Implementing Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR) Principles in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Research: Mixed Methods Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data principles are a guideline to improve the reusability of data. However, properly implementing these principles is challenging due to a wide range of barriers. objectives: To further the field of FAIR data, this study aimed to systematically identify barriers regarding implementing the FAIR principles in the area of child and adolescent mental health research, define the most challenging barriers, and provide recommendations for these barriers. Methods: Three sources were used as input to identify barriers: (1) evaluation of the implementation process of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model by 3 data managers; (2) interviews with experts on mental health research, reusable health data, and data quality; and (3) a rapid literature review. All barriers were categorized according to type as described previously, the affected FAIR principle, a category to add detail about the origin of the barrier, and whether a barrier was mental health specific. The barriers were assessed and ranked on impact with the data managers using the Delphi method. Results: Thirteen barriers were identified by the data managers, 7 were identified by the experts, and 30 barriers were extracted from the literature. This resulted in 45 unique barriers. The characteristics that were most assigned to the barriers were, respectively, external type (n=32/45; eg, organizational policy preventing the use of required software), tooling category (n=19/45; ie, software and databases), all FAIR principles (n=15/45), and not mental health specific (n=43/45). Consensus on ranking the scores of the barriers was reached after 2 rounds of the Delphi method. The most important recommendations to overcome the barriers are adding a FAIR data steward to the research team, accessible step-by-step guides, and ensuring sustainable funding for the implementation and long-term use of FAIR data. Conclusions: By systematically listing these barriers and providing recommendations, we intend to enhance the awareness of researchers and grant providers that making data FAIR demands specific expertise, available tooling, and proper investments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.319 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".