Determinants of unlawful file sharing: a scoping review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Watson SJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4452318 | biostudies-literature | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Determinants of unlawful file sharing: a scoping review.
Watson Steven James SJ Zizzo Daniel John DJ Fleming Piers P
PloS one 20150601 6
We employ a scoping review methodology to consider and assess the existing evidence on the determinants of unlawful file sharing (UFS) transparently and systematically. Based on the evidence, we build a simple conceptual framework to model the psychological decision to engage in UFS, purchase legally or do nothing. We identify social, moral, experiential, technical, legal and financial utility sources of the decision to purchase or to file share. They interact in complex ways. We consider the st ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Numerous mechanisms exist to incentivise researchers to share their data. This scoping review aims to identify and summarise evidence of the efficacy of different interventions to promote open data practices and provide an overview of current research. Methods: This scoping review is based on data identified from Web of Science and LISTA, limited from 2016 to 2021. A total of 1128 papers were screened, with 38 items being included. Items were selected if they focused on designing or evaluating an intervention or presenting an initiative to incentivise sharing. Items comprised a mixture of research papers, opinion pieces and descriptive articles. Results: Seven major themes in the literature were identified: publisher/journal data sharing policies, metrics, software solutions, research data sharing agreements in general, open science 'badges', funder mandates, and initiatives. Conclusions: A number of key messages for data sharing include: the need to build on existing cultures and practices, meeting people where they are and tailoring interventions to support them; the importance of publicising and explaining the policy/service widely; the need to have disciplinary data champions to model good practice and drive cultural change; the requirement to resource interventions properly; and the imperative to provide robust technical infrastructure and protocols, such as labelling of data sets, use of DOIs, data standards and use of data repositories.
| S-EPMC8808319 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the rapid global growth of biobanking over the last few decades, and their potential for the advancement of health research, considerations specific to the sharing of benefits that accrue from biobanks have received little attention. Questions such as the types and range of benefits that can arise in biobanking, who should be entitled to those benefits, when they should be provided, by whom and in what form remain mostly unanswered. We conducted a scoping review to describe benefit sharing considerations and practices in biobanking in order to inform current and future policy and practice.MethodsDrawing on the Arksey and O'Malley framework, we conducted a scoping review of the literature in three online databases (PubMed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar). We extracted and charted data to capture general characteristics, definitions and examples of benefits and benefit sharing, justification for benefit sharing, challenges in benefit sharing, governance mechanisms as well as proposed benefit sharing mechanisms.Results29 articles published between 1999 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria for the study. The articles included 5 empirical and 24 non-empirical studies. Only 12 articles discussed benefit sharing as a stand-alone subject, while the remaining 17 integrated a discussion of benefits as one issue amongst others. Major benefit sharing challenges in biobanking were found to be those associated with uncertainties around the future use of samples and in resultant benefits.ConclusionMost of the benefit sharing definitions and approaches currently in use for biobanking are similar to those used in health research. These approaches may not recognise the distinct features of biobanking, specifically relating to uncertainties associated with the sharing and re-use of samples. We therefore support approaches that allow decisions about benefit sharing to be made progressively once it is apparent who samples are to be shared with, the intended purpose and expected benefits. We also highlight gaps in key areas informing benefit sharing in biobanking and draw attention to the need for further empirical research.
