GloPID-R Roadmap for Data Sharing in PHEs | Page 14

In statements at the time of the recent Zika
(2016) and Ebola (2018) epidemics, research
funders committed to requiring researchers to
share quality- assured interim and final data
as rapidly as possible and journals committed
to ensuring free access of data and pre-prints
concerning the virus, which will not pre-empt
their publication 19,20 .
There have also been commitments from
funders to encourage sharing of early results
through pre-prints defined as complete and
public drafts of scientific documents, yet to be
certified by peer review 21 .
The GloPID-R funders have contributed to this
policy area with their Data Sharing Principles 1
to underpin future implementation of timely
data sharing. These principles are intended to
support the development of systems for data
sharing in PHEs that can be recognised by and
adhered to by all stakeholders. The principles
are also intended to align with other princi-
ples such as the FAIR Data Principles 9 , build
on other work, such as the Chatham House
Strengthening Data Sharing for Public Health
project 10 , and to support critical work in this
area, such as the WHO R & D Blueprint Process.
In 2018, Case Studies 2 and a GloPID-R funders’
review 4 were commissioned on behalf of the
GloPID-R data sharing working group.
a deeper understanding of the obstacles to and
enablers of data sharing. In December 2018, a
consultation meeting was held to discuss the
outcomes of the case studies and synthesise
the findings across them, summarised in a
meeting report 3 . The identified obstacles and
enablers are synthesised in this roadmap.
Overall, the case studies showed that data shar-
ing (of both research and public health data) was
not common or was often delayed in outbreaks
where opportunities had already been lost for
research to inform the public health response
for that outbreak. Data sharing was most imme-
diate through pre-established networks, where
mechanisms and, most importantly, trust had
already been built (this agreed with findings from
a previous review15). Trusted informal contacts
and networks were also used to share data
when formal routes were not functioning.
The case studies highlight the complexity of
factors influencing sharing and use of data in
PHEs, not all of which can be addressed by the
GloPID-R funders. They also show that what
constitutes a PHE may not be clear-cut and
that, for example, inadequate detection and
control can contribute to an outbreak becoming
a PHE. The epidemic potential of an emerging
infection may also not be clear during the early
stages of an outbreak.
GLOPID-R COMMISSIONED
WORK: CASE STUDIES GLOPID-R COMMISSIONED
WORK: FUNDERS’ REVIEW
Six case studies were undertaken on data
sharing across a range of infectious disease
outbreaks of different severity, geographical
exposure and public health impact, where inter-
ventions were or were not available to develop The GloPID-R funders’ review surveyed
GloPID-R funders to determine and analyse
their current policies and future plans in sup-
port of enhanced data sharing in PHEs (as well
as data sharing in general and open-access
14