Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39030726›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025

Principles and practices of returning individual research results to participants in large studies of pregnancy and childhood.

Clay Mash, Kimberly A McAllister, Sundania Wonnum, Ashley J Vargas, Gaya Dowling, S Sonia Arteaga, Carol J Blaisdell, Kristina K Hardy, Irene Prabhu Das, Tonse N K Raju and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Not whether but how: the ethics and Language of reporting back individual results.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
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

11 authors.

Clay MashEnvironmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Program, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, North Bethesda, MD 20852, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8297-7004
Kimberly A McAllisterNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Durham, NC 27709, United States.
Sundania WonnumNational Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, United States.
Ashley J VargasEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, United States.
Gaya DowlingNational Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, North Bethesda, MD 20852, United States.
S Sonia ArteagaEnvironmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Program, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, North Bethesda, MD 20852, United States.
Carol J BlaisdellEnvironmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Program, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, North Bethesda, MD 20852, United States.
Kristina K HardyNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, United States.
Irene Prabhu DasAll of Us Research Program, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, North Bethesda, MD 20852, United States.
Tonse N K RajuEnvironmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Program, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, North Bethesda, MD 20852, United States.
Matthew W GillmanEnvironmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Program, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, North Bethesda, MD 20852, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Investigators conducting human subject research have typically conveyed only clinically actionable results back to individual participants. Shifting scientific culture around viewing participants as partners in research, however, is prompting investigators to consider returning as much data or results as the participant would like, even if they are not clearly actionable. Expanding return of individual results may add value for individual participants and their communities, refine future research questions and methods, build trust, and enhance retention of participants. Yet, gaps remain in understanding the implications of these changes for groups of "vulnerable" participants, including pregnant and pediatric participants. Here we present the findings of a National Institutes of Health workshop on returning individual research results, particularly as applicable to pregnant and pediatric participants. Research participants who were panelists at the workshop agreed that they desired to receive their results. Workshop findings and current literature indicate that participants have differing preferences for what results they receive. One way to address the limits of current practice is to develop flexible digital platforms that convey individual results along with researchers' availability to answer questions, and to provide as much information as possible about actionable steps for controlling environmental exposures associated with disease risk.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchInformation DisseminationResearch SubjectsChildFemaleHumansNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)PregnancyUnited Statespractice recommendationspregnant and pediatric participantsresearch resultsreturn of individual research results

Identifiers

PMID39030726
PMCPMC12491858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.