Skip to main content
Dryad logo

Data from: Data sharing through an NIH central database repository: a cross-sectional survey of BioLINCC users

Citation

Ross, Joseph S. et al. (2016), Data from: Data sharing through an NIH central database repository: a cross-sectional survey of BioLINCC users, Dryad, Dataset, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.j38b7

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.

Usage Notes