BACKGROUND: Researchers have a moral responsibility to offer to return research results to participants, but the needs and attitudes of parents and adolescents with cancer in paediatric oncology regarding the issue are relatively unknown. OBJECTIVES: To explore the needs of potential research participants or their guardians with respect to the offer of a return of research results. METHODS: A questionnaire was used in a focus group and in telephone interviews with eight adolescents and 12 parents of children with cancer. The participants were asked to respond to the questions and to comment on the inclusiveness of the questionnaire. RESULTS: The majority of participants (18 of 20) wished to receive research results. Two somewhat unexpected findings are described. First, all participants in the present study felt that it was the primary responsibility of the participant to retain contact with the researchers for the purpose of obtaining research results. Second, few participants (n=2) indicated that the Internet would be a satisfactory way of transmitting these results. One-half of the participants wished to have face-to-face communication of results. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide preliminary guidance for the return of research results to participants and validate the use of the questionnaire in a larger study of this issue.
BACKGROUND: Researchers have a moral responsibility to offer to return research results to participants, but the needs and attitudes of parents and adolescents with cancer in paediatric oncology regarding the issue are relatively unknown. OBJECTIVES: To explore the needs of potential research participants or their guardians with respect to the offer of a return of research results. METHODS: A questionnaire was used in a focus group and in telephone interviews with eight adolescents and 12 parents of children with cancer. The participants were asked to respond to the questions and to comment on the inclusiveness of the questionnaire. RESULTS: The majority of participants (18 of 20) wished to receive research results. Two somewhat unexpected findings are described. First, all participants in the present study felt that it was the primary responsibility of the participant to retain contact with the researchers for the purpose of obtaining research results. Second, few participants (n=2) indicated that the Internet would be a satisfactory way of transmitting these results. One-half of the participants wished to have face-to-face communication of results. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide preliminary guidance for the return of research results to participants and validate the use of the questionnaire in a larger study of this issue.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ethics; Focus group; Participants; Questionnaire; Research results
Authors: Ann H Partridge; Harold J Burstein; Rebecca S Gelman; P Kelly Marcom; Eric P Winer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-03-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Hasnain Dalal; Jennifer Wingham; Colin Pritchard; Sharon Northey; Philip Evans; Rod S Taylor; John Campbell Journal: Health Expect Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Conrad Vincent Fernandez; Jun Gao; Caron Strahlendorf; Albert Moghrabi; Rebecca Davis Pentz; Raymond Carlton Barfield; Justin Nathaniel Baker; Darcy Santor; Charles Weijer; Eric Kodish Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ellen Wright Clayton; Maureen Smith; Stephanie M Fullerton; Wylie Burke; Catherine A McCarty; Barbara A Koenig; Amy L McGuire; Laura M Beskow; Lynn Dressler; Amy A Lemke; Erin M Ramos; Laura Lyman Rodriguez Journal: Genet Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Stephen Brealey; Lazaros Andronis; Laura Dennis; Christine Atwell; Stirling Bryan; Simon Coulton; Helen Cox; Ben Cross; Fiona Fylan; Andrew Garratt; Fiona Gilbert; Maureen Gillan; Maggie Hendry; Kerenza Hood; Helen Houston; David King; Veronica Morton; Michael Robling; Ian Russell; Clare Wilkinson Journal: Trials Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Erin D Harris; Sonja I Ziniel; Jonathan G Amatruda; Catherine M Clinton; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Noelle L Huntington; Robert C Green; Ingrid A Holm Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 8.822