SynthesisSystematic reviews2020
A systematic literature review of researchers' and healthcare professionals' attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Context of data sharing practices in collaborative human genomic research in low and middle income countries: A systematic review.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Attitudes on data reuse among internal medicine residents.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Review
- The knowledge and reuse practices of researchers utilising government health information assets, Victoria, Australia, 2008-2020.PloS one · 2024Article
- Investigating the Secondary Use of Clinical Research Data: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- The Current Status of Secondary Use of Claims, Electronic Medical Records, and Electronic Health Records in Epidemiology in Japan: Narrative Literature Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2023Review
- Data sharing practices in collaborative human genomic research in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review protocol.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Australian general practitioner perceptions to sharing clinical data for secondary use: a mixed method approach.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Practices and Attitudes of Bavarian Stakeholders Regarding the Secondary Use of Health Data for Research Purposes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- A systematic literature review of attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: a focus on consent.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
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
A systematic literature review of researchers and healthcare professionals' attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data was conducted using electronic data searching. Eligible articles included those reporting qualitative or quantitative original research and published in English. No restrictions were placed on publication dates, study design, or disease setting. Two authors were involved in all stages of the review process; conflicts were resolved by consensus. Data was extracted independently using a pre-piloted data extraction template. Quality and bias were assessed using the QualSyst criteria for qualitative studies. Eighteen eligible articles were identified, and articles were categorised into four key themes: barriers, facilitators, access, and ownership; 14 subthemes were identified. While respondents were generally supportive of data sharing, concerns were expressed about access to data, data storage infrastructure, and consent. Perceptions of data ownership and acknowledgement, trust, and policy frameworks influenced sharing practice, as did age, discipline, professional focus, and world region. Young researchers were less willing to share data; they were willing to share in circumstances where they were acknowledged. While there is a general consensus that increased data sharing in health is beneficial to the wider scientific community, substantial barriers remain. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018110559.
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.