Dataset Information

Sharing of clinical trial data among trialists: a cross sectional survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate clinical trialists' opinions and experiences of sharing of clinical trial data with investigators who are not directly collaborating with the research team.

Design and setting

Cross sectional, web based survey.

Participants

Clinical trialists who were corresponding authors of clinical trials published in 2010 or 2011 in one of six general medical journals with the highest impact factor in 2011.

Main outcome measures

Support for and prevalence of data sharing through data repositories and in response to individual requests, concerns with data sharing through repositories, and reasons for granting or denying requests.

Results

Of 683 potential respondents, 317 completed the survey (response rate 46%). In principle, 236 (74%) thought that sharing de-identified data through data repositories should be required, and 229 (72%) thought that investigators should be required to share de-identified data in response to individual requests. In practice, only 56 (18%) indicated that they were required by the trial funder to deposit the trial data in a repository; of these 32 (57%) had done so. In all, 149 respondents (47%) had received an individual request to share their clinical trial data; of these, 115 (77%) had granted and 56 (38%) had denied at least one request. Respondents' most common concerns about data sharing were related to appropriate data use, investigator or funder interests, and protection of research subjects.

Conclusions

We found strong support for sharing clinical trial data among corresponding authors of recently published trials in high impact general medical journals who responded to our survey, including a willingness to share data, although several practical concerns were identified.

SUBMITTER: Rathi V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3502744 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:A number of research funders, biomedical journals, pharmaceutical companies, and regulatory agencies have adopted policies advocating or mandating that clinical trialists share data with external investigators. We therefore sought to determine whether certain characteristics of trialists or their trials are associated with more unfavorable perceptions of data sharing. To date, no prior research has addressed this issue. METHODS:We conducted an exploratory analysis of responses to a cross-sectional, web-based survey. The survey sample consisted of trialists who were corresponding authors of clinical trials published in 2010 or 2011 in one of six general medical journals with the highest impact factors in 2011. The following key characteristics were examined: trialists' academic productivity and geographic location, trial funding source and size, and the journal in which it was published. Main outcome measures included: support for data sharing in principle, concerns with data sharing through repositories, and reasons for granting or denying requests. Chi-squared tests and Fisher's exact tests were used to assess statistical significance. RESULTS:Of 683 potential respondents, 317 completed the survey (response rate 46%). Both support for data sharing and reporting of specific concerns with sharing data through repositories exceeded 75%, but neither differed by trialist or trial characteristics. However, there were some significant differences in explicit reasons to share or withhold data. Respondents located in Western Europe more frequently indicated they have or would share data in order to receive academic benefits or recognition when compared with respondents located in the United States or Canada (58 versus 31%). In addition, respondents who were the most academically productive less frequently indicated they have or would withhold data in order to protect research subjects when compared with less academically productive respondents (24 versus 40%), as did respondents who received industry funding when compared with those who had not (24 versus 43%). CONCLUSIONS:Respondents indicated strong support for data sharing overall. There were few notable differences in how trialists viewed the benefits and risks of data sharing when categorized by trialists' academic productivity and geographic location, trial funding source and size, and the journal in which it was published.

Project description:ObjectivesTo gather knowledge on the current debate, opinions and attitudes of Italian patient and citizen groups on individual participant data (IPD) sharing from clinical studies.DesignCross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsA 22-item online questionnaire was sent by email to 2003 contacts of patient and citizen groups in Italy. We received 311 responses, checked for duplicate respondents (16); 295 single groups responded, 280 providing questionnaires eligible for analysis (response rate 15%). Ninety (32.1%) dealt with oncology and palliative care, 175 (46.2%) operated locally or regionally and 136 (48.6%) were involved in clinical research.Outcome measureData on Italian patient and citizen groups' self-reported knowledge, attitudes and opinions on IPD sharing, mechanisms for IPD access, advantages and risks.ResultsHalf the respondents (144 out of 280, 51%) had some knowledge about the IPD sharing debate, and 60 (42%) stated they had an official position (35 in favour, 19 in favour with restrictions, 2 against, 1 neither for nor against, 3 missing). Nineteen discussed the topic encouraged by this survey; 39% approved broad access by researchers and other professions and identified information to participants, data de-identification, secure archives, access agreements and sanctions for misuse as important aspects of IPD sharing models. Respondents highlighted re-identification, privacy and re-use of data for purposes that participants do not agree on, as main risks, advancement of innovation and reducing waste in research as main advantages. Around half believed IPD sharing would not discourage study participation.ConclusionsHalf the respondents were aware of the debate. Those who had an official position were mainly in favour of IPD sharing. Many supported broad access, asking for conditions important for building trust in entities that handle IPD sharing.Although limited by the low response rate, these findings reinforce the demand for reliable and transparent processes where accountabilities are clear.