| S-EPMC8317360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As a first step in achieving an evidence-based classification system for the sport of Para Dressage, there is a clear need to define elite dressage performance. Previous studies have attempted to quantify performance with able-bodied riders using scientific methods; however, definitive measures have yet to be established for the horse and/or the rider. This may be, in part, due to the variety of movements and gaits that are found within a dressage test and also due to the complexity of the horse-rider partnership. The aim of this review is therefore to identify objective measurements of horse performance in dressage and the functional abilities of the rider that may influence them to achieve higher scores. Five databases (SportDiscuss, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, VetMed) were systematically searched from 1980 to May 2018. Studies were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: (1) English language; (2) employ objective, quantitative outcome measures for describing equine and human performance in dressage; (3) describe objective measures of superior horse performance using between-subject comparisons and/or relating outcome measures to competitive scoring methods; (4) describe demands of dressage using objective physiological and/or biomechanical measures from human athletes and/or how these demands are translated into superior performance. In total, 773 articles were identified. Title and abstract screening resulted in 155 articles that met the eligibility criteria, 97 were excluded during the full screening of articles, leaving 58 included articles (14 horse, 44 rider) involving 311 equine and 584 able-bodied human participants. Mean ± sd (%) quality scores were 63.5 ± 15.3 and 72.7 ± 14.7 for the equine and human articles respectively. Significant objective measures of horse performance (n = 12 articles) were grouped into themes and separated by gait/movement. A range of temporal variables that indicated superior performance were found in all gaits/movements. For the rider, n = 5 articles reported variables that identified significant differences in skill level, which included the postural position and ROM of the rider's pelvis, trunk, knee and head. The timing of rider pelvic and trunk motion in relation to the movement of the horse emerged as an important indicator of rider influence. As temporal variables in the horse are consistently linked to superior performance it could be surmised that better overall dressage performance requires minimal disruption from the rider whilst the horse maintains a specific gait/movement. Achieving the gait/movement in the first place depends upon the intrinsic characteristics of the horse, the level of training achieved and the ability of the rider to apply the correct aid. The information from this model will be used to develop an empirical study to test the relative strength of association between impairment and performance in able-bodied and Para Dressage riders.
| S-EPMC7185025 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is ongoing and increasing interest in the commercialization of biospecimen-derived products from Indigenous Peoples. Discourse on benefit-sharing specifically in the context of the commercialization of Indigenous Peoples biospecimens are currently lacking. A better understanding of the potential ethical imperatives is in need of exploration on this emerging topic. This review sought to elucidate through categorization the current discourse in the peer-reviewed literature on the commercialization of Indigenous Peoples' biospecimens from a benefit-sharing perspective.MethodsA scoping review methodology was utilized to perform a search of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and Google Scholar. A two-stage screening process was used to assess the relevance of any included articles with subsequent manual open coding of articles. Content analysis was applied to identify the main categories and sub-categories within the article data.ResultsThirty-three articles met the inclusion criteria for analysis. Four overarching categories from the included articles were identified regarding the most common discourse on the commercialization of Indigenous Peoples' biospecimens from a benefit-sharing perspective, including: exploitation through biocolonialism, sovereignty and Indigenous rights, ethical considerations for benefit-sharing, and guidelines and standards concerns.ConclusionThis scoping review highlighted the crucial need to keep Indigenous communities at the center of research projects, ensuring any benefits, advancement, and potential commercial profits are returned to communities through clear and ethical agreements. We encourage all research institutions and institutional ethical review bodies to better clarify the collective needs and interests of Indigenous communities while centering their sovereignty and rights within the research process as it pertains to potential biospecimen product commercialization.
| S-EPMC9386140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThere has been a consistent concern about the inadvertent disclosure of personal information through peer-to-peer file sharing applications, such as Limewire and Morpheus. Examples of personal health and financial information being exposed have been published. We wanted to estimate the extent to which personal health information (PHI) is being disclosed in this way, and compare that to the extent of disclosure of personal financial information (PFI).DesignAfter careful review and approval of our protocol by our institutional research ethics board, files were downloaded from peer-to-peer file sharing networks and manually analyzed for the presence of PHI and PFI. The geographic region of the IP addresses was determined, and classified as either USA or Canada.MeasurementWe estimated the proportion of files that contain personal health and financial information for each region. We also estimated the proportion of search terms that return files with personal health and financial information. We ascertained and discuss the ethical issues related to this study.ResultsApproximately 0.4% of Canadian IP addresses had PHI, as did 0.5% of US IP addresses. There was more disclosure of financial information, at 1.7% of Canadian IP addresses and 4.7% of US IP addresses. An analysis of search terms used in these file sharing networks showed that a small percentage of the terms would return PHI and PFI files (ie, there are people successfully searching for PFI and PHI on the peer-to-peer file sharing networks).ConclusionThere is a real risk of inadvertent disclosure of PHI through peer-to-peer file sharing networks, although the risk is not as large as for PFI. Anyone keeping PHI on their computers should avoid installing file sharing applications on their computers, or if they have to use such tools, actively manage the risks of inadvertent disclosure of their, their family's, their clients', or patients' PHI.
