies that report on data sharing among health researchers in Africa. All primary, secondary, and gray literature will be considered for inclusion. Studies on data sharing on topics other than health-related data will be excluded. No language restrictions will be applied. Methods:The JBI scoping review methodological framework will be adopted. An initial search of databases such as MEDLINE, Scopus, LILACS, and Web of Science will be conducted. All search results will be screened and relevant data extracted by two independent reviewers. The findings will be presented in the final scoping review report and illustrated in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews flow diagram.

Cross-border data sharing through the lens of research ethics committee members in sub-Saharan Africa

“…Data sharing is an important part of open science as more institutions, journals, health research funders and governments emphasise the importance of open science and enforce open data policies intended to increase academic influences and promote scientific discovery and development for the greater benefit of the public [ 10 , 25 – 27 ]. Openness in science contributes to greater social impact on the public and our interviewees recognised its several benefits which are consistent with previous research [ 17 , 28 – 30 ]. These benefits encompassed the potential for collaborative endeavours, the capacity to conserve resources, the advancement of knowledge and the increased robustness of study findings which could all potentially inform policy and decision-making [ 17 , 28 – 30 ].…”

“…Openness in science contributes to greater social impact on the public and our interviewees recognised its several benefits which are consistent with previous research [ 17 , 28 – 30 ]. These benefits encompassed the potential for collaborative endeavours, the capacity to conserve resources, the advancement of knowledge and the increased robustness of study findings which could all potentially inform policy and decision-making [ 17 , 28 – 30 ]. Open science is associated with substantial benefits, especially in the context of LMICs in SSA, and requires continued support and safeguards to foster lawful data sharing [ 31 ].…”

Opportunities for improving data sharing and FAIR data practices to advance global mental health

“…Other large nongovernmental stakeholders have promoted data sharing; for example, the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SCIELO; Packer, 2010 ) initiative in 17 countries (primarily Latin America) now supports a data repository. Some national and nongovernmental research funders require data sharing or formal data management plans as a condition of funding, for example, North America – National Science Foundation, 2011 ; National Institute of Health, 2022 ; South America – The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 2022 ; Africa – see review by Obiora et al, 2021 ; Europe : European Research Council, 2022 ; Australia – National Health and Medical Research Council, 2019 . Even when not mandated, investigators who systematically archive and share data may become better candidates for funding (Bosma and Granger, 2022 ).…”

Data sharing and re-use in the traumatic stress field: An international survey of trauma researchers

“…Beyond the practices of individual researchers, a variety of national policies and regulations impact mental health data sharing and reuse (Sadeh et al, 2023 ). Around the world, national and non-governmental research funders are increasingly requiring data sharing or formal data management plans as a condition of funding; s ee: (National Health and Medical Research Council Australian Research Council and Universities Australia, 2019 ; National Institute of Health, 2022 ; Obiora et al, 2021 ; The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 2022 ; Van den Eynden et al, 2011 ; Wellcome Trust, 2022 ). Overcoming barriers for researchers may require funders not only to mandate these practices but also to increase funding levels to cover any additional costs, and to fund development of innovative tools and infrastructure to make it easier to embed these practices in the research lifecycle.…”