ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2026
Supporting researcher compliance: assessing institutional readiness for the 2023 NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess researchers' understanding, readiness, and perceived challenges related to the 2023 NIH Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy and identify institutional support needs to facilitate compliance. Methods: A mixed-method study was conducted using a 15-item survey distributed to 155 researchers at an academic medical center, with 55 responses (35% response rate). The survey evaluated familiarity with the DMS policy, confidence in performing data management and sharing tasks, perceived burden, and desired institutional support. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and open-ended responses underwent inductive thematic analysis to identify key themes. Results: Most respondents (67%) understood the DMS policy, yet fewer (47%) felt comfortable developing a DMS Plan. Only 29% had used DMPTool.org, while 87% requested tailored templates. Confidence in identifying appropriate repositories (40%) and budgeting for DMS activities (38%) was limited, with 68% perceiving plan execution as burdensome. Qualitative findings revealed two major themes: (1) Operational and Infrastructure Needs; emphasizing the need for centralized consultation, discipline-specific templates, equitable access to expertise, and budget guidance; and (2) Implementation Challenges and Perceived Burden; including perceptions of administrative overload, uncertainty in managing sensitive data, and calls for clearer institutional communication and cultural reframing of data sharing as a value-added activity. Conclusions: While researchers endorse the principles of the NIH DMS policy, many lack the practical resources and institutional support necessary for effective compliance. Developing centralized infrastructure, standardized guidance, and targeted training may reduce burdens, promote equity, and strengthen a culture of responsible data stewardship. While researchers endorse the principles of the NIH DMS policy, many lack the practical resources and institutional support necessary for effective compliance. Developing centralized infrastructure, standardized guidance, and targeted training may reduce burdens, promote equity, and strengthen a culture of responsible data stewardship.
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.