| S-EPMC3000774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Factors associated with sweetness preference are multi-faceted and incredibly complex. A scoping review was undertaken to identify determinants of sweetness preference in humans. Using an online search tool, ProQuest ™, a total of 99 publications were identified and subsequently grouped into the following categories of determinants: Age, dietary factors, reproductive hormonal factors, body weight status, heritable, weight loss, sound, personality, ethnicity and lifestyle, previous exposure, disease, and 'other' determinants. Methodologies amongst studies were heterogenous in nature (e.g., there was variability across studies in the sweetness concentrations tested, the number of different sweetness concentrations used to assess sweetness preference, and the methods utilized to measure sweetness preference), rendering interpretation of overall findings challenging; however, for certain determinants, the evidence appeared to support predictive capacity of greater sweetness preference, such as age during certain life-stages (i.e., young and old), being in a hungry versus satiated state, and heritable factors (e.g., similar sweetness preferences amongst family members). Recommendations for the design of future studies on sweetness preference determinants are provided herein, including an "investigator checklist" of criteria to consider.
| S-EPMC7146214 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionParticipatory health research (PHR) as a research paradigm, guides the research process and strives to achieve positive change in society in the interest of people's health. In this scoping review, PHR will be used as an umbrella term considering a wide range of collaborative research approaches in the health context. PHR is conducted 'with' or 'by' those it intends to benefit, as opposed to 'on' and 'for' them. Their involvement throughout the research process seeks to shift power and decision-making from where they traditionally lay within academia toward community, patient and public end-users. Research cannot be truly participatory without concurrently addressing power dynamics within the partnership and power imbalances in decision making. Therefore, power sharing can be defined as a major factor in building effective academic-community collaborations. This scoping review aims to identify, clarify, and map existing literature on power and power sharing in PHR from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Specifically, we will explore how power is conceptualised throughout the literature, and how power and power sharing are applied and addressed in real-life PHR partnerships.Materials and methodsThis scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewer's Manual. This scoping review will consider both empirical and non-empirical research that report on understanding power and power sharing in participatory health research partnerships. All appropriate studies will be retrieved from the following five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, SocIndex. This review will be limited to articles published in English and from January 1998 to March 2024. As the scoping review aims to capture more than peer-reviewed and published literature, it will also include grey literature such as theses and dissertations, reports, conference proceedings, and editorials. Data from the included literature will be extracted based on the data extraction tool, defined in advance.Ethics and disseminationAs primary data will not be collected, ethical approval is not required to conduct the scoping review. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.
| S-EPMC11257268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Social determinants of health (SDoH) may impact outcomes in sickle cell disease (SCD). We conducted a comprehensive literature review of five electronic databases to elucidate the relationship between SDoH and SCD, and identify gaps in the literature. Our search yielded 59 articles, which we organized into five SDoH areas: Neighborhood and Built Environment, Health and Healthcare, Social and Community Context, Education, and Economic Stability. We found that social determinants, such as access to healthcare, were inconsistently evaluated. Improved recognition and understanding of SDoH should enhance the development of programs that directly address its detrimental effects on patients with SCD.
| S-EPMC9790038 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the impact of data-sharing initiatives on the intent to share data, on actual data sharing, on the use of shared data and on research output and impact of shared data.Eligibility criteriaAll studies investigating data-sharing practices for individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials.Sources of evidenceWe searched the Medline database, the Cochrane Library, the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index via Web of Science, and preprints and proceedings of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. In addition, we inspected major clinical trial data-sharing platforms, contacted major journals/publishers, editorial groups and some funders.Charting methodsTwo reviewers independently extracted information on methods and results from resources identified using a standardised questionnaire. A map of the extracted data was constructed and accompanied by a narrative summary for each outcome domain.Results93 studies identified in the literature search (published between 2001 and 2020, median: 2018) and 5 from additional information sources were included in the scoping review. Most studies were descriptive and focused on early phases of the data-sharing process. While the willingness to share IPD from clinical trials is extremely high, actual data-sharing rates are suboptimal. A survey of journal data suggests poor to moderate enforcement of the policies by publishers. Metrics provided by platforms suggest that a large majority of data remains unrequested. When requested, the purpose of the reuse is more often secondary analyses and meta-analyses, rarely re-analyses. Finally, studies focused on the real impact of data-sharing were rare and used surrogates such as citation metrics.ConclusionsThere is currently a gap in the evidence base for the impact of IPD sharing, which entails uncertainties in the implementation of current data-sharing policies. High level evidence is needed to assess whether the value of medical research increases with data-sharing practices.
| S-EPMC8375721 | biostudies-literature