ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2018
Returning research results: caregivers' reactions following computerized cognitive training among childhood cancer survivors.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current global practice and implications for future research on disseminating health research results to study participants: A systematic review.PLoS medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Closing the Feedback Loop: Improving Communication of Findings With Aboriginal Research Participants Through Participatory Action Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review.Trials · 2021Article
- Health researchers' experiences, perceptions and barriers related to sharing study results with participants.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew researchers routinely disseminate results to participants; however, there is increasing acknowledgment that benefits of returning results outweigh potential risks. Our objective was to determine whether use of specific guidelines developed by the Children's Oncology Group (COG) when preparing a lay summary would aid in understanding results. Specifically, to determine if caregivers of childhood cancer survivors found a lay summary comprehensive, easy to understand, and helpful following participation in a computerized cognitive training program.
methodsIn a previous study, 68 childhood survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia or brain tumor with identified cognitive deficits were randomly assigned to participate in a computerized cognitive intervention or assigned to a wait list. Following conclusion of this study, participants' caregivers were contacted and provided with a summary of results based on COG guidelines and survey. Forty-three participants returned the surveys, examining caregivers' interpretation of the summary, reaction to the results, and information regarding preference for receiving results.
resultsCaregivers reported results as important (93%), helpful (93%), easy to understand (98%), and relevant to their child (91%). They interpreted the results as generally positive, with many caregivers endorsing satisfaction (84%); however, concern of long-term implications was expressed (25%). Most preferred receiving results through postal letter (88%) or email (47%).
conclusionsBenefits of returning research results to families appear to outweigh potential negative consequences. Returning results may help inform families when making future health care-related decisions. There is a great need to develop and assess the utility of guidelines for returning research results.
Indexed as
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.