This study provides an analysis of the implementation of FAIR Guidelines in selected non-Western geographies. The analysis was based on a systematic literature review to determine if the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability of data is seen as an issue, if the adoption of the FAIR Guidelines is seen as a solution, and if the climate is conducive to the implementation of the FAIR Guidelines. The results show that the FAIR Guidelines have been discussed in most of the countries studied, which have identified data sharing and the reusability of research data as an issue (e.g., Kazakhstan, Russia, countries in the Middle East), and partially introduced in others (e.g., Indonesia). In Indonesia, a FAIR equivalent system has been introduced, although certain functions need to be added for data to be entirely FAIR. In Japan, both FAIR equivalent systems and FAIR-based systems have been adopted and created, and the acceptance of FAIR-based systems is recommended by the Government of Japan. In a number of African countries, the FAIR Guidelines are in the process of being implemented and the implementation of FAIR is well supported. In conclusion, a window of opportunity for implementing the FAIR Guidelines is open in most of the countries studied, however, more awareness needs to be raised about the benefits of FAIR in Russia and Kazakhstan to place it firmly on the policy agenda.

This article assesses the difference between the concepts of ‘open data’ and ‘FAIR data’ in data management. FAIR data is understood as data that complies with the FAIR Guidelines—data that is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable—while open data was born out of awareness of the need to democratise data by improving its accessibility, based on the idea that data should not have limitations that prevent people from using it. This study compared FAIR data with open data by analysing relevant documents using a coding analysis with conceptual labels based on Kingdon's theory of agenda setting. The study found that in relation to FAIR data the problem stream focuses on the complexity of data collected for research, while open data primarily emphasises giving the public access to non-confidential data. In the policy stream, the two concepts share common standpoints in terms of making data available and reusable, although different approaches are adopted in practice to accomplish these goals. In the politics stream, stakeholders with different objectives support FAIR data and from those who support open data.

The objective of this study was to assess the regulatory framework for health data in Indonesia in order to understand the policy context and explore the possibility of expanding the adoption and implementation of the FAIR Guidelines, which state that data should be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR), in Indonesia. Although the FAIR Guidelines were not explicitly mentioned in any of the policy documents relevant to the Indonesian digital health sector, six out of the eight documents analysed contained FAIR Equivalent principles. In particular, Indonesia's Population Identification Number (NIK) has the potential, as a unique identifier, to support the integration and interoperability (findability) of data, which is crucial to all other aspects of the FAIR Guidelines. There is also a plan to build standards and protocols into the implementation of information systems in each ministry and government agency to improve data accessibility (accessibility), the integration of the various information systems is planned/ongoing (interoperability), and the need for a standardised arrangement for health information systems related to health data following the community standard is recognised (reusability). The documents at the core of Indonesia's digital health/eHealth policy have the highest FAIR Equivalency Score (FE-Score), showing some degree of alignment between the Indonesian digital health implementation vision and the FAIR Guidelines. This indicates that Indonesia's digital health sector is open to using the FAIR Guidelines.

The Virus Outbreak Data Network (VODAN)-Africa aims to contribute to the publication of Findable Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) health data under well-defined access conditions. The next step in the VODAN-Africa architecture is to locally deploy the Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval (CEDAR) and arrange accessibility based on the ‘data visiting’ concept. Locally curated and reposited machine-actionable data can be visited by queries or algorithms, provided that the conditions of access are met. The goal is to enable the multiple (re)use of data with secure access functionality by clinicians (patient care), an idea aligned with the FAIR-based Personal Health Train (PHT) concept. The privacy and security requirements in relation to the FAIR Data Host and the FAIRification workspace (to produce metadata) or dashboard (for the patient) must be clear to design the IT architecture. This article describes a (first) practice, a reference implementation in development, within the VODAN-Africa and Leiden University Medical Center community.

The incompleteness of patient health data is a threat to the management of COVID-19 in Africa and globally. This has become particularly clear with the recent emergence of new variants of concern. The Virus Outbreak Data Network (VODAN)-Africa has studied the curation of patient health data in selected African countries and identified that health information flows often do not involve the use of health data at the point of care, which renders data production largely meaningless to those producing it. This modus operandi leads to disfranchisement over the control of health data, which is extracted to be processed elsewhere. In response to this problem, VODAN-Africa studied whether or not a design that makes local ownership and repositing of data central to the data curation process, would have a greater chance of being adopted. The design team based their work on the legal requirements of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); the FAIR Guidelines on curating data as Findable, Accessible (under well-defined conditions), Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR); and national regulations applying in the context where the data is produced. The study concluded that the visiting of data curated as machine actionable and reposited in the locale where the data is produced and renders services has great potential for access to a wider variety of data. A condition of such innovation is that the innovation team is intradisciplinary, involving stakeholders and experts from all of the places where the innovation is designed, and employs a methodology of co-creation and capacity-building.