ArticleJAMA network open2019
Patient Perspectives About Decisions to Share Medical Data and Biospecimens for Research.
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.
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
59 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Patient and Public Willingness to Share Personal Health Data for Third-Party or Secondary Uses: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Measuring the willingness to share personal health information: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Weighing Open Science Against Research Participation Burden in Informed Consent: A Randomized Pilot Study.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025Trial
- What is the problem and what can be done when data sharing challenges public legitimacy?Nature communications · 2026Article
- Exploring patient motivations and preferences for medical data sharing with researchers: a simulation study using the iAgree platform.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- The data transparency crisis in research: Lessons from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Academia and industry in the age of artificial intelligence: a narrative review.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Review
- The Genetic Data Market: Institutional Governance of Academic/Industry Research Partnerships for the Public Good.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
- Public Attitudes and Predictors of Public Awareness of Personal Digital Health Data Sharing for Research: Cross-Sectional Study in Japan.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Community Comfort With Automatic Sharing of Race, Ethnicity, and Language Data Between Health Care Settings: Cross-Sectional Study.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Article
- Patients' Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Acceptance, Challenges, and Use in Medical Care: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Public Awareness of and Attitudes Toward the Use of AI in Pathology Research and Practice: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
- Distributed cross-learning for equitable federated models - privacy-preserving prediction on data from five California hospitals.Nature communications · 2025Article
- The Impact of Data Control and Delayed Discounting on the Public's Willingness to Share Different Types of Health Care Data: Empirical Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Perceptions of health data commodification in AI-driven healthcare systems in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Ethical Dimensions of Clinical Data Sharing by U.S. Health Care Organizations for Purposes beyond Direct Patient Care: Interviews with Health Care Leaders.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Lessons for a learning health system: Effectively communicating to patients about research with their health information and biospecimens.Learning health systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.