Person:
Bierer, Barbara

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Bierer

First Name

Barbara

Name

Bierer, Barbara
Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.ff58476a-2eee-4af2-baf9-84646dbbd43a

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Reimagining Health Data Exchange: An Application Programming Interface–Enabled Roadmap for India
    (JMIR Publications Inc., 2018) Balsari, Satchit; Fortenko, Alexander; Blaya, Joaquin Andres; Gropper, Adrian; Jayaram, Malavika; Matthan, Rahul; Sahasranam, Ram; Shankar, Mark; Sarbadhikari, Suptendra N; Bierer, Barbara; Mandl, Kenneth; Mehendale, Sanjay; Khanna, Tarun
    In February 2018, the Government of India announced a massive public health insurance scheme extending coverage to 500 million citizens, in effect making it the world’s largest insurance program. To meet this target, the government will rely on technology to effectively scale services, monitor quality, and ensure accountability. While India has seen great strides in informational technology development and outsourcing, cellular phone penetration, cloud computing, and financial technology, the digital health ecosystem is in its nascent stages and has been waiting for a catalyst to seed the system. This National Health Protection Scheme is expected to provide just this impetus for widespread adoption. However, health data in India are mostly not digitized. In the few instances that they are, the data are not standardized, not interoperable, and not readily accessible to clinicians, researchers, or policymakers. While such barriers to easy health information exchange are hardly unique to India, the greenfield nature of India’s digital health infrastructure presents an excellent opportunity to avoid the pitfalls of complex, restrictive, digital health systems that have evolved elsewhere. We propose here a federated, patient-centric, application programming interface (API)–enabled health information ecosystem that leverages India’s near-universal mobile phone penetration, universal availability of unique ID systems, and evolving privacy and data protection laws. It builds on global best practices and promotes the adoption of human-centered design principles, data minimization, and open standard APIs. The recommendations are the result of 18 months of deliberations with multiple stakeholders in India and the United States, including from academia, industry, and government.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims
    (Oxford University Press, 2016) Saks, Michael J.; Albright, Thomas; Bohan, Thomas L.; Bierer, Barbara; Bowers, C. Michael; Bush, Mary A.; Bush, Peter J.; Casadevall, Arturo; Cole, Simon A.; Denton, M. Bonner; Diamond, Shari Seidman; Dioso-Villa, Rachel; Epstein, Jules; Faigman, David; Faigman, Lisa; Fienberg, Stephen E.; Garrett, Brandon L.; Giannelli, Paul C.; Greely, Henry T.; Imwinkelried, Edward; Jamieson, Allan; Kafadar, Karen; Kassirer, Jerome P.; Koehler, Jonathan ‘Jay’; Korn, David; Mnookin, Jennifer; Morrison, Alan B.; Murphy, Erin; Peerwani, Nizam; Peterson, Joseph L.; Risinger, D. Michael; Sensabaugh, George F.; Spiegelman, Clifford; Stern, Hal; Thompson, William C.; Wayman, James L.; Zabell, Sandy; Zumwalt, Ross E.
    Abstract Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification—highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications—highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Incorporating ethical principles into clinical research protocols: a tool for protocol writers and ethics committees
    (BMJ Publishing Group, 2016) Li, Rebecca; Wacholtz, Mary C; Barnes, Mark; Boggs, Liam; Callery-D'Amico, Susan; Davis, Amy; Digilova, Alla; Forster, David; Heffernan, Kate; Luthin, Maeve; Lynch, Holly; McNair, Lindsay; Miller, Jennifer E; Murphy, Jacquelyn; Van Campen, Luann; Wilenzick, Mark; Wolf, Delia; Woolston, Cris; Aldinger, Carmen; Bierer, Barbara
    A novel Protocol Ethics Tool Kit (‘Ethics Tool Kit’) has been developed by a multi-stakeholder group of the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard. The purpose of the Ethics Tool Kit is to facilitate effective recognition, consideration and deliberation of critical ethical issues in clinical trial protocols. The Ethics Tool Kit may be used by investigators and sponsors to develop a dedicated Ethics Section within a protocol to improve the consistency and transparency between clinical trial protocols and research ethics committee reviews. It may also streamline ethics review and may facilitate and expedite the review process by anticipating the concerns of ethics committee reviewers. Specific attention was given to issues arising in multinational settings. With the use of this Tool Kit, researchers have the opportunity to address critical research ethics issues proactively, potentially speeding the time and easing the process to final protocol approval.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Sharing and reuse of individual participant data from clinical trials: principles and recommendations
    (BMJ Publishing Group, 2017) Ohmann, Christian; Banzi, Rita; Canham, Steve; Battaglia, Serena; Matei, Mihaela; Ariyo, Christopher; Becnel, Lauren; Bierer, Barbara; Bowers, Sarion; Clivio, Luca; Dias, Monica; Druml, Christiane; Faure, Hélène; Fenner, Martin; Galvez, Jose; Ghersi, Davina; Gluud, Christian; Groves, Trish; Houston, Paul; Karam, Ghassan; Kalra, Dipak; Knowles, Rachel L; Krleža-Jerić, Karmela; Kubiak, Christine; Kuchinke, Wolfgang; Kush, Rebecca; Lukkarinen, Ari; Marques, Pedro Silverio; Newbigging, Andrew; O’Callaghan, Jennifer; Ravaud, Philippe; Schlünder, Irene; Shanahan, Daniel; Sitter, Helmut; Spalding, Dylan; Tudur-Smith, Catrin; van Reusel, Peter; van Veen, Evert-Ben; Visser, Gerben Rienk; Wilson, Julia; Demotes-Mainard, Jacques
    Objectives: We examined major issues associated with sharing of individual clinical trial data and developed a consensus document on providing access to individual participant data from clinical trials, using a broad interdisciplinary approach. Design and methods This was a consensus-building process among the members of a multistakeholder task force, involving a wide range of experts (researchers, patient representatives, methodologists, information technology experts, and representatives from funders, infrastructures and standards development organisations). An independent facilitator supported the process using the nominal group technique. The consensus was reached in a series of three workshops held over 1 year, supported by exchange of documents and teleconferences within focused subgroups when needed. This work was set within the Horizon 2020-funded project CORBEL (Coordinated Research Infrastructures Building Enduring Life-science Services) and coordinated by the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network. Thus, the focus was on non-commercial trials and the perspective mainly European. Outcome We developed principles and practical recommendations on how to share data from clinical trials. Results: The task force reached consensus on 10 principles and 50 recommendations, representing the fundamental requirements of any framework used for the sharing of clinical trials data. The document covers the following main areas: making data sharing a reality (eg, cultural change, academic incentives, funding), consent for data sharing, protection of trial participants (eg, de-identification), data standards, rights, types and management of access (eg, data request and access models), data management and repositories, discoverability, and metadata. Conclusions: The adoption of the recommendations in this document would help to promote and support data sharing and reuse among researchers, adequately inform trial participants and protect their rights, and provide effective and efficient systems for preparing, storing and accessing data. The recommendations now need to be implemented and tested in practice. Further work needs to be done to integrate these proposals with those from other geographical areas and other academic domains.