ArticleBMJ open2025
Dissemination of study results to participants in mental health research: a meta-research review of studies published in high-impact psychiatry journals.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe surveyed authors of publications in high-impact psychiatry journals to assess the (1) proportion that disseminated results to study participants or others with lived experience, and, among those who disseminated, (2) methods (eg, email) and (3) tools (eg, plain-language summary) used.
designMeta-research review. DATA SOURCE: PubMed search on 14 December 2022 and emails to study authors for information on dissemination. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies collected primary human data and were published in psychiatry journals with 2021 impact factor ≥10. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study information was extracted by one investigator and validated by a second investigator, with conflicts resolved by consensus, with a third investigator consulted as necessary. We emailed authors approximately 2 years post-publication to ensure sufficient time had passed to share results. We estimated the proportion of authors that may have disseminated results to participants or others with lived experience, assuming that non-respondents (1) did not disseminate, (2) were half as likely to disseminate as respondents or (3) disseminated in the same proportion as respondents.
resultsOf 141 studies, 94 (67%) authors responded. Among respondents, 21 (22%) reported disseminating to study participants, and an additional 9 (10%) reported disseminating lay materials to people with lived experience (total of 30 studies, 32%). Overall, we estimated that 15% (95% CI 10% to 22%) to 23% (95% CI 17% to 30%) of authors may have disseminated results directly to study participants and 21% (95% CI 15% to 29%) to 32% (95% CI 25% to 40%) to participants or others with lived experience. Among the 30 that reported disseminating, the most common methods were sending mail or emails to study participants (17 studies, 57%) and posting on social media (15 studies, 50%). The most common tools were plain-language summaries (22 studies, 73%) and webinars or other meetings (15 studies, 50%).
conclusionsDissemination of results to participants in mental health research is uncommon. Funding agencies, ethics committees, journals and academic institutions should support dissemination.
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.