ReviewResearch integrity and peer review2017
What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review.
Review in Research integrity and peer review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Unmasking the ethical dimensions of data-sharing in health research: perspectives from researchers at a public university in Uganda.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- How does academia recognize the contribution of scientific data? Evidence from data contributors' authorship.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Perceptual and technical barriers in sharing and formatting metadata accompanying omics studies.Cell genomics · 2025Review
- Article
- Prioritising and incentivising productivity within indicator-based approaches to Research Impact Assessment: a commentary.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- COLLAGENE enables privacy-aware federated and collaborative genomic data analysis.Genome biology · 2023Article
- A model for crowdsourcing high-impact research questions for Castleman disease and other rare diseases.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Article
- Dialogic Health Education to Reduce COVID-19 Disparities and Increase Health Literacy in Community and Correctional Settings: Protocol for a Two-Pronged Health Education Program.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- A Study of Publicly Available Resources Addressing Legal Data-Sharing Barriers: Systematic Assessment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Regulatory Frameworks for Clinical Trial Data Sharing: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants' preferences.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Individual notions of fair data sharing from the perspectives of Swiss stakeholders.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Considerations for an integrated population health databank in Africa: lessons from global best practices.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Design and prototype of TOMO: an app for improving drug resistant TB treatment adherence.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Assessing Markers of Reproducibility and Transparency in Smoking Behaviour Change Intervention Evaluations.Journal of smoking cessation · 2021Article
- Systemic Fairness for Sharing Health Data: Perspectives From Swiss Stakeholders.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Sharing Is Caring-Data Sharing Initiatives in Healthcare.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Review
- Did awarding badges increase data sharing inRoyal Society open science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe foundation of health and medical research is data. Data sharing facilitates the progress of research and strengthens science. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are seemingly no evidence-based incentives that promote data sharing.
methodsA systematic review (registration: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6PZ5E) of the health and medical research literature was used to uncover any evidence-based incentives, with pre- and post-empirical data that examined data sharing rates. We were also interested in quantifying and classifying the number of opinion pieces on the importance of incentives, the number observational studies that analysed data sharing rates and practices, and strategies aimed at increasing data sharing rates.
resultsOnly one incentive (using open data badges) has been tested in health and medical research that examined data sharing rates. The number of opinion pieces (
conclusionsGiven that data is the foundation of evidence-based health and medical research, it is paradoxical that there is only one evidence-based incentive to promote data sharing. More well-designed studies are needed in order to increase the currently low rates of data sharing.
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.