Influencing factors and group differences in medical data sharing in clinical research scenarios

Zhang, Meng; Mu, Dongmei; Wang, Ping

doi:10.2478/jdis-2025-0049

Figures & Tables

Schematic diagram of medical data circulation and use.

Differences in constructs of shared experiences_

Constructs	Yes(N=219)		No(N=141)		T	P
Constructs	Mean value	Standard deviation	Mean value	Standard deviation	T	P
Trust	4.142	0.584	3.723	0.859	5.076	<0.01
Sharing intention	4.139	0.522	4.012	0.919	1.489	>0.05
Individual innovation	3.997	0.603	3.697	0.898	3.487	<0.01
Self efficacy	4.027	0.649	3.736	0.932	3.242	<0.01
Sharing behavior	4.048	0.607	3.528	0.930	5.879	<0.01

Confirmatory factor analysis results_

Constructs	Items	Factor loadings	AVE	CR
Performance expectation	PE4	0.654	0.445	0.761
	PE3	0.61
	PE2	0.662
	PE1	0.736
Effort expectation	EE4	0.715	0.513	0.809
	EE3	0.761
	EE2	0.676
	EE1	0.713
Trust	TR4	0.704	0.495	0.796
	TR3	0.737
	TR2	0.685
	TR1	0.686
Community impact	CI4	0.78	0.507	0.803
	CI3	0.763
	CI2	0.614
	CI1	0.679
Data transparency	DT4	0.769	0.496	0.745
	DT3	0.72
	DT2	0.614
Individual innovation	II1	0.712	0.479	0.734
	II3	0.664
	II4	0.699
Self efficacy	SE1	0.787	0.548	0.829
	SE2	0.759
	SE3	0.71
	SE4	0.701
Sharing intention	SI1	0.736	0.477	0.731
	SI3	0.611
	SI4	0.719
Sharing behavior	SB1	0.744	0.550	0.830
	SB2	0.728
	SB3	0.755
	SB4	0.738

Single factor ANOVA test results_

Variable	Category	Trust		Sharing intention		Individual innovation		Self efficacy		Sharing behavior
Variable	Category	Mean value	Standard deviation	Mean value	Standard deviation	Mean value	Standard deviation	Mean value	Standard deviation	Mean value	Standard deviation
Years of research work	Less than 5 years	3.836	0.815	4.005	0.829	3.754	0.793	3.812	0.839	3.691	0.857
	6-10 years	4.176	0.538	4.177	0.531	3.982	0.671	4	0.646	4.052	0.658
	11-15 years	4.034	0.702	4.174	0.422	4.061	0.656	4.08	0.833	4	0.605
	16-20 years	4.225	0.606	4.033	0.745	4.133	0.526	4.1	0.709	3.5	0.95
	More than 21 years	4	0.685	4.667	0.577	4.267	0.925	4	0.884	4.4	0.518
	F	4.323**		2.138		3.21*		1.802		5.481**
		1<2				1<2,3				1<2,3,5
	LSD post mortem	4<5								2>4
Professional identity	Medico	3.75	0.856	4.054	0.842	3.723	0.877	3.772	0.893	3.657	0.92
	Clinician	4.102	0.667	4.156	0.553	4.042	0.629	4.031	0.721	4	0.737
	Researcher	4.234	0.474	4.152	0.553	3.975	0.598	4.003	0.673	3.981	0.574
	F	10.223**		2.066		4.313**		2.782*		5.092**
	LSD post mortem	1<2,3		1<2,3				1<2,3		1<2,3
Data level requirement	Level 1	4.074	0.683	4.000	0.687	3.549	0.526	4.074	0.564	3.838	0.701
	Level 2	3.976	0.547	3.875	0.646	3.944	0.669	3.767	0.750	3.757	0.662
	Level 3	4.097	0.696	4.234	0.661	3.790	0.832	3.908	0.911	3.860	0.775
	Level 4	3.911	0.823	4.121	0.749	3.909	0.765	3.940	0.793	3.845	0.860
	Level 5	4.202	0.445	4.206	0.477	3.905	0.700	4.048	0.546	4.107	0.620
	F	1.352		2.608*		1.26		1.014		0.804
	LSD post mortem			2<3,4

