ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Participant engagement and feedback in microbiome projects: a case of AWI-Gen 2.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Returning individualized microbiome results in ways that are ethical, comprehensible, and useful remains under-explored in African settings. We nested a multi-site, mixed-methods study within the AWI-Gen Wave 2 gut microbiome sub-study of 1,801 women aged 42 - 86 years to engage the participants and provide feedback. All (1,001) participants from Agincourt and Soweto (South Africa) and Nairobi (Kenya) were invited to feedback meetings: 496 from Agincourt, 87 from Soweto, and 195 from Nairobi responded. Engagement strategies were tailored by site (small-group and home-based sessions, visual metaphors, Foldscopes, and local-language delivery). Using semi-structured discussions and structured observations analysed thematically in MAXQDA under COREQ, five cross-cutting themes emerged: (1) understanding of microbiome reports, (2) emotional responses to feedback, (3) perceived health relevance, (4) trust in research institutions, and (5) suggestions for improving engagement. Culturally grounded explanations and local-language facilitation enhanced comprehension and perceived relevance; English-heavy sessions were associated with more confusion. Most participants expressed satisfaction and described planned or enacted dietary and lifestyle changes, while frustration centred on long delays between sampling and feedback. Trust increased with transparency and individualized return of results but was often conditional on minimizing burdensome procedures such as repeat blood sampling (phlebotomy) and ensuring timely feedback. Engagement was feasible and low-cost (approximately USD 29-59 per participant) with site-specific resource needs. Limitations included constrained generalizability beyond the three study sites. Returning individualized microbiome findings in community settings in Africa is acceptable, feasible, and can motivate health-promoting behaviours when delivered promptly and in culturally and linguistically appropriate ways.
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.