SynthesisBMJ open2026
How do we measure data sharing in the biomedical sciences? A measurement systematic review of biomedical data sharing-related knowledge, attitudes and practices across stakeholder groups, data types and geographies.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEnabling the reuse of participant-level health data is central to advancing public health and clinical practice. Measuring knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) related to data sharing is essential for understanding how stakeholders perceive data reuse and where further investment is needed. We conducted a measurement systematic review to identify and describe the development, scope and measurement properties of quantitative surveys assessing data-sharing-related KAP in biomedical research.
designSystematic review using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) approach. DATA SOURCES: Ovid (MEDLINE), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and HaPI were searched for relevant surveys from 1 January 2000 to 7 April 2021. The Ovid (MEDLINE) search was updated on 30 May 2022 and 15 April 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Quantitative surveys measuring knowledge, attitudes, behaviours or practices related to sharing or reusing participant-level health data were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data and, where possible, applied the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist to assess survey measurement properties. We summarised survey scope, target populations, data types, development and measurement properties narratively. Due to substantial heterogeneity, survey findings were not compared across studies.
resultsWe screened 3684 title-abstracts, reviewed 104 full texts and extracted data from 72 publications representing 60 independent surveys. Most surveys originated from high-income countries and were used only once. Fewer than one-third reported pilot testing. Only six surveys provided sufficient information to apply COSMIN, and only three reported measurement properties, indicating low certainty in the available evidence.
conclusionsThis is the first systematic comparison of the development and measurement properties of quantitative survey instruments assessing data-reuse KAP. Most surveys lacked rigorous development and reporting, limiting their utility for comparing KAP related to data sharing across stakeholders and settings. The review findings will inform the creation of a cross-country, cross-disciplinary question bank to support future tool development. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021243926.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.