Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21272336›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2011

Response to written feedback of clinical data within a longitudinal study: a qualitative study exploring the ethical implications.

Karen Lorimer, Cindy M Gray, Kate Hunt, Sally Wyke, Annie Anderson, Michaela Benzeval

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Recommendations for the return of research results to study participants and guardians: a report from the Children's Oncology Group.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2012
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Identifying Issues and Priorities in Reporting Back Environmental Health Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Karen LorimerMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, 4 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK.
Cindy M Gray
Kate Hunt
Sally Wyke
Annie Anderson
Michaela Benzeval

Funding

Cancer Research UK C10677/A15032Medical Research Council MC_U130085862Medical Research Council MC_UP_A540_1021Medical Research Council WBS U.1300.80.001.00001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a growing ethical imperative to feedback research results to participants but there remains a striking lack of empirical research on how people respond to individualised feedback. We sought to explore longitudinal study participants' response to receiving individual written feedback of weight-related and blood results, and to consider the balance of harms against benefits.

methodsA qualitative study with face-to-face and telephone interviews conducted with 50 men and women who had participated in the fifth and most recent wave of the cohort study 'West of Scotland Twenty-07' and received a feedback letter containing body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage, cholesterol and glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) results.

resultsExpectations of, and response to, the feedback of their individual results varied. Whilst half of the participants were on the whole 'pleased' with their results or held neutral views, half reported negative responses such as 'shock' or 'concern', particularly in relation to the weight-related results. Participants who were overweight and obese used the most negative language about their results, with some being quite distressed and reporting feelings of powerlessness, low self-image and anxiety over future health. Nevertheless, some people reported having implemented lifestyle changes in direct response to the feedback, resulting in significant weight-loss and/or dietary improvements. Others reported being motivated to change their behaviour. Age and gender differences were apparent in these narratives of behaviour change.

conclusionsThe potential harm caused to some participants may be balanced against the benefit to others. More evaluation of the impact of the format, content and means of individualised feedback of research findings in non-trial studies is required given the growing ethical imperative to offer participants a choice of receiving their results, and the likelihood that a high percentage will choose to receive them.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchFeedback, PsychologicalAdipose TissueAdultAnxietyBody Mass IndexCholesterolFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedResearch ReportRisk AssessmentTruth DisclosureCholesterolGlycated Hemoglobin

Identifiers

PMID21272336
PMCPMC3041784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.