Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40811427›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2025

Current global practice and implications for future research on disseminating health research results to study participants: A systematic review.

Mary Bagita-Vangana, Holger W Unger, Kamala Thriemer

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Mary Bagita-VanganaUniversity of Melbourne, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5460-274X
Holger W UngerGlobal and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research and Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6347-536X
Kamala ThriemerGlobal and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research and Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7536-7497

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDisseminating research findings to study participants is a critical component of clinical research. There is evidence that dissemination strengthens social relations and understanding between researchers and participants and their communities, and it is increasingly required by funding bodies. However, there is limited funding support for and guidance on the implementation of dissemination of research results to study participants. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a systematic review to describe the current global practice of dissemination of aggregate research results to study participants. The databases Medline (OVID), Embase, and CINAHL were searched to identify publications published from January 1, 2008, to June 17, 2025. Primary quantitative studies including randomized control trials, retrospective or prospective cohorts, cross-sectional, case-control or case series studies or studies within a trial or nested cohort studies as well as qualitative and mixed-methods studies reporting on the predefined outcomes in English language were included. A total of 96 studies met the inclusion criteria: 38 were qualitative, 30 were quantitative, and 28 were mixed-methods studies. Most studies concentrated on dissemination of broad health-related research (n = 28; 29%), followed by cancer research (n = 18; 19%) and genetics (n = 17; 18%). Data were extracted and analyzed based on an a priori developed thematic framework. Most participants expected researchers to share results regardless of study outcomes. Many participants viewed receiving results as essential for fostering trust with researchers, feeling valued for their contributions, and fulfilling ethical obligations. Many researchers saw sharing results as a moral duty, especially when participants had limited access to scientific knowledge. The most common method for disseminating results was mailing lay summaries or result letters to participants. Group presentations and workshops were predominantly used in lower income countries. Identified barriers and enablers to result dissemination included researcher attitudes and communication skills, logistics and resources, institutional guidance, and ethical and cultural considerations. Impact of dissemination on research findings included improving health literacy, increased understanding of research, and trust in research. Synthesis of the literature is challenging given the heterogeneity of the studies included.

conclusionsResult dissemination is an integral component of modern clinical research practice and appears to translate into a broad range of benefits in most circumstances. The current lack of agreement on what constitutes best practice will need to be addressed. The design of frameworks to guide the conduct of dissemination, which are now in early development, require validation in a range of settings, populations and clinical domains. Further work on approaches to dissemination of research findings in lower-middle income countries is required.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchInformation DisseminationHumans

Identifiers

PMID40811427
PMCPMC12352677

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.