Learning Health Systems (Jan 2025)

Medical researchers' perception of sharing of metadata from case report forms

  • Alexandra Meidt,
  • Carolin Walter,
  • Christoph U. Lehmann,
  • Martin Dugas

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10456
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 1
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Introduction Publishing medical metadata stored in case report forms (CRFs) is a prerequisite for the development of a learning health system (LHS) by fostering reuse of metadata and standardization in health research. The aim of our study was to investigate medical researchers' (MRs) willingness to share CRFs, to identify reasons for and against CRF sharing, and to determine if and under which conditions MRs might consider sharing CRF metadata via a public registry. Methods We examined CRF data sharing commitments for 1842 interventional trials registered on the German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS) from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. We invited 1360 individuals registered as contacts on DRKS to participate in a web‐based survey between May 10, 2022, and June 30, 2022. Results Only 0.3% (5/1842) of data sharing commitments in DRKS included a plan to share blank CRFs. Survey results showed high support for CRF sharing. More than 70% of respondents (223/301) were willing to share their CRFs, and 83.7% (252/301) were interested in CRF reuse. The most frequently reported reason for CRF sharing was improvement of comparability and interpretability of patient data (244/301; 81.0%). The most frequently reported reason against CRF sharing was missing approval by the sponsor (160/301; 53.2%). Researchers conducting commercial trials were significantly less likely to share CRFs than those conducting noncommercial trials (63.3% vs. 76.2%, OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32–0.92) and they were less likely to reuse CRFs (78.5% vs. 84.6%, OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.35–1.24). The most frequently mentioned prerequisite for publication of CRFs in a public registry was its trustworthiness (244/301, 81.1%). Conclusion Data sharing commitments in DRKS revealed a low awareness of CRF sharing. Survey results showed generally strong support for CRF sharing, including the willingness to publish CRFs in a public registry, although legal and practical barriers were identified.

Keywords