Announcing the ’s data sharing policy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Akers KG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6774558 | biostudies-other | 2019 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:As researchers, we are advised to share our data to improve transparency and increase the reproducibility of experiments. Simultaneously, making data freely accessible can raise ethical questions regarding the participants' privacy. We first outline the challenges regarding "open data" for researchers in light of the GDPR. Then, we turn to the impact of an open-access data sharing policy on the participants: could the participants' knowledge about the future use of the data alter the data itself? Through two pre-registered studies (N = 193, collected on campus and N = 543, online participation), we investigate whether disclosing that anonymized data will be publicly shared vs. not shared influences a potential participants' intention to take part in the study. Using both frequentist and Bayesian analysis, we conclude towards an absence of effect of a difference in data sharing policy on scores in the Big Five questionnaire and social desirability, careless response behavior, and results in the anchoring paradigm. In the second study, a lexicometric analysis of participants' reactions to openly sharing data reveals a readiness to share data and support transparency under the condition of preserved anonymity. Hence, if anonymity can be ensured, there seems to be no methodological or ethical drawback in transparent and open data sharing policies for many psychological studies.
| S-EPMC6753307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Transparency, openness, and reproducibility are important characteristics in scientific publishing. Although many researchers embrace these characteristics, data sharing has yet to become common practice. Nevertheless, data sharing is becoming an increasingly important topic among societies, publishers, researchers, patient advocates, and funders, especially as it pertains to data from clinical trials. In response, ASTRO developed a data policy and guide to best practices for authors submitting to its journals. ASTRO's data sharing policy is that authors should indicate, in data availability statements, if the data are being shared and if so, how the data may be accessed.
| S-EPMC6817515 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4182942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over the last decade, there have been significant changes in data sharing policies and in the data sharing environment faced by life science researchers. Using data from a 2013 survey of over 1600 life science researchers, we analyze the effects of sharing policies of funding agencies and journals. We also examine the effects of new sharing infrastructure and tools (i.e., third party repositories and online supplements). We find that recently enacted data sharing policies and new sharing infrastructure and tools have had a sizable effect on encouraging data sharing. In particular, third party repositories and online supplements as well as data sharing requirements of funding agencies, particularly the NIH and the National Human Genome Research Institute, were perceived by scientists to have had a large effect on facilitating data sharing. In addition, we found a high degree of compliance with these new policies, although noncompliance resulted in few formal or informal sanctions. Despite the overall effectiveness of data sharing policies, some significant gaps remain: about one third of grant reviewers placed no weight on data sharing plans in their reviews, and a similar percentage ignored the requirements of material transfer agreements. These patterns suggest that although most of these new policies have been effective, there is still room for policy improvement.
| S-EPMC4178158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrecision health offers the promise of advancing clinical care in data-driven, evidence-based, and personalized ways. However, complex data sharing infrastructures, for-profit (commercial) and nonprofit partnerships, and systems for data governance have been created with little attention to the values, expectations, and preferences of patients about how they want to be engaged in the sharing and use of their health information. We solicited patient opinions about institutional policy options using public deliberation methods to address this gap.ObjectiveWe aimed to understand the policy preferences of current and former patients with cancer regarding the sharing of health information collected in the contexts of health information exchange and commercial partnerships and to identify the values invoked and perceived risks and benefits of health data sharing considered by the participants when formulating their policy preferences.MethodsWe conducted 2 public deliberations, including predeliberation and postdeliberation surveys, with patients who had a current or former cancer diagnosis (n=61). Following informational presentations, the participants engaged in facilitated small-group deliberations to discuss and rank policy preferences related to health information sharing, such as the use of a patient portal, email or SMS text messaging, signage in health care settings, opting out of commercial data sharing, payment, and preservation of the status quo. The participants ranked their policy preferences individually, as small groups by mutual agreement, and then again individually in the postdeliberation survey.ResultsAfter deliberation, the patient portal was ranked as the most preferred policy choice. The participants ranked no change in status quo as the least preferred policy option by a wide margin. Throughout the study, the participants expressed concerns about transparency and awareness, convenience, and accessibility of information about health data sharing. Concerns about the status quo centered around a lack of transparency, awareness, and control. Specifically, the patients were not aware of how, when, or why their data were being used and wanted more transparency in these regards as well as greater control and autonomy around the use of their health data. The deliberations suggested that patient portals would be a good place to provide additional information about data sharing practices but that over time, notifications should be tailored to patient preferences.ConclusionsOur study suggests the need for increased disclosure of health information sharing practices. Describing health data sharing practices through patient portals or other mechanisms personalized to patient preferences would minimize the concerns expressed by patients about the extent of data sharing that occurs without their knowledge. Future research and policies should identify ways to increase patient control over health data sharing without reducing the societal benefits of data sharing.
