You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Medical publishing and peer review
Research
Data sharing through an NIH central database repository: a cross-sectional survey of BioLINCC users
  1. Joseph S Ross1,2,3,4,
  2. Jessica D Ritchie1,
  3. Emily Finn2,
  4. Nihar R Desai1,5,
  5. Richard L Lehman1,6,
  6. Harlan M Krumholz1,3,4,5,
  7. Cary P Gross2,3,7
  1. 1Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  2. 2Department of Internal Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  3. 3Department of Internal Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  4. 4Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  5. 5Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  6. 6UK Cochrane Center, Oxford, UK
  7. 7Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Joseph S Ross; joseph.ross{at}yale.edu

Abstract

Objective To characterise experiences using clinical research data shared through the National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC) clinical research data repository, along with data recipients’ perceptions of the value, importance and challenges with using BioLINCC data.

Design and setting Cross-sectional web-based survey.

Participants All investigators who requested and received access to clinical research data from BioLINCC between 2007 and 2014.

Main outcome measures Reasons for BioLINCC data request, research project plans, interactions with original study investigators, BioLINCC experience and other project details.

Results There were 536 investigators who requested and received access to clinical research data from BioLINCC between 2007 and 2014. Of 441 potential respondents, 195 completed the survey (response rate=44%); 89% (n=174) requested data for an independent study, 17% (n=33) for pilot/preliminary analysis. Commonly cited reasons for requesting data through BioLINCC were feasibility of collecting data of similar size and scope (n=122) and insufficient financial resources for primary data collection (n=76). For 95% of respondents (n=186), a primary research objective was to complete new research, as opposed to replicate prior analyses. Prior to requesting data from BioLINCC, 18% (n=36) of respondents had contacted the original study investigators to obtain data, whereas 24% (n=47) had done so to request collaboration. Nearly all (n=176; 90%) respondents found the data to be suitable for their proposed project; among those who found the data unsuitable (n=19; 10%), cited reasons were data too complicated to use (n=5) and data poorly organised (n=5). Half (n=98) of respondents had completed their proposed projects, of which 67% (n=66) have been published.

Conclusions Investigators were primarily using clinical research data from BioLINCC for independent research, making use of data that would otherwise have not been feasible to collect.

  • STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS
  • PUBLIC HEALTH

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012769

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text