Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31433479›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Patient Perspectives About Decisions to Share Medical Data and Biospecimens for Research.

Jihoon Kim, Hyeoneui Kim, Elizabeth Bell, Tyler Bath, Paulina Paul, Anh Pham, Xiaoqian Jiang, Kai Zheng, Lucila Ohno-Machado

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Weighing Open Science Against Research Participation Burden in Informed Consent: A Randomized Pilot Study.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jihoon KimDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, UC San Diego Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.
Hyeoneui KimSchool of Nursing, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Elizabeth BellOffice of Graduate Studies and Research, California State University, San Marcos.
Tyler BathDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, UC San Diego Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.
Paulina PaulDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, UC San Diego Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.
Anh PhamDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, UC San Diego Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.
Xiaoqian JiangSchool of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.
Kai ZhengDepartment of Informatics, University of California, Irvine.
Lucila Ohno-MachadoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, UC San Diego Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.

Funding

UC San Diego Clinical and Translational Research InstituteUL1TR001442 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI FIRESTEIN, GARY S, HOGARTH, MICHAEL · 2015 to 2024
$88.3M
iCONCUR: informed CONsent for Clinical data and biosample Use for ResearchR01HG008802 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI JIANG, XIAOQIAN, KIM, HYEON-EUI · 2015 to 2017
$1.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001442NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG008802
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Patients increasingly demand transparency in and control of how their medical records and biospecimens are shared for research. How much they are willing to share and what factors influence their sharing preferences remain understudied in real settings. Objectives: To examine whether and how various presentations of consent forms are associated with differences in electronic health record and biospecimen sharing rates and whether these rates vary according to user interface design, data recipients, data and biospecimen items, and patient characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this survey study, a data and biospecimen sharing preference survey was conducted at 2 academic hospitals from May 1, 2017, to September 31, 2018, after simple randomization of patients to 1 of 4 options with different layout and formats of indicating sharing preferences: opt-in simple, opt-in detailed, opt-out simple, and opt-out detailed. Interventions: All participants were presented with a list of data and biospecimen items that could be shared for research within the same health care organization or with other nonprofit or for-profit institutions. Participating patients were randomly asked to select the items that they would share (opt-in) or were asked to select items they would not share (opt-out). Patients in these 2 groups were further randomized to select only among 18 categories vs 59 detailed items (simple vs detailed form layout). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points were the percentages of patients willing to share data and biospecimen categories or items. Results: Among 1800 eligible participants, 1246 (69.2%) who completed their data sharing survey were included in the analysis, and 850 of these patients (mean [SD] age, 51.1 [16.7] years; 507 [59.6%] female; 677 [79.6%] white) responded to the satisfaction survey. A total of 46 participants (3.7%) declined sharing with the home institution, 352 (28.3%) with nonprofit institutions, and 590 (47.4%) with for-profit institutions. A total of 836 (67.1%) indicated that they would share all items with researchers from the home institution. When comparing opt-out with opt-in interfaces, all 59 sharing choice variables (100%) were associated with the sharing decision. When comparing simple with detailed forms, only 14 variables (23.7%) were associated with the sharing decision. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that most patients are willing to share their data and biospecimens for research. Allowing patients to decide with whom they want to share certain types of data may affect research that involves secondary use of electronic health records and/or biosamples for research.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDecision MakingElectronic Health RecordsInformation DisseminationInformed ConsentSpecimen HandlingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPatient Preference

Identifiers

PMID31433479
PMCPMC6707015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.