ArticleBMJ open2012
Disseminating results to clinical trial participants: a qualitative review of patient understanding in a post-trial population.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Current global practice and implications for future research on disseminating health research results to study participants: A systematic review.PLoS medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Patient perspective of Hesitancies and strategies to increase cancer clinical trial participation.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Disseminating complex primary outcome results from a community-randomised trial to Zambian communities: lessons learned using a community dialogue approach in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial.The lancet. HIV · 2022Review
- Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review.Trials · 2021Article
- Mobile and Traditional Modes of Communication Among Male Latino Farmworkers: Implications for Health Communication and Dissemination.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2016Article
- Article
- Barriers and opportunities for enhancing patient recruitment and retention in clinical research: findings from an interview study in an NHS academic health science centre.Health research policy and systems · 2015Article
- Dissemination of research findings to research participants living with HIV in rural Uganda: challenges and rewards.PLoS medicine · 2013Article
- Engaging Study Participants in Research Dissemination at a Center for Population Health and Health Disparities.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and actionArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify the most appropriate format for results dissemination to maximise understanding of trial results.
designQualitative.
settingOf the original 58 4-T trial centres, 34 agreed to take part in this ancillary research.
participantsAll participants from these centres were eligible. All 343 participants were sent questionnaires. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The low response rate meant that we were unable to make any firm conclusions about the patients' preferred method of dissemination; however, we were able to comment on the level of understanding demonstrated by the trial participants.
resultsAll 40 (12%) returned questionnaires were received from 15 centres. We received no questionnaires from over half of the centres. The questionnaires which were returned demonstrated broad satisfaction with the results letter, general enthusiasm for the trial and a variable level of understanding of the results; however, there was a high proportion of responders who were not clear on why the research was undertaken or what the results meant.
conclusionsThe low response rate may be related to delays during the trial set-up process suggesting that interest in a study quickly wanes for both patients and centres. From this we deduce that rapid dissemination of results is needed if it is to have any impact at all. The responders are likely to reflect a biased cohort who were both enthusiastic about the research and who had a good experience during their 3 years in the 4-T trial. It is perhaps not surprising therefore that the overview is positive. That this population was still not fully informed about the purpose of the research would seem to confirm a low level of understanding among the general public which we suggest should be addressed during the consent process.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.