ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
Return of Research Results to Participants in Longitudinal Cohort Studies in Health Research: Findings From 24 Cohorts of the Amsterdam Cohort Hub.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 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
46 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReturning research results to participants is increasingly recognised as part of participant-centred health research. How this is implemented in longitudinal cohort studies is not yet well characterised. This study aims to provide a descriptive overview of current result return practices across diverse cohort studies in the Netherlands.
methodsDrawing on the Amsterdam Cohort Hub, an infrastructure of population-based and patient-based cohorts in the Netherlands, representatives of 24 affiliated cohort studies completed a structured questionnaire administered via individual interviews. The questionnaire covered what results are returned, to whom, when and how. Individual-level and group-level return were distinguished. Cohorts also reported on motivations for returning results and barriers encountered in doing so. Data were summarised descriptively using frequencies.
resultsIndividual-level results beyond incidental findings were returned by 15 cohorts (65.2%), while group-level results were returned by 23 cohorts (96%). Individual-level return primarily involved physical and laboratory measures or was embedded in routine clinical care. Group-level results were mainly shared through newsletters. Practices varied by cohort type and were shaped by ethical considerations and practical constraints. Concerns about participant misinterpretation and limited resources were the most reported barriers.
conclusionReturn of research results is widely practised across cohort studies, but varies considerably in approach, shaped by ethical considerations, perceived communication risks, and financial and practical constraints. This descriptive overview of current practices may serve as a starting point for cohorts seeking to reflect on or develop their own result return procedures. Future research should examine the effects of various forms of result return on participant engagement and retention, as well as the role of participant preferences in shaping these practices. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study includes a descriptive inventory of patient and public involvement in longitudinal cohort studies, in the form of result return practices. The findings are directly relevant to research participants, as they concern how cohort studies communicate research results to the people who contribute their data. The results may inform how cohorts develop and improve their participant communication strategies in the future.
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.