Cited by 237Ethics in Clinical ResearchResearch Data Management PracticesData Analysis and Archiving

Clinical Trial Participants’ Views of the Risks and Benefits of Data Sharing

Open access
Mello, Michelle M., Lieou, Van, Goodman, Steven N.·2018·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Background Sharing of participant-level clinical trial data has potential benefits, but concerns about potential harms to research participants have led some pharmaceutical sponsors and investigators to urge caution. Little is known about clinical trial participants' perceptions of the risks of data sharing. Methods We conducted a structured survey of 771 current and recent participants from a diverse sample of clinical trials at three academic medical centers in the United States. Surveys were distributed by mail (350 completed surveys) and in clinic waiting rooms (421 completed surveys) (overall response rate, 79%). Results Less than 8% of respondents felt that the potential negative consequences of data sharing outweighed the benefits. A total of 93% were very or somewhat likely to allow their own data to be shared with university scientists, and 82% were very or somewhat likely to share with scientists in for-profit companies. Willingness to share data did not vary appreciably with the purpose for which the data would be used, with the exception that fewer participants were willing to share their data for use in litigation. The respondents' greatest concerns were that data sharing might make others less willing to enroll in clinical trials (37% very or somewhat concerned), that data would be used for marketing purposes (34%), or that data could be stolen (30%). Less concern was expressed about discrimination (22%) and exploitation of data for profit (20%). Conclusions In our study, few clinical trial participants had strong concerns about the risks of data sharing. Provided that adequate security safeguards were in place, most participants were willing to share their data for a wide range of uses. (Funded by the Greenwall Foundation.).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmsa1713258

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 55 · Cited by 237

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]Institute of Medicine Sharing clinical trial data: maximizing benefits, minimizing risk Washington, DC National Academies Press 2015 25590113
  2. [31]PhRMA statement on clinical trials and Bad Pharma Press release of PhRMA 2 5 2013 (http://www.phrma.org/press-release/phrma-statement-on-clinical-trials-and-bad-pharma)
  3. [33]Statement on European General Court decision on EMA Press release of PhRMA 4 30 2013 (http://www.phrma.org/press-release/phrma-statement-on-decision-of-the-european-general-court-on-ema-disclosure-of-company-data)

Authors
Mello, M. M., Lieou, V., & Goodman, S. N.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2018-06-07
Volume
378
Issue
23
Pages
2202-2211
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2806876255
Cited by
237
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 11
FWCI
24.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Greenwall Foundation (None)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
Keywords
clinical trial data sharing, participant perceptions, benefits and risks, willingness to share data, data security, privacy concerns, litigation, discrimination, pharmaceutical industry, research ethics
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude to Health, Clinical Trials as Topic, Confidentiality, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Information Dissemination, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review