Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41781024›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2026

Collective action for responsible global health data sharing and use.

Alfredo Mayor, Busiku Hamainza, Arantxa Roca-Feltrer, Data Sharing Discussion Group

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alfredo MayorISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain alfredo.mayor@isglobal.org.ORCID 0000-0003-3890-2897
Busiku HamainzaProgramme Coordination Unit, Ministry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
Arantxa Roca-FeltrerPATH, Maputo, Mozambique.
Data Sharing Discussion Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sharing data and biospecimens is both a scientific imperative and an ethical duty in research and public health, yet global asymmetries in capacity and power risk perpetuating inequality rather than alleviating it. To genuinely advance global health equity, data sharing efficiency should be measured not by the volume or speed of data transfer, but by the deliberate flow of benefits, capacity and decision-making authority to structurally disadvantaged regions. This requires a complementary shift. First, advanced partners must move from directing to enabling, focusing on building local technical, analytical and governance capacities to ensure solutions are rooted where they are needed most. Second, less-resourced actors must reframe data sharing not as a risky obligation, but as an opportunity for leadership-actively shaping research agendas and harnessing the power of open science. Consequently, sharing mandates must be explicitly tied to tangible interventions and demonstrated successes in improving health outcomes, supported by sovereign, federated data systems and reformed academic incentives that valorise capacity building and equitable collaboration as core research outputs. We, therefore, urge health researchers, funders, publishers and agencies to collectively transform sharing of data and biological materials into an equity-centred process that actively rectifies historical power imbalances. By shifting emphasis from the data themselves to the people, systems and processes that translate data into action, we can ensure sharing serves as a true bridge to equity-one that actively advances global health for all.

Indexed as

Global HealthInformation DisseminationCooperative BehaviorHumansInternational CooperationAccountabilityAfricaDecision MakingGlobal Health

Identifiers

PMID41781024
PMCPMC12970122

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.