Data sharing maximizes the value of data, which is time and resource intensive to collect. Major funding bodies in the United States (US), like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), require data sharing and researchers frequently share de-identified quantitative data. In contrast, qualitative data are rarely shared in the US but the increasing trend towards data sharing and open science suggest this may be required in future. Qualitative methods are often used to explore sensitive health topics raising unique ethical challenges regarding protecting confidentiality while maintaining enough contextual detail for secondary analyses. Here, we report findings from semi-structured in-depth interviews with 30 data repository curators, 30 qualitative researchers, and 30 IRB staff members to explore their experience and knowledge of QDS. Our findings indicate that all stakeholder groups lack preparedness for QDS. Researchers are the least knowledgeable and are often unfamiliar with the concept of sharing qualitative data in a repository. Curators are highly supportive of QDS, but not all have experienced curating qualitative data sets and indicated they would like guidance and standards specific to QDS. IRB members lack familiarity with QDS although they support it as long as proper legal and regulatory procedures are followed. IRB members and data curators are not prepared to advise researchers on legal and regulatory matters, potentially leaving researchers who have the least knowledge with no guidance. Ethical and productive QDS will require overcoming barriers, creating standards, and changing long held practices among all stakeholder groups.

We found no studies in the United States that explored research participants' perspectives about sharing their qualitative data. We present findings from interviews with 30 individuals who participated in sensitive qualitative studies to explore their understanding and concerns regarding qualitative data sharing. The vast majority supported sharing qualitative data so long as their data were deidentified and shared only among researchers. However, they raised concerns about confidentiality if the data were not adequately deidentified and about misuse by secondary users if data were shared beyond the research community. These concerns, though, did not deter them from participating in research. Notably, participants hoped their data would be shared and may have expected or assumed this was already happening. While many could not recollect details about data‐sharing plans for studies in which they participated, they trusted researchers and institutions to appropriately handle data sharing. If individuals view data sharing as an extension or integral part of their participation in qualitative research, then researchers may have a stronger obligation to share qualitative data than previously thought. Guidelines and tools to assist researchers and institutional review board members in ethical and responsible qualitative data sharing are urgently needed.

Recent revisions to the Common Rule require that consent documents begin with a focused presentation of the study's key information that is organized to facilitate understanding. We surveyed 1,284 researchers working with older adults or individuals with Alzheimer's disease, supplemented with 60 qualitative interviews, to understand current use and barriers to using evidence-based formatting and plain language in key information. Researchers reported using formatting in 42% of their key information sections, and plain language in 63% of their key information sections. Perceived barriers included lack of knowledge, Institutional Review Board, other members of their team, and the burden associated with implementation. Education and training are required to increase adoption of the practices.

Qualitative health data are rarely shared in the United States (U.S.). This is unfortunate because gathering qualitative data is labor and time-intensive, and data sharing enables secondary research, training, and transparency. A new U.S. federal policy mandates data sharing by 2023, and is agnostic to data type. We surveyed U.S. qualitative researchers (N = 425) on the barriers and facilitators of sharing qualitative health or sensitive research data. Most researchers (96%) have never shared qualitative data in a repository. Primary concerns were lack of participant permission to share data, data sensitivity, and breaching trust. Researcher willingness to share would increase if participants agreed and if sharing increased the societal impact of their research. Key resources to increase willingness to share were funding, guidance, and de-identification assistance. Public health and biomedical researchers were most willing to share. Qualitative researchers need to prepare for this new reality as sharing qualitative data requires unique considerations.

This version may be subject to change during the production process.

Purpose: This paper reports on a novel measure, Attitudes toward Genomics and Precision Medicine (AGPM), which evaluates attitudes toward activities such as genetic testing, collecting information on lifestyle, and genome editing-activities necessary to achieve the goals of precision medicine.Methods: We wrote items to represent psychological and health benefits of precision medicine activities, and concerns about privacy, social justice, harm to embryos, and interfering with nature. We validated the measure through factor analysis of its structure, and testing associations with trust in the health information system and demographic variables such as age, sex, education, and religion.Results: The AGPM had excellent alpha reliability (.92) and demonstrated good convergent validity with existing measures. Variables most strongly associated with higher levels of concern with precision medicine activities included: regular religious practice, republican political leanings, and higher levels of education.Discussion: The AGPM will be useful for researchers who want to explore attitudes toward genomics and precision medicine. The association of concerns about precision medicine activities with demographic variables such as religion and politics, as well as higher levels of education, suggests that further education on genomic and precision activities alone is unlikely to shift AGPM scores significantly.

Introduction SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has caused death and economic injury around the globe. The urgent need for COVID-19 research created new ethical, regulatory, and practical challenges. The next public health emergency could be worse than COVID-19. We must learn about these challenges from the experiences of researchers and Research Ethics Committee professionals responsible for these COVID-19 studies to prepare for the next emergency. Materials and methods We conducted an online survey to identify the ethical, oversight, and regulatory challenges of conducting COVID-19 research during the early pandemic, and proposed solutions for overcoming these barriers. Using criterion-based, convenience sampling, we invited researchers who proposed or conducted COVID-19 research to complete an anonymous, online survey about their experiences. We administered a separate but related survey to Institutional Review Board (IRB) professionals who reviewed COVID-19 research studies. The surveys included open-ended and demographic items. We performed inductive content analysis on responses to open-ended survey questions. Results IRB professionals (n = 143) and researchers (n = 211) described 19 types of barriers to COVID-19 research, related to 5 overarching categories: policy and regulatory, biases and misperceptions, institutional and inter-institutional conflicts, risks of harm, and pressure of the pandemic. Researchers and IRB professionals described 8 categories of adaptations and solutions to these challenges: enacting technological solutions; developing protocol-based solutions; disposition and team management; establishing and communicating appropriate standards; national guidance and leadership; maintaining high standards; prioritizing studies before IRB review; and identifying and incorporating experts. Discussion and conclusions This inventory of challenges represents ongoing barriers to studying the current pandemic, and they represent a risk to research during future public health emergencies. Delays in studies of a pandemic during a pandemic threatens the health and safety of the public. We urge the development of a national working group to address these issues before the next public health emergency arises.

This version may be subject to change during the production process.