Project description:IntroductionDespite intense interest in trial registration, there is a wide gap between theoretical postulates on trial registration and its implementation worldwide.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate trialists views about current international guidelines on trial registration, including the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) policies and the Ottawa Statement, as well as their intention to register any future clinical trials they conduct.MethodsWe identified all 40,158 PUBMED-indexed clinical trials published from May 2005 to May 2006 using an advanced search strategy. From a random sample of 500 confirmed clinical trials, corresponding authors with e-mail contact addresses were surveyed.ResultsA total of 275 (60%) questionnaires from 45 countries were completed. 31% of the respondents had received only nonindustry funding during the past ten years, while 5% and 61% had received only industry or mixed funding respectively. Approximately two third of participants supported registration of all 20 WHO Data Set items, and endorsed the Ottawa Statement part 1 and part 2. Delayed public disclosure of some essential data in instances where they may be considered sensitive for competitive commercial reasons was supported by 30% of the participants, whereas immediate disclosure was supported by 53%. Only 21% of participants had registered all of their ongoing trials since 2005, while 47% stated that they would provide the 20 WHO Data Set items to a publicly accessible register for all their future clinical trials; a significantly higher proportion of participants who received only nonindustry funding (62%) was found among those who would always provide the 20 WHO items for future trials, compared to 42% of participants who received mixed or only industry funding. Among those who were undecided about endorsing registration. One third of participants expressed a lack of sufficient knowledge as the primary reason.ConclusionAlthough disagreement was apparent on certain issues, our findings illustrate that trial registration is gradually becoming part of the current research paradigm internationally. Our results also suggest that researchers require more knowledge to inform their decision to comply with the International standards at this early stage of voluntary trial registration.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Public Private Interface-Electronic Patient Record (PPI-ePR) system was implemented as a new electronic platform to facilitate collaboration between the public and private sectors in Hong Kong. However, its barriers to participate and benefits have not been comprehensively assessed. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the awareness, acceptance, perceived benefits, and obstacles to participation among private doctors and the general public. METHODS:From December 2012 to January 2013, 2435 telephone interviews were performed by trained interviewers to survey randomly selected patients who were enrolled or not enrolled in the PPI-ePR system. In addition, self-administered surveys were sent by postal mail to 4229 registered doctors in Hong Kong. The questionnaires for both patients and doctors contained questions on subjects' awareness, acceptance, and perceptions of the PPI-ePR, perceived benefits and obstacles of participating in the program, reasons for not using the system after enrolling, and perceived areas for service improvement of the system. RESULTS:More than 53.1% (266/501) of enrolled patients believed that the PPI-ePR system would improve health care quality by reducing duplicate tests and treatments, while more than 76.8% (314/409) of enrolled doctors emphasized timely access to patients' medical records as the biggest benefit of their enrollment. Among nonenrolled patients, unawareness of the project was the most popular obstacle to enrolling in the PPI-ePR system (483/1200, 40.3%). Regarding nonenrolled doctors, the complicated registration process hindered them from participating in the program the most (95/198, 48.0%). Television, newspaper, and magazine advertisements and medical profession newsletters or journals were suggested as the most effective means to encourage participation in the program among surveyed patients (1297/1701, 76.2%) and doctors (428/610, 70.2%), respectively. Lack of clinical indication requiring data extraction from other hospitals was the main reason for low level of PPI-ePR use. CONCLUSIONS:This study comprehensively assessed the popularity, perceived benefits, and hindering factors of enrolling in the PPI-ePR system in Hong Kong. Low levels of awareness, few privacy concerns, and inactive use of the PPI-ePR system were among the key features for patients and physicians. Public promotions, simplified logistics, and a user-friendly online interface were suggested to improve the coverage and effectiveness of health information exchange between private and public health care sectors.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine company characteristics associated with better transparency and to apply a tool used to measure and improve clinical trial transparency among large companies and drugs, to smaller companies and biologics.DesignCross-sectional descriptive analysis.Setting and participantsNovel drugs and biologics Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2016 and 2017 and their company sponsors.Main outcome measuresUsing established Good Pharma Scorecard (GPS) measures, companies and products were evaluated on their clinical trial registration, results dissemination and FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA) implementation; companies were ranked using these measures and a multicomponent data sharing measure. Associations between company transparency scores with company size (large vs non-large), location (US vs non-US) and sponsored product type (drug vs biologic) were also examined.Results26% of products (16/62) had publicly available results for all clinical trials supporting their FDA approval and 67% (39/58) had public results for trials in patients by 6 months after their FDA approval; 58% (32/55) were FDAAA compliant. Large companies were significantly more transparent than non-large companies (overall median transparency score of 95% (IQR 91-100) vs 59% (IQR 41-70), p<0.001), attributable to higher FDAAA compliance (median of 100% (IQR 88-100) vs 57% (0-100), p=0.01) and better data sharing (median of 100% (IQR 80-100) vs 20% (IQR 20-40), p<0.01). No significant differences were observed by company location or product type.ConclusionsIt was feasible to apply the GPS transparency measures and ranking tool to non-large companies and biologics. Large companies are significantly more transparent than non-large companies, driven by better data sharing procedures and implementation of FDAAA trial reporting requirements. Greater research transparency is needed, particularly among non-large companies, to maximise the benefits of research for patient care and scientific innovation.