The COMPARE Data Hubs

Data sharing enables research communities to exchange findings and build upon the knowledge that arises from their discoveries. Areas of public and animal health as well as food safety would benefit from rapid data sharing when it comes to emergencies. However, ethical, regulatory and institutional challenges, as well as lack of suitable platforms which provide an infrastructure for data sharing in structured formats, often lead to data not being shared or at most shared in form of supplementary materials in journal publications. Here, we describe an informatics platform that includes workflows for structured data storage, managing and pre-publication sharing of pathogen sequencing data and its analysis interpretations with relevant stakeholders.

How ownership rights over microorganisms affect infectious disease control and innovation: A root-cause analysis of barriers to data sharing as experienced by key stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Genetic information of pathogens is an essential input for infectious disease control, public health and for research. Efficiency in preventing and responding to global outbreaks relies on timely access to such information. Still, ownership barriers stand in the way of timely sharing of genetic data from pathogens, frustrating efficient public health responses and ultimately the potential use of such resources in innovations. Under a One Health approach, stakeholders, their interests and ownership issues are manifold and need to be investigated. We interviewed key actors from governmental and non-governmental bodies to identify overlapping and conflicting interests, and the overall challenges for sharing pathogen data, to provide essential inputs to the further development of political and practical strategies for improved data sharing practices.

METHODS & FINDINGS

To identify and prioritize barriers, 52 Key Opinion Leaders were interviewed. A root-cause analysis was performed to identify causal relations between barriers. Finally, barriers were mapped to the innovation cycle reflecting how they affect the range of surveillance, innovation, and sharing activities. Four main barrier categories were found: compliance to regulations, negative consequences, self-interest, and insufficient incentives for compliance. When grouped in sectors (research institutes, public health organizations, supra-national organizations and industry) stakeholders appear to have similar interests, more than when grouped in domains (human, veterinary and food). Considering the innovation process, most of barriers could be mapped to the initial stages of the innovation cycle as sampling and sequencing phases. These are stages of primary importance to outbreak control and public health response. A minority of barriers applied to later stages in the innovation cycle, which are of more importance to product development.

CONCLUSION

Overall, barriers are complex and entangled, due to the diversity of causal factors and their crosscutting features. Therefore, barriers must be addressed in a comprehensive and integrated manner. Stakeholders have different interests highlighting the diversity in motivations for sharing pathogen data: prioritization of public health, basic research, economic welfare and/or innovative capacity. Broad inter-sectorial discussions should start with the alignment of these interests within sectors. The improved sharing of pathogen data, especially in upstream phases of the innovation process, will generate substantial public health benefits through increased availability of data to inform surveillance systems, as well as to allow the (re-)use of data for the development of medical countermeasures to control infectious diseases.

To notify or not to notify: decision aid for policy makers on whether to make an infectious disease mandatorily notifiable

Mandatory notification can be a useful tool to support infectious disease prevention and control. Guidelines are needed to help policymakers decide whether mandatory notification of an infectious disease is appropriate. We developed a decision aid, based on a range of criteria previously used in the Netherlands or in other regions to help decide whether to make a disease notifiable. Criteria were categorised as being effective, feasible and necessary with regard to the relevance of mandatory notification. Expert panels piloted the decision aid. Here we illustrate its use for three diseases (Vibrio vulnificus infection, chronic Q fever and dengue fever) for which mandatory notification was requested. For dengue fever, the expert panel advised mandatory notification; for V. vulnificus infection and chronic Q fever, the expert panel concluded that mandatory notification was not (yet) justified. Use of the decision aid led to a structured, transparent decision making process and a thorough assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory notification of these diseases. It also helped identify knowledge gaps that required further research before a decision could be made. We therefore recommend use of this aid for public health policy making.

[Changes in the duty of notification of infectious diseases via the Dutch Public Health Act]

The Dutch Public Health Act, which came into force on 1 December 2008, replaces the existing laws concerning the combating of infectious diseases. Important changes have been incorporated in the new Public Health Act in comparison with the previous law on infectious diseases. Diseases which are probably infectious in nature and caused by as yet unknown pathogens are now notifiable, laboratories also have a nominal duty of notification and the list of notifiable diseases has been extended with 10 new infectious diseases. The provisions in the law comply with the International Health Regulations of the World Health Organization. The Centre for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands at the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) has issued a booklet for all Dutch physicians and laboratories providing background information on notifiable diseases. This can be useful in daily practice for helping to decide whether a disorder or cluster of infections is notifiable.