Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39345708›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024

Returning individual research results to participants: Values, preferences, and expectations.

Denise A Kent, Michelle Villegas-Downs, Marina Del Rios, Michael Freedman, Jerry A Krishnan, Martha G Menchaca, Crystal L Patil, Jenny Sculley, Nathan Tintle, Lynn B Gerald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Return of Research Results to Participants in Longitudinal Cohort Studies in Health Research: Findings From 24 Cohorts of the Amsterdam Cohort Hub.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Navigating the challenges of NT-proBNP result disclosure in clinical research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025
    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

10 authors.

Denise A KentDepartment of Biobehavioral Nursing Science, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9097-3372
Michelle Villegas-DownsDepartment of Human Development Nursing Science, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Marina Del RiosDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Michael FreedmanBreathe Chicago Center, Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep and Allergy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Jerry A KrishnanBreathe Chicago Center, Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep and Allergy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Martha G MenchacaDepartment of Radiology, University of Illinois Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Crystal L PatilDepartment of Health Behavior and Biological Sciences, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Jenny SculleyOffice of Population Health Sciences, Office of the Vice Chancellor of Health Affairs, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Nathan TintleDepartment of Population Health Nursing Science, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Lynn B GeraldBreathe Chicago Center, Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep and Allergy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/objective: Disclosing individual research results to participants is not standard practice. The return of individual research results to participants may increase recruitment, retention, and engagement in research. This study's objective was to explore the preferences, expectations, and experiences of research participants receiving individual research results. Methods: A mixed-methods approach, consisting of semi-structured interviews and a health literacy assessment, was used with participants enrolled in a cohort study. The interviews were analyzed to produce an understanding of current experiences. Using descriptive analyses, responses were compared to identify alignments and divergences among participants. Results: Forty-three English-speaking and 16 Spanish-speaking participants enrolled. Ninety-eight percent of participants wanted to receive their individual research results. Seventy-five percent of participants reported they shared results with their healthcare providers. More participants aged 18-65 reported the need to follow up with their provider (70%) as compared to participants > 65 (20%). Two-thirds of participants reported a positive experience receiving their research results; however, 22% reported anxiety and worry. Most participants (69%) described the electronic medical record (EMR) as their preferred method for receiving their results. Yet only 50% of Spanish speakers preferred receiving research results through the EMR compared to 77% of English speakers. Participants with low health literacy preferred receiving study results in person or by phone. Conclusion: Research participants value receiving their individual research results, and this may increase recruitment and retention within the research enterprise. While more research is needed, the lessons learned from this study lay the groundwork for developing best practices and policies around the return of individual research results.

Indexed as

engagement research benefitsparticipant-centered researchrecruitmentretentionReturn of individual research resultstrust in research

Identifiers

PMID39345708
PMCPMC11428116

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.