Dataset Information

Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To quantify data sharing trends and data sharing policy compliance at the British Medical Journal (BMJ) by analysing the rate of data sharing practices, and investigate attitudes and examine barriers towards data sharing. DESIGN:Observational study. SETTING:The BMJ research archive. PARTICIPANTS:160 randomly sampled BMJ research articles from 2009 to 2015, excluding meta-analysis and systematic reviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Percentages of research articles that indicated the availability of their raw data sets in their data sharing statements, and those that easily made their data sets available on request. RESULTS:3 articles contained the data in the article. 50 out of 157 (32%) remaining articles indicated the availability of their data sets. 12 used publicly available data and the remaining 38 were sent email requests to access their data sets. Only 1 publicly available data set could be accessed and only 6 out of 38 shared their data via email. So only 7/157 research articles shared their data sets, 4.5% (95% CI 1.8% to 9%). For 21 clinical trials bound by the BMJ data sharing policy, the per cent shared was 24% (8% to 47%). CONCLUSIONS:Despite the BMJ's strong data sharing policy, sharing rates are low. Possible explanations for low data sharing rates could be: the wording of the BMJ data sharing policy, which leaves room for individual interpretation and possible loopholes; that our email requests ended up in researchers spam folders; and that researchers are not rewarded for sharing their data. It might be time for a more effective data sharing policy and better incentives for health and medical researchers to share their data.

SUBMITTER: Rowhani-Farid A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5073489 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study.

Rowhani-Farid Anisa A Barnett Adrian G AG

BMJ open 20161013 10

<h4>Objective</h4>To quantify data sharing trends and data sharing policy compliance at the British Medical Journal (BMJ) by analysing the rate of data sharing practices, and investigate attitudes and examine barriers towards data sharing.<h4>Design</h4>Observational study.<h4>Setting</h4>The BMJ research archive.<h4>Participants</h4>160 randomly sampled BMJ research articles from 2009 to 2015, excluding meta-analysis and systematic reviews.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Percentages of research a ...[more]

PMID: 27737882

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProviding adequate healthcare to newly arrived refugees is considered one of the significant challenges for the German healthcare system. These refugees can be classified mainly into two groups: asylum seekers (who have applied for asylum after arrival in Germany and are waiting for the refugee-status decision) and resettlement refugees (who have already been granted asylum status before arriving in Germany). Whereas earlier studies have explored the health status of asylum seekers especially in terms of mental and behavioural disorders and infectious diseases without distinguishing between these two groups, our study aims to evaluate possible relationships of asylum status and medical needs of these two groups with a special focus on mental and behavioural disorders and infectious diseases.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study, collected data on all asylum-seeker and resettlement-refugee patients (N = 2252) of a German reception centre (August 2017 to August 2018) is analysed by absolute and relative frequencies and medians. Patient data, collected by chart review, include age, gender, country of origin, asylum status, and diagnoses (ICD-10). To describe the relationship between sociodemographic factors (including asylum status) and diagnoses, we used tests of significance and bivariate correlations with Spearman correlation coefficients. All collected data are pseudonymised.ResultsOf all 2252 patients, 43% were resettlement refugees. In almost all ICD-10 categories, asylum seekers received significantly more diagnoses than resettlement refugees. According to our data, asylum seekers presented with mental and behavioural disorders nine times more often (9%) than resettlement refugees (1%). In the case of infectious diseases, the results are mixed: asylum seekers were twice as frequently (11%) diagnosed with certain infectious and parasitic diseases than resettlement refugees (5%), but resettlement refugees were treated twice as often (22% of the asylum seekers and 41% of the resettlement refugees) for diseases of the respiratory system, of which 84% were acute respiratory infections (in both groups).ConclusionThis study indicates that patients with unregulated migration more frequently present symptoms of psychiatric diseases and somatoform symptoms than resettlement refugees. A health policy approach within migration policy should aim to enable persecuted persons to migrate under regulated and safe conditions.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00013076, retrospectively registered on 29.09.2017.

Dataset Information

Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study.

Publications

Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure