澳大利亚国家基因组数据治理框架的机遇:系统回顾。

IF 3.1 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Fabian Cannizzo, Miranda E Vidgen, Rebekah McWhirter, Alan Petersen, Margaret Otlowski, Marco Rizzi, Jasmine Hensley, Ainsley J Newson
{"title":"澳大利亚国家基因组数据治理框架的机遇:系统回顾。","authors":"Fabian Cannizzo, Miranda E Vidgen, Rebekah McWhirter, Alan Petersen, Margaret Otlowski, Marco Rizzi, Jasmine Hensley, Ainsley J Newson","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01273-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As with other countries, Australia is seeking to make efficient use of genomic data for use in research, clinical medicine and population health. However, to enable cross jurisdictional consistency in the management of and access to data, it will first need to establish a national framework for governing genomic data. To this end, ethical, legal and social issues are often discussed. However, the literature offers little evidence-based support for such a framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To address this literature gap, we systematically reviewed two databases (Scopus and PubMed) for research articles that discussed issues and opportunities for enacting genomic data governance frameworks in the domains of research, genomic medicine and public (population) health in the Australian context.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-one relevant articles were included and were analysed using inductive content analysis. Our findings identified that opportunities for implementing a national genomic data governance framework concerned defining roles for patients in data governance, data management processes and increasing the public acceptance of genomic data use in healthcare and research. Additionally, they highlight differences in the opportunities and priorities for clinical and research genomics that hinder further advancement of data governance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our synthesis of the current literature on genomic data governance suggests that the current focus on individual consent as the primary mechanism for protecting data subjects and different priorities in clinical and research governance need to be addressed. Given the significance of the role of consent procedures and differences in clinical and research data in generating a data governance framework, our findings hence reveal a critical gap in the research literature. Advancing a national genomic data governance framework will require greater consensus and clarity regarding the application of ethical principles across jurisdictions and institutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"111"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12355800/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Opportunities for a national genomic data governance framework in Australia: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Fabian Cannizzo, Miranda E Vidgen, Rebekah McWhirter, Alan Petersen, Margaret Otlowski, Marco Rizzi, Jasmine Hensley, Ainsley J Newson\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12910-025-01273-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As with other countries, Australia is seeking to make efficient use of genomic data for use in research, clinical medicine and population health. However, to enable cross jurisdictional consistency in the management of and access to data, it will first need to establish a national framework for governing genomic data. To this end, ethical, legal and social issues are often discussed. However, the literature offers little evidence-based support for such a framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To address this literature gap, we systematically reviewed two databases (Scopus and PubMed) for research articles that discussed issues and opportunities for enacting genomic data governance frameworks in the domains of research, genomic medicine and public (population) health in the Australian context.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-one relevant articles were included and were analysed using inductive content analysis. Our findings identified that opportunities for implementing a national genomic data governance framework concerned defining roles for patients in data governance, data management processes and increasing the public acceptance of genomic data use in healthcare and research. Additionally, they highlight differences in the opportunities and priorities for clinical and research genomics that hinder further advancement of data governance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our synthesis of the current literature on genomic data governance suggests that the current focus on individual consent as the primary mechanism for protecting data subjects and different priorities in clinical and research governance need to be addressed. Given the significance of the role of consent procedures and differences in clinical and research data in generating a data governance framework, our findings hence reveal a critical gap in the research literature. Advancing a national genomic data governance framework will require greater consensus and clarity regarding the application of ethical principles across jurisdictions and institutions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"111\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12355800/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01273-7\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01273-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与其他国家一样,澳大利亚正在寻求有效利用基因组数据,用于研究、临床医学和人口健康。然而,为了在数据管理和获取方面实现跨司法管辖区的一致性,它首先需要建立一个管理基因组数据的国家框架。为此,经常讨论伦理、法律和社会问题。然而,文献几乎没有为这种框架提供证据支持。方法:为了解决这一文献缺口,我们系统地回顾了两个数据库(Scopus和PubMed),其中讨论了在澳大利亚背景下研究、基因组医学和公共(人口)健康领域制定基因组数据治理框架的问题和机会。结果:纳入相关文献31篇,采用归纳内容分析法进行分析。我们的研究发现,实施国家基因组数据治理框架的机会涉及确定患者在数据治理、数据管理流程中的角色,以及提高公众对基因组数据在医疗保健和研究中的使用的接受程度。此外,他们强调了临床和研究基因组学的机会和优先级的差异,这阻碍了数据治理的进一步发展。结论:我们对当前基因组数据治理文献的综合分析表明,当前关注个人同意作为保护数据主体的主要机制,以及临床和研究治理的不同优先级需要解决。鉴于同意程序的作用以及临床和研究数据在生成数据治理框架中的差异的重要性,我们的研究结果因此揭示了研究文献中的一个关键差距。推进国家基因组数据治理框架将需要在跨司法管辖区和机构应用伦理原则方面达成更大的共识和更明确的规定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Opportunities for a national genomic data governance framework in Australia: a systematic review.

Background: As with other countries, Australia is seeking to make efficient use of genomic data for use in research, clinical medicine and population health. However, to enable cross jurisdictional consistency in the management of and access to data, it will first need to establish a national framework for governing genomic data. To this end, ethical, legal and social issues are often discussed. However, the literature offers little evidence-based support for such a framework.

Methods: To address this literature gap, we systematically reviewed two databases (Scopus and PubMed) for research articles that discussed issues and opportunities for enacting genomic data governance frameworks in the domains of research, genomic medicine and public (population) health in the Australian context.

Results: Thirty-one relevant articles were included and were analysed using inductive content analysis. Our findings identified that opportunities for implementing a national genomic data governance framework concerned defining roles for patients in data governance, data management processes and increasing the public acceptance of genomic data use in healthcare and research. Additionally, they highlight differences in the opportunities and priorities for clinical and research genomics that hinder further advancement of data governance.

Conclusions: Our synthesis of the current literature on genomic data governance suggests that the current focus on individual consent as the primary mechanism for protecting data subjects and different priorities in clinical and research governance need to be addressed. Given the significance of the role of consent procedures and differences in clinical and research data in generating a data governance framework, our findings hence reveal a critical gap in the research literature. Advancing a national genomic data governance framework will require greater consensus and clarity regarding the application of ethical principles across jurisdictions and institutions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信