ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
How do study participants want to be informed about study results: Findings from a malaria trial in Cambodia, Ethiopia, Pakistan, and Indonesia.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. 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.
- Current global practice and implications for future research on disseminating health research results to study participants: A systematic review.PLoS medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Dissemination of trial results to study participants in Cambodia, Ethiopia and Pakistan: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Trial
- Community perceptions, trust, and experiences of malaria clinical research and participation in rural Cambodia.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Article
- Risk perceptions of high-dose primaquine and tafenoquine amongBMJ global health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Researchers acknowledge the need to share study results with the patients and their communities, but this is not done consistently due to a plethora of barriers, including a paucity of data to guide best practice approaches in different populations. Methods: This study was nested within a large multi-center randomized controlled trial of antimalaria treatment. Data on dissemination preferences were collected at the third-month follow-up visit using a short questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and subsequently fed into an iterative process with key stakeholders, to develop suitable strategies for result dissemination. Results: A total of 960 patients were enrolled in the trial, of whom 84.0% participated in the nested survey. A total of 601 (74.6%) participants indicated interest in receiving trial results. There was significant heterogeneity by study country, with 33.3% (58/174) of patients indicating being interested in Cambodia, 100% (334/334) in Ethiopia, 97.7% (209/214) in Pakistan, but none (0/85) in Indonesia. The preferred method of dissemination varied by site, with community meetings, favored in Ethiopia (79.0%, 264/334) and individualized communication such as a letter (27.6%, 16/58) or phone calls (37.9%, 22/58) in Cambodia. Dissemination strategies were designed with key stakeholders and based on patient preferences but required adaptation to accommodate local logistical challenges. Conclusion: The varying preferences observed across different sites underscore that a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate. Strategies can be tailored to patient preference but require adaptation to accommodate logistical challenges.
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.