ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026
Preferences of research participants with experience receiving individual results for future return of results.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Research participants express strong desires to receive their individual research results (IRR), consistent with key ethical principles of research. Participants' preferences, especially when based on past experiences with IRR, can help in formulating approaches to the process. Methods: Participants ( Results: Respondents indicated that receiving results would be very important in their decisions about future studies; 64.9% gave it the highest importance rating. They wanted IRR to improve their own and their families' health. Concerns about risks were low. Most said they were likely to share the information with other people. Respondents preferred receiving results from health professionals associated with the study, as opposed to their own physicians. They favored return by email and videoconferencing, as opposed to in-person visits or mail. Respondents desired information in various formats to help them understand and act on the results. Conclusions: These results underscore the importance that research participants place on IRR and provide guidance on the best ways to provide them. A strength of these findings is that they reflect the experiences of respondents who already received IRR. Investigators should consider how best to offer IRR to their participants; funders should provide appropriate support for the process.
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.