Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34030707›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review.

Hanne Bruhn, Elle-Jay Cowan, Marion K Campbell, Lynda Constable, Seonaidh Cotton, Vikki Entwistle, Rosemary Humphreys, Karen Innes, Sandra Jayacodi, Peter Knapp and 2 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

12 authors.

Hanne BruhnHealth Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Elle-Jay CowanHealth Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Marion K CampbellHealth Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Lynda ConstableHealth Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Seonaidh CottonHealth Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Vikki EntwistleHealth Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Rosemary HumphreysPublic Partner, Devon, UK.
Karen InnesHealth Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Sandra JayacodiPublic Partner, London, UK.
Peter KnappDepartment of Health Sciences, Seebohm Rowntree Building, University of York and the Hull York Medical School, York, UK.
Annabelle SouthMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, 90 High Holborn, London, UK.
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK. k.gillies@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7890-2854

Funding

Academy of Medical Science SBF002\1014Chief Scientist Office CZU/3/3Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/08Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/24Medical Research Council MR/L01193X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identify, collate, and describe the available evidence relating to any aspect of disseminating trial results to participants.

methodsA scoping review was conducted employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from January 2008 to August 2019) to identify studies that had explored any aspect of disseminating results to trial participants. The search strategy was based on that of a linked existing review. The evidence identified describes the characteristics of included studies using narrative description informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics.

resultsThirty-three eligible studies, including 12,700 participants (which included patients, health care professionals, trial teams), were identified and included. Reporting of participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) across the studies was poor. The majority of studies investigated dissemination of aggregate trial results. The most frequently reported mode of disseminating of results was postal. Overall, the results report that participants evaluated receipt of trial results positively, with reported benefits including improved communication, demonstration of appreciation, improved retention, and engagement in future research. However, there were also some concerns about how well the dissemination was resourced and done, worries about emotional effects on participants especially when reporting unfavourable results, and frustration about the delay between the end of the trial and receipt of results.

conclusionsThis scoping review has highlighted that few high-quality evaluative studies have been conducted that can provide evidence on the best ways to deliver results to trial participants. There have been relatively few qualitative studies that explore perspectives from diverse populations, and those that have been conducted are limited to a handful of clinical areas. The learning from these studies can be used as a platform for further research and to consider some core guiding principles of the opportunities and challenges when disseminating trial results to those who participated.

Indexed as

AnxietyHealth PersonnelHumansQualitative ResearchClinical trialsDisseminationParticipantsResults

Identifiers

PMID34030707
PMCPMC8147098

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.