ArticleBMJ open2013
The UK Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research: a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pre-Procedural Safety Screening in Diagnostic Imaging Across England: A Freedom of Information Study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Increased Intake and Use of Euthanasia in Dog Shelters in the UK and Republic of Ireland 2021-2023.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Who is providing pain care? Mapping chronic pain services across Scotland using freedom of information requests.British journal of pain · 2026Article
- The use of computer-aided design and manufacture for foot orthoses: A cross-sectional study of orthotic services in the UK.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2025Article
- Perceptions and digitalisation of outbreak management in UK health services: A cross-sectional survey.Journal of infection prevention · 2024Article
- Article
- Reputational Risk, Academic Freedom and Research Ethics Review.Sociology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the use and utility of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research since 2005 and to determine if any particular feature of studies found led to greater data acquisition.
designPRISMA compliant systematic review.
participantsAn extensive literature search was performed of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, psychINFO, BNI, AMED, HMIC and Health business elite databases from January 2005 to January 2013 using terms 'Freedom of information', 'Freedom of information act' and 'Freedom of information act 2000'. Papers were considered for publication if they described utilising the UK Freedom of information act to gather data for healthcare research. 16 articles met these criteria. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the number and characteristics of studies utilising the Freedom of Information Act to collect the data for healthcare research. Secondary outcome measures were any features that improved data acquisition rates (including to whom the request was made, the number of questions asked per request, etc.)
results16 articles described utilising the Freedom of Information Act for healthcare research, and these investigated a broad range of topics. The median number of requests made was 86 (range 1-172), the total number of requests was 1732. A total of 15 817 pieces of data were retrieved by all studies. The amount of data collected was defined as the number of questions asked multiplied by the number of full responses. A median of five questions were asked per study (range 5-6.5) and the overall response rate was 86%. The National Health Service litigation authority responded to 100% of requests, while Primary Care Trusts had the lowest response rate of 81% for healthcare bodies. A positive correlation between number of requests made and data obtained (0.508, p<0.05) and number of requests made and increased response rate (0.737, p<0.01), both reached the statistical significance.
conclusionsResearchers should make greater use of the Act to access the information they need that is not otherwise disclosed. We discuss the issues with the research utilising the Act and how future research of this type could be optimised.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.