| S-EPMC9929721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest public research funder in the world. In an effort to make publicly funded data more accessible, the NIH established a new Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy effective January 2023. Though the new policy was available for public comment, the patient perspective and the potential unintended consequences of the policy on patients' willingness to participate in research have been underexplored. This study aimed to determine: (1) participant preferences about the types of data they are willing to share with external entities, and (2) participant perspectives regarding the updated 2023 NIH DMS policy. A cross-sectional, nationally representative online survey was conducted among 610 English-speaking US adults in March 2023 using Prolific. Overall, 50% of the sample identified as women, 13% as Black or African American, and 7% as Hispanic or Latino, with a mean age of 46 years. The majority of respondents (65%) agreed with the NIH policy, but racial differences were noted with a higher percentage (28%) of Black participants indicating a decrease in willingness to participate in research studies with the updated policy in place. Participants were more willing to share research data with healthcare providers, yet their preferences for data sharing varied depending on the type of data to be shared and the recipients. Participants were less willing to share sexual health and fertility data with health technology companies (41%) and public repositories (37%) compared to their healthcare providers (75%). The findings highlight the importance of adopting a transparent approach to data sharing that balances protecting patient autonomy with more open data sharing.
| S-EPMC11357082 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To explore the effectiveness of data sharing by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in journals with a full data sharing policy and to describe potential difficulties encountered in the process of performing reanalyses of the primary outcomes.Survey of published RCTs.PubMed/Medline.RCTs that had been submitted and published by The BMJ and PLOS Medicine subsequent to the adoption of data sharing policies by these journals.The primary outcome was data availability, defined as the eventual receipt of complete data with clear labelling. Primary outcomes were reanalyzed to assess to what extent studies were reproduced. Difficulties encountered were described.37 RCTs (21 from The BMJ and 16 from PLOS Medicine) published between 2013 and 2016 met the eligibility criteria. 17/37 (46%, 95% confidence interval 30% to 62%) satisfied the definition of data availability and 14 of the 17 (82%, 59% to 94%) were fully reproduced on all their primary outcomes. Of the remaining RCTs, errors were identified in two but reached similar conclusions and one paper did not provide enough information in the Methods section to reproduce the analyses. Difficulties identified included problems in contacting corresponding authors and lack of resources on their behalf in preparing the datasets. In addition, there was a range of different data sharing practices across study groups.Data availability was not optimal in two journals with a strong policy for data sharing. When investigators shared data, most reanalyses largely reproduced the original results. Data sharing practices need to become more widespread and streamlined to allow meaningful reanalyses and reuse of data.Open Science Framework osf.io/c4zke.
| S-EPMC5809812 | biostudies-other
Project description:Rapid release of prepublication data has served the field of genomics well. Attendees at a workshop in Toronto recommend extending the practice to other biological data sets.
| S-EPMC3073843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In recent years, more and more health data are being generated. These data come not only from professional health systems, but also from wearable devices. All these 'big data' put together can be utilized to optimize treatments for each unique patient ('precision medicine'). For this to be possible, it is necessary that hospitals, academia and industry work together to bridge the 'valley of death' of translational medicine. However, hospitals and academia often are reluctant to share their data with other parties, even though the patient is actually the owner of his/her own health data. Academic hospitals usually invest a lot of time in setting up clinical trials and collecting data, and want to be the first ones to publish papers on this data. There are some publicly available datasets, but these are usually only shared after study (and publication) completion, which means a severe delay of months or even years before others can analyse the data. One solution is to incentivize the hospitals to share their data with (other) academic institutes and the industry. Here, we show an analysis of the current literature around data sharing, and we discuss five aspects of data sharing in the medical domain: publisher requirements, data ownership, growing support for data sharing, data sharing initiatives and how the use of federated data might be a solution. We also discuss some potential future developments around data sharing, such as medical crowdsourcing and data generalists.
| S-EPMC7246891 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceClinical trial data sharing holds promise for maximizing the value of clinical research. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) adopted a policy promoting data sharing in July 2018.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of the ICMJE data sharing policy with data availability and reproducibility of main conclusions among leading surgical journals.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study, conducted in October 2021, examined randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in 10 leading surgical journals before and after the implementation of the ICMJE data sharing policy in July 2018.ExposureImplementation of the ICMJE data sharing policy.Main outcomes and measuresTo demonstrate a pre-post increase in data availability from 5% to 25% (α = .05; β = 0.1), 65 RCTs published before and 65 RCTs published after the policy was issued were included, and their data were requested. The primary outcome was data availability (ie, the receipt of sufficient data to enable reanalysis of the primary outcome). When data sharing was available, the primary outcomes reported in the journal articles were reanalyzed to explore reproducibility. The reproducibility features of these studies were detailed.ResultsData were available for 2 of 65 RCTs (3.1%) published before the ICMJE policy and for 2 of 65 RCTs (3.1%) published after the policy was issued (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.07-14.19; P > .99). A data sharing statement was observed in 11 of 65 RCTs (16.9%) published after the policy vs none before the policy (risk ratio, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.81-2.68; P = .001). Data obtained for reanalysis (n = 4) were not from RCTs published with a data sharing statement. Of the 4 RCTs with available data, all of them had primary outcomes that were fully reproduced. However, discrepancies or inaccuracies that were not associated with study conclusions were identified in 3 RCTs. These concerned the number of patients included in 1 RCT, the management of missing values in another RCT, and discrepant timing for the principal outcome declared in the study registration and reported in the third RCT.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study suggests that data sharing practices are rare in surgical journals despite the ICMJE policy and that most RCTs published in these journals lack transparency. The results of these studies may not be reproducible by external researchers.
| S-EPMC9163999 | biostudies-literature