Dataset Information

Lessons learned and recommendations for data coordination in collaborative research: The CSER consortium experience.

ABSTRACT: Integrating data across heterogeneous research environments is a key challenge in multi-site, collaborative research projects. While it is important to allow for natural variation in data collection protocols across research sites, it is also important to achieve interoperability between datasets in order to reap the full benefits of collaborative work. However, there are few standards to guide the data coordination process from project conception to completion. In this paper, we describe the experiences of the Clinical Sequence Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium Data Coordinating Center (DCC), which coordinated harmonized survey and genomic sequencing data from seven clinical research sites from 2020 to 2022. Using input from multiple consortium working groups and from CSER leadership, we first identify 14 lessons learned from CSER in the categories of communication, harmonization, informatics, compliance, and analytics. We then distill these lessons learned into 11 recommendations for future research consortia in the areas of planning, communication, informatics, and analytics. We recommend that planning and budgeting for data coordination activities occur as early as possible during consortium conceptualization and development to minimize downstream complications. We also find that clear, reciprocal, and continuous communication between consortium stakeholders and the DCC is equally important to maintaining a secure and centralized informatics ecosystem for pooling data. Finally, we discuss the importance of actively interrogating current approaches to data governance, particularly for research studies that straddle the research-clinical divide.

SUBMITTER: Muenzen KD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9190054 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lessons learned and recommendations for data coordination in collaborative research: The CSER consortium experience.

Muenzen Kathleen D KD Amendola Laura M LM Kauffman Tia L TL Mittendorf Kathleen F KF Bensen Jeannette T JT Chen Flavia F Green Richard R Powell Bradford C BC Kvale Mark M Angelo Frank F Farnan Laura L Fullerton Stephanie M SM Robinson Jill O JO Li Tianran T Murali Priyanka P Lawlor James M J JMJ Ou Jeffrey J Hindorff Lucia A LA Jarvik Gail P GP Crosslin David R DR

HGG advances 20220520 3

Integrating data across heterogeneous research environments is a key challenge in multi-site, collaborative research projects. While it is important to allow for natural variation in data collection protocols across research sites, it is also important to achieve interoperability between datasets in order to reap the full benefits of collaborative work. However, there are few standards to guide the data coordination process from project conception to completion. In this paper, we describe the ex ...[more]

PMID: 35707062

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing diversity in clinical trial participation is necessary to improve health outcomes and requires addressing existing social, structural, and geographic barriers. The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium (CSER) included six research projects to enroll historically underrepresented/underserved (UR/US) populations in clinical genomics research. Delays and project re-designs emerged shortly after work began. Understanding common experiences of these projects may inform future trial implementation.MethodsSemi-structured interviews with six CSER principal investigators and seven project managers were performed. An interview guide included questions of research/clinical infrastructure, logistics across sites, language, communication, and allocation of grant-related resources. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim; transcripts were analyzed using inductive coding, thematic analysis and consensus building.ResultsAll projects collaborating with new clinical sub-sites to recruit UR/US populations. Refining trial logistics continued long after enrollment for all projects. Themes of challenges included: sub-site customization for workflow and genetics support, conflicting input from participant advisory groups and approval bodies, developing research personnel, complex data management structures, and external changes (e.g. subcontractors ending contracts) that required redesign. Themes of beneficial lessons included: domains with prior experience were easier, develop project champions at each sub-site, structure communication within the research team, and simplify research design when possible.ConclusionsThe operational aspects of expanding clinical research into novel sub-sites are significant and require investment of time and resources. The themes arising from these interviews suggest priority areas for more quantitative analyses in the future including multi-institutional approval policies and processes, data management structures, and incremental research complexity.

Project description:BackgroundThe International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs program assembles expert working groups who publish a critical review and evaluation of data on agents of interest. These comprehensive reviews provide a unique opportunity to identify research needs to address classification uncertainties. A multidisciplinary expert review and workshop held in 2009 identified research gaps and needs for 20 priority occupational chemicals, metals, dusts, and physical agents, with the goal of stimulating advances in epidemiological studies of cancer and carcinogen mechanisms. Overarching issues were also described.ObjectivesIn this commentary we review the current status of the evidence for the 20 priority agents identified in 2009. We examine whether identified Research Recommendations for each agent were addressed and their potential impact on resolving classification uncertainties.MethodsWe reviewed the IARC classifications of each of the 20 priority agents and identified major new epidemiological and human mechanistic studies published since the last evaluation. Information sources were either the published Monograph for agents that have been reevaluated or, for agents not yet reevaluated, Advisory Group reports and literature searches. Findings are described in view of recent methodological developments in Monographs evidence evaluation processes.DiscussionThe majority of the 20 priority agents were reevaluated by IARC since 2009. The overall carcinogen classifications of 9 agents advanced, and new cancer sites with either "sufficient" or "limited" evidence of carcinogenicity were also identified for 9 agents. Examination of published findings revealed whether evidence gaps and Research Recommendations have been addressed and highlighted remaining uncertainties. During the past decade, new research addressed a range of the 2009 recommendations and supported updated classifications for priority agents. This supports future efforts to systematically apply findings of Monograph reviews to identify research gaps and priorities relevant to evaluation criteria established in the updated IARC Monograph Preamble. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12547.

Dataset Information

Lessons learned and recommendations for data coordination in collaborative research: The CSER consortium experience.

Publications

Lessons learned and recommendations for data coordination in collaborative research: The CSER consortium experience.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets