Clinical Trial Participants’ Views of the Risks and Benefits of Data Sharing
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Support for sharing of data, analytic code, and other materials is growing, including from patients and journal editors.
“Support for sharing of data, analytic code, and other materials is growing, including from patients163 and journal editors, including BMJ and PLOS Medicine.164”
From PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [163]
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]Institute of Medicine Sharing clinical trial data: maximizing benefits, minimizing risk Washington, DC National Academies Press 2015 25590113
- [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)
- [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
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2018-06-07
- Volume
- 378
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 2202-2211
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- PMC
- PMC6057615
- OpenAlex
- W2806876255
- Semantic Scholar
- c8f1fe06a808ea1d0bdb80630966ac5dcc7f886c
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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