Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33046097›Full record

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.

Elizabeth Hutchings, Max Loomes, Phyllis Butow, Frances M Boyle

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Attitudes on data reuse among internal medicine residents.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elizabeth HutchingsNorthern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. ehut9091@uni.sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-6030-954X
Max LoomesDepartment of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1042-0968
Phyllis ButowDepartment of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3562-6954
Frances M BoyleNorthern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3798-1570

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude of Health PersonnelResearch PersonnelHumansInformation DisseminationQualitative ResearchTrustAttitudesCliniciansScientistsSecondary data analysis

Identifiers

PMID33046097
PMCPMC7552458

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.