Differential validity test results_

Constructs	PE	EE	TR	CI	DT	II	SE	SI	SB
Performance expectation	0.667
Effort expectation	0.301	0.716
Trust	0.52	0.525	0.704
Community impact	0.519	0.289	0.459	0.712
Data transparency	0.497	0.216	0.462	0.399	0.704
Individual innovation	0.376	0.506	0.39	0.41	0.357	0.692
Self efficacy	0.372	0.354	0.366	0.427	0.359	0.354	0.740
Sharing intention	0.412	0.398	0.37	0.377	0.359	0.525	0.413	0.691
Sharing behavior	0.438	0.542	0.418	0.473	0.341	0.458	0.459	0.447	0.742

Scales and supporting literature

Latent variable	Indicator number	Observation index	Reference source
Performance expectation	PE1	It can enable you to obtain rich data resources	Venkatesh(2003) Yang(2010)
	PE2	It can enhance the efficiency of your clinical research
	PE3	It can promptly meet your data requirements
	PE4	It is helpful for academic research institutions to cultivate talents
Effort expectation	EE1	You think the process of medical data sharing is easy to understand and operate
	EE2	You can skillfully share medical data
	EE3	You can obtain the data you need very conveniently
	EE4	The process of applying to the ethics committee for approval and submitting a research plan is relatively simple
Trust	TR1	Medical data itself has academic research value	Chang(2011)
	TR2	The reliability of medical data sharing channels (platforms)
	TR3	The medical data obtained is complete and true
	TR4	The controller will sincerely share medical data
Community influence	CI1	Other clinical researchers share medical data	Venkatesh(2003)
	CI2	Seeing a friend using shared data and recommending it to you
	CI3	The research team suggests that you obtain and use shared data for clinical research
	CI4	Academic research institutions support you in sharing medical data
Data transparency	DT1	Doctors and other authorized personnel can access the data	Yang(2014) O’Malley et al.(2009)
	DT2	Data can be used for various purposes such as research and medical decisionmaking
	DT3	The methods for obtaining and processing medical data are open and transparent
	DT4	Medical institutions and professionals are responsible for the accuracy and security of the data
Individual innovation	II1	You enjoy trying new ways to carry out academic practice	Agarwal(1998) Goldsmith(2002) Yen(2020)
	II2	You are willing to try to obtain the required data through medical data sharing at the first time
	II3	You were among the first in the research team to share medical data
	II4	You often use shared data for clinical research
Self efficacy	SE1	You believe that you can obtain the data you want	He & Chang(2014)
	SE2	You believe that through your efforts, you can achieve medical data sharing
	SE3	When sharing medical data, you have multiple ways to overcome difficulties
	SE4	You will feel confident in participating in the sharing of medical data
Sharing intention	SI1	You are willing to participate in the medical data sharing activities	Bock(2005) Taylor(1995)
	SI2	You are willing to use data generated by other medical institutions in accordance with ethical and regulatory requirements
	SI3	You are willing to pay for high-quality medical data
	SI4	You are willing to promote the importance of medical data sharing to your colleagues and classmates around you
Sharing behavior	SB1	You often participate in medical data sharing activities
	SB2	You regularly browse the data on the medical data sharing platform
	SB3	You often use the data on the medical data sharing platform
	SB4	You participate in training or meetings related to data sharing

Hypotheses test results_

Hypotheses	Path	β	t	P	Test results
H1	Performance expectation → Sharing intention	0.195	2.098	*	Support
H2	Effort expectation → Sharing intention	0.336	4.145	***	Support
H3	Trust → Sharing intention	-0.086	-0.874	0.382	nonsupport
H4	Community Impact → Sharing intention	0.175	2.171	*	Support
H5	Data Transparency → Sharing intention	0.181	2.179	*	Support
H6	Trust → Sharing behavior	0.199	2.935	**	Support
H7	Sharing intention → Sharing behavior	0.199	2.892	**	Support
H8	Individual innovation → Sharing behavior	0.249	3.457	***	Support
H9	Self efficacy → Sharing behavior	0.240	3.741	***	Support

Influencing factors and group differences in medical data sharing in clinical research scenarios

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Differences in constructs of shared experiences_

Confirmatory factor analysis results_

Single factor ANOVA test results_

Differential validity test results_

Scales and supporting literature

Hypotheses test results_

Paradigm

My account