Returning individual research results to participants: Values, preferences, and expectations

被引:0
|
作者
Kent, Denise A. [1 ,2 ]
Villegas-Downs, Michelle [3 ]
Del Rios, Marina [4 ]
Freedman, Michael [2 ]
Krishnan, Jerry A. [2 ,5 ]
Menchaca, Martha G. [6 ]
Patil, Crystal L. [7 ]
Sculley, Jenny [5 ]
Tintle, Nathan [8 ]
Gerald, Lynn B. [2 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Dept Biobehav Nursing Sci, Chicago, IL 60607 USA
[2] Univ Illinois, Breathe Chicago Ctr, Dept Med, Div Pulm Crit Care Sleep & Allergy, Chicago, IL 60607 USA
[3] Univ Illinois, Dept Human Dev Nursing Sci, Chicago, IL USA
[4] Univ Iowa Hosp & Clin, Dept Emergency Med, Iowa City, IA USA
[5] Univ Illinois, Off Populat Hlth Sci, Off Vice Chancellor Hlth Affairs, Chicago, IL USA
[6] Univ Illinois, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Chicago, IL USA
[7] Univ Michigan, Sch Nursing, Dept Hlth Behav & Biol Sci, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[8] Univ Illinois, Dept Populat Hlth Nursing Sci, Chicago, IL USA
关键词
Return of individual research results; recruitment; retention; engagement research benefits; trust in research; participant-centered research;
D O I
10.1017/cts.2024.568
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background/objective: Disclosing individual research results to participants is not standard practice. The return of individual research results to participants may increase recruitment, retention, and engagement in research. This study's objective was to explore the preferences, expectations, and experiences of research participants receiving individual research results. Methods: A mixed-methods approach, consisting of semi-structured interviews and a health literacy assessment, was used with participants enrolled in a cohort study. The interviews were analyzed to produce an understanding of current experiences. Using descriptive analyses, responses were compared to identify alignments and divergences among participants. Results: Forty-three English-speaking and 16 Spanish-speaking participants enrolled. Ninety-eight percent of participants wanted to receive their individual research results. Seventy-five percent of participants reported they shared results with their healthcare providers. More participants aged 18-65 reported the need to follow up with their provider (70%) as compared to participants > 65 (20%). Two-thirds of participants reported a positive experience receiving their research results; however, 22% reported anxiety and worry. Most participants (69%) described the electronic medical record (EMR) as their preferred method for receiving their results. Yet only 50% of Spanish speakers preferred receiving research results through the EMR compared to 77% of English speakers. Participants with low health literacy preferred receiving study results in person or by phone. Conclusion: Research participants value receiving their individual research results, and this may increase recruitment and retention within the research enterprise. While more research is needed, the lessons learned from this study lay the groundwork for developing best practices and policies around the return of individual research results.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Undesirable implications of disclosing individual genetic results to research participants
    Meltzer, Leslie A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, 2006, 6 (06): : 28 - 30
  • [32] Feedback of Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants: Is It Feasible in Europe?
    Budin-Ljosne, Isabelle
    Mascalzoni, Deborah
    Soini, Sirpa
    Machado, Helena
    Kaye, Jane
    Bentzen, Heidi Beate
    Rial-Sebbag, Emmanuelle
    D'Abramo, Flavio
    Witt, Michal
    Schamps, Genevieve
    Katic, Visnja
    Krajnovic, Dusanca
    Harris, Jennifer R.
    BIOPRESERVATION AND BIOBANKING, 2016, 14 (03) : 241 - 248
  • [33] Views of Cohort Study Participants about Returning Research Results in the Context of Precision Medicine
    Hyams, Travis
    Bowen, Deborah J.
    Condit, Celeste
    Grossman, Jeremy
    Fitzmaurice, Megan
    Goodman, Deborah
    Wenzel, Lari
    Edwards, Karen L.
    PUBLIC HEALTH GENOMICS, 2016, 19 (05) : 269 - 275
  • [34] Best Practices for Returning Genomics Research Results to Participants, with a Special Focus on Marginalized Populations
    Miller, Grace V.
    Grogan, Kathleen E.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 2022, 177 : 125 - 125
  • [35] 'It is a complex process, but it's very important to return these results to participants'. Stakeholders' perspectives on the ethical considerations for returning individual pharmacogenomics research results to people living with HIV
    Nabukenya, Sylvia
    Kyaddondo, David
    Twimukye, Adelline
    Munabi, Ian Guyton
    Waitt, Catriona
    Mwaka, Erisa S.
    RESEARCH ETHICS, 2024, 20 (02) : 363 - 387
  • [36] Understanding preferences for disclosure of individual biomarker results among participants in a longitudinal birth cohort
    Wilson, Stephen E.
    Baker, Erin R.
    Leonard, Anthony C.
    Eckman, Mark H.
    Lanphear, Bruce P.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2010, 36 (12) : 736 - 740
  • [37] Communicating and disseminating research findings to study participants: Formative assessment of participant and researcher expectations and preferences
    Melvin, Cathy L.
    Harvey, Jillian
    Pittman, Tara
    Gentilin, Stephanie
    Burshell, Dana
    Kelechi, Teresa
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE, 2020, 4 (03) : 233 - 242
  • [38] Considerations of Autonomy in Guiding Decisions around the Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results from Genomics Research: Expectations of and Preferences from Researchers in Botswana
    Kasule, Mary
    Matshaba, Mogomotsi
    Mwaka, Erisa
    Wonkam, Ambroise
    de Vries, Jantina
    GLOBAL HEALTH EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENOMICS, 2022, 2022
  • [39] Returning Individual Research Results Regarding Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain Is the Preferable Choice
    Huang, Caroline J.
    Bandettini, W. Patricia
    Danis, Marion
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, 2019, 19 (04): : 77 - 78
  • [40] Population biobanks and returning individual research results: mission impossible or new directions?
    Wallace, Susan E.
    Kent, Alastair
    HUMAN GENETICS, 2011, 130 (03) : 393 - 401