Literature DB >> 21730081

Providing the results of research to participants: a mixed-method study of the benefits and challenges of a consultative approach.

Mary Dixon-Woods1, Carolyn Tarrant, Clare J Jackson, David R Jones, Sara Kenyon.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: How best to provide the findings of research to study participants remains poorly understood.
PURPOSE: We aimed to develop, deliver, and evaluate a consultative approach to inform provision of feedback about research findings to participants in the Oracle Children Study (OCS). The OCS had identified adverse outcomes for some children whose mothers had been prescribed antibiotics as part of a trial in pregnancy.
METHODS: An iterative process, including focus groups with OCS participants and consultation with other OCS stakeholders, was used to inform the development of a feedback package, including a results leaflet, for OCS participants. A questionnaire survey of participants' reactions to receiving the results leaflet was conducted. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample test was used to compare responses between different groups of respondents. Analysis of open-ended comments on the questionnaire was based on the constant comparative method.
RESULTS: Three focus groups with study participants provided insight into the potential emotional impact of receiving the results and into how the results might most clearly be explained. Negotiations with other stakeholders identified other priorities, including the need for scientific credibility. These multiple needs had to be balanced. The results leaflet was posted to all 4676 UK OCS participants. Survey responses were received from 1124 (25%) of participants. They indicated that the feedback was mostly well received by participants. Those whose children were affected by conditions associated with increased risk from trial participation were more likely to experience emotional distress on receiving the trial results, but there was also evidence of some other unanticipated impacts. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by the low response rate to the survey.
CONCLUSIONS: Important lessons can be learned from using a consultative approach to developing feedback about research results for study participants. Especially where the findings are unwelcome, feedback development may involve methodological, ethical, emotional, and practical challenges, be resource-intensive, and need early planning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21730081     DOI: 10.1177/1740774511403514

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  12 in total

1.  The relative importance of information items and preferred mode of delivery when disseminating results from trials to participants: A mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Jessica Wood; Seonaidh C Cotton; Katie Gillies
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 3.318

2.  The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble.

Authors:  Pam Carter; Graeme T Laurie; Mary Dixon-Woods
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 3.  Sharing the Knowledge: Sharing Aggregate Genomic Findings with Research Participants in Developing Countries.

Authors:  Angeliki Kerasidou
Journal:  Dev World Bioeth       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 2.294

4.  Consent revisited: the impact of return of results on participants' views and expectations about trial participation.

Authors:  Carolyn Tarrant; Clare Jackson; Mary Dixon-Woods; Sarah McNicol; Sara Kenyon; Natalie Armstrong
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 5.  Engaging children and families in pediatric Health Research: a scoping review.

Authors:  Rachel Flynn; Sarah Walton; Shannon D Scott
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2019-11-04

6.  Identifying Issues and Priorities in Reporting Back Environmental Health Data.

Authors:  Erin Lebow-Skelley; Sarah Yelton; Brandi Janssen; Esther Erdei; Melanie A Pearson
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Informed consent in genomic research and biobanking: taking feedback of findings seriously.

Authors:  Paulina Tindana; Cornelius Depuur; Jantina de Vries; Janet Seeley; Michael Parker
Journal:  Glob Bioeth       Date:  2020-02-23

Review 8.  Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review.

Authors:  Hanne Bruhn; Elle-Jay Cowan; Marion K Campbell; Lynda Constable; Seonaidh Cotton; Vikki Entwistle; Rosemary Humphreys; Karen Innes; Sandra Jayacodi; Peter Knapp; Annabelle South; Katie Gillies
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Practices and Attitudes toward Returning Genomic Research Results to Low-Resource Research Participants.

Authors:  Megan B Raymond; Kayla E Cooper; Lisa S Parker; Vence L Bonham
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 2.132

10.  Qualitative and mixed methods research in trials.

Authors:  Claire Snowdon
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.