Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Assessing research participant preferences for receiving study results

  • Sarah Cook (a1), Stephanie Mayers (a1), Kathryn Goggins (a2), David Schlundt (a3), Kemberlee Bonnet (a3), Neely Williams (a4), Donald Alcendor (a5) and Shari Barkin (a6)...

Abstract

Introduction:

Dissemination of results to research participants is largely missing from the practices of most researchers. Few resources exist that describe best practices for disseminating information to this important stakeholder group.

Methods:

Four focus groups were conducted with a diverse group of individuals. All participants were part of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded survey study. Focus groups aimed to identify participants’ preferences about receiving research results and their reactions to three different dissemination platforms.

Results:

Four focus groups with 37 participants were conducted, including: (1) adults with one comorbidity, at least a college education, and high socioeconomic status (SES); (2) adults with one comorbidity, less than a college education, and lower SES; (3) adults with low health literacy and/or numeracy; and (4) Black or African American adults. Participants discussed their preferences for research results delivery and how each of the platforms met those preferences. This included information needs as they relate to content and scope, including a desire to receive both individual and aggregate results, and study summaries. Email, paper, and website were all popular avenues of presentation. Some desired a written summary, and others preferred videos or visual graphics. Importantly, participants emphasized the desire for having a choice in the timing, frequency, and types of results.

Conclusion:

Research participants prefer to receive research results, including study impact and key findings, disseminated to them in an engaging format that allows choice of when and how the information is presented. The results encourage new standards whereby research participants are considered a critical stakeholder group.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Assessing research participant preferences for receiving study results
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Assessing research participant preferences for receiving study results
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Assessing research participant preferences for receiving study results
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: S. Cook, MPH, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Ave, Suite 600, Nashville, TN 37203, USA. Email: sarah.k.cook@vumc.org

References

Hide All
1. Mathematica Policy Research. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) dissemination & implementation toolkit [Internet], 2015 [cited Sept 2018]. (https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-DI-Toolkit-February-2015.pdf)
2. Learning Collaborative for Implementation Science in Global Brain Disorders. Toolkit Part 3: dissemination strategies in evidence-based policy and practice [Internet], n.d. [cited Sept 2018]. (https://www.fic.nih.gov/About/center-global-health-studies/neuroscience-implementation-toolkit/Pages/dissemination.aspx)
3. Fernandez, CV, Kodish, E, Weijer, C. Informing study participants of research results: an ethical imperative. IRB 2003; 25(3): 1219.
4. Fernandez, CV, et al. Offering to return results to research participants: attitudes and needs of principal investigators in the children’s oncology group. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 2003; 25(9): 704708.
5. Shalowitz, DI, Miller, FG. Disclosing individual results of clinical research – implications of respect for participants. JAMA 2005; 294(6): 737740.
6. Long, CR, et al. Health researchers’ experiences, perceptions and barriers related to sharing study results with participants. Health Research Policy and Systems 2019; 17(1): 25. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0422-5
7. Cox, K, et al. Feedback of trial results to participants:a survey of clinicians’ and patients’ attitudes and experiences. European Journal of Oncology Nursing 2011; 15(2): 124129. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2010.06.009
8. Long, CR, et al. Health research participants’ preferences for receiving research results. Clinical Trials 2016; 13(6): 582591. doi: 10.1177/1740774516665598
9. Partridge, AH, Winer, EP. Informing clinical trial participants about study results. JAMA 2002; 288(3): 363365. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.3.363
10. Purvis, RS, et al. Qualitative study of participants’ perceptions and preferences regarding research dissemination. AJOB Empirical Bioethics 2017; 8(2): 6974. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2017.1310146
11. Wong, CA, Hernandez, AF, Califf, RM. Return of research results to study participants: uncharted and untested. JAMA 2018; 320(5): 435436. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.7898
12. Tong, A, Sainsbury, P, Craig, J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2007; 19(6): 349357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
13. Fereday, J, Muir-Cochrane, E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006; 5, 8092. doi: 10.1177/160940690600500107
14. Kreuter, MW, McClure, SM. The role of culture in health communication. Annual Review of Public Health 2004; 25(1): 439455. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.101802.123000
15. Green, LW, et al. Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annual Review of Public Health 2009; 30(1): 151174. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100049
16. Shalowitz, DI, Miller, FG. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions. PloS Med 2008; 5(5): e91. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050091
17. Renegar, G, et al. Returning genetic research results to individuals: points-to-consider. Bioethics 2006; 20(1): 2436.
18. Bredenoord, AL, et al. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends in Genetics 2011; 27(2): 4147. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2010.11.004
19. Milner, LC, Liu, EY, Garrison, NA. Relationships matter: ethical considerations for returning results to family members of deceased subjects. The American Journal of Bioethics 2013; 13(10): 6667. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2013.828533
20. Wilfond, BS, Carpenter, KJ. Incidental findings in pediatric research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2008; 36(2): 332340. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00277.x
21. National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Returning individual research results to participants: guidance for a new research paradigm. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2018.
22. Chen, MS, et al. Twenty years post-NIH Revitalization Act: renewing the case for enhancing minority participation in cancer clinical trials. Cancer 2014; 120(7): 10911096. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28575
23. Durant, RW, et al. Perspectives on barriers and facilitators to minority recruitment for clinical trials among cancer center leaders, investigators, research staff and referring clinicians. Cancer 2014; 120(7): 10971105. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28574
24. Ford, JG, et al. Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Cancer 2008; 112(2): 228242. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23157
25. George, S, Duran, N, Norris, K. A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. American Journal of Public Health 2014; 104(2): e16e31. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301706
26. Sharrocks, K, et al. The impact of socioeconomic status on access to cancer clinical trials. British Journal of Cancer 2014; 111(9): 16841687. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.10
27. Wendler, D, et al. Are racial and ethnic minorities less willing to participate in health research? PloS Medicine 2006; 3(2): e19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030019
28. McDavitt, B, et al. Dissemination as dialogue: building trust and sharing research findings through community engagement. Preventing Chronic Disease 2016; 13: 150473. doi: 10.5888/pcd13.150473
29. Wilkins, CH, et al. Understanding what information is valued by research participants, and why. Health Affairs 2019; 38(3): 399407. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05046

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Cook et al. supplementary material
Cook et al. supplementary material

 Word (41 KB)
41 KB

Assessing research participant preferences for receiving study results

  • Sarah Cook (a1), Stephanie Mayers (a1), Kathryn Goggins (a2), David Schlundt (a3), Kemberlee Bonnet (a3), Neely Williams (a4), Donald Alcendor (a5) and Shari Barkin (a6)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed