Health research participants' preferences for receiving research results

Dissemination innovation: Using found poetry to return study results to patients and partners facing cancer

Objective

Investigators should return study results to patients and families facing cancer to honor their research contributions. We created a found poem from transcripts of sexual and gender minority (SGM) couples facing cancer and returned it to study participants.

Methods

Participants were randomized to receive the found poem in text, text and audio, audio, or video format, completed dissemination preferences and emotion questionnaires, and open-ended questions about their experience receiving the poem.

Results

Participants preferred the format they received (n = 15, 75.0%), with text-only and combined text and audio formats evoking the greatest number of emotions (n = 13 each). The following categories and subcategories were identified: dyadic experiences (support, strength, depth, durability); dissemination preferences (timing, method); emotion (positive, negative); utility of the found poem (affirming; fostering reflection; not useful or inaccurate, and sense of community). SGM participants utilized positive emotion, affirming, and a sense of community with greater frequency than non-SGM participants.

Conclusion

Innovative approaches to dissemination are acceptable; providing choices in how and when participants receive results may increase engagement; and SGM versus non-SGM groups may describe dyadic experiences differently.

Innovation

Returning study results via found poetry is an innovative way to honor research participants facing cancer.

Engagement with health research summaries via digital communication to All of Us participants

OBJECTIVE

Summaries of health research can be a complementary way to return value to participants. We assess how research participants engage with summaries via email communication and how this can be improved.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We look at correlations between demographic subgroups and engagement in a longitudinal dataset of 305 626 participants (77% are classified as underrepresented in biomedical research) from the All of Us Research Program. We compare this against engagement with other program communications and use impact evaluations (N = 421 510) to measure the effect of tailoring communication by (1) eliciting content preferences, (2) Spanish focused content, (3) informational videos, and (4) article content in the email subject line.

RESULTS

Between March 2020 and October 2021, research summaries reached 67% of enrolled participants, outperforming other program communication (60%) and return of results (31%), which have a high uptake rate but have been extended to a subset of eligible participants. While all demographic subgroups engage with research summaries, participants with higher income, educational attainment, White, and older than 45 years open and click content most often. Surfacing article content in the email subject line and Spanish focused content had negative effects on engagement. Video and social media content and eliciting preferences led to a small directional increase in clicks.

DISCUSSION

Further individualization of tailoring efforts may be needed to drive larger engagement effects (eg, delivering multiple articles in line with stated preferences, expanding preference options). Our findings are likely a conservative representation of engagement effects, given the coarseness of our click rate measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Health research summaries show promise as a way to return value to research participants, especially if individual-level results cannot be returned. Personalization of communication requires testing to determine whether efforts are having the expected effect.

Healthy food delivery for type 2 diabetes management in rural clinics' patients: A comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Rural populations experience a higher prevalence of both food insecurity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) than metropolitan populations and face many challenges in accessing resources essential to optimal T2DM self-management. This study aims to address these challenges by delivering a T2DM-appropriate food box and recipes directly to rural participants' homes.

METHODS

This is a comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial including 400 English- or Spanish-speaking rural adult participants with T2DM (HbA1c ≥6.5%) experiencing food insecurity. Participants are randomly assigned to a 3-month Healthy Food Delivery Intervention (HFDI) plus one 60-min virtual consultation with a diabetes educator or consultation only. The HFDI includes a weekly food box delivery with recipes. Data are collected at pre-intervention, 3-months (post-intervention), 9-months, and 15-months. The primary outcome is change in HbA1c, with secondary measures including diet quality (Healthy Eating Index-2015, calculated from one 24-h dietary recall at each data collection time point), cardio-metabolic risk factors (i.e., blood pressure, lipids, body mass index, glucose), and patient-centered outcomes (e.g., T2DM self-efficacy, T2DM-related distress). Process evaluation data (e.g., successful food box deliveries, diabetes educator consultation attendance, intervention satisfaction) are collected during and post-intervention (3-months). A cost-effectiveness analysis based on traditional cost per quality-adjusted life year gain thresholds will be conducted to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness between HFDI plus consultation and consultation alone.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of an intervention that promotes participant adherence and improves access to healthy food.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04876053.

Genetic counselors' research dissemination practices and attitudes

Benefits have been demonstrated to disseminating aggregate research results to all relevant audiences, including study participants. Despite this, many health researchers face barriers in dissemination to broad audiences and returning aggregate results to participants is not commonly practiced. Due to their research presence and training in communication, genetic counselors can lead in implementing best practices in this area. We explored genetic counselors' current practices and opinions regarding educating study participants and wider audiences of research findings. We distributed a survey of 32 multiple-choice and open-ended questions to National Society of Genetics Counselors (NSGC) and Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors (CAGC) members. Most respondents (90.1%, n = 128/142) identified with a responsibility to disseminate their research findings to a broad audience and identified several associated benefits. All respondents saw value in communicating aggregate results to study participants, although over half (53.2%, n = 66/124) had never done so. Genetic counselors reported resource and knowledge barriers to research dissemination. Despite expertise in education and communication, genetic counselors face similar barriers as other researchers toward broad dissemination of research. Formal training and professional guidelines specific to research dissemination practices will equip genetic counselors to reach broader audiences and maximize the impact of research findings.

Perceptions of patient-reported outcome data access and sharing among patients with heart failure: ethical implications for research

AIMS

In the face of growing expectations for data transparency and patient engagement in care, we evaluated preferences for patient-reported outcome (PRO) data access and sharing among patients with heart failure (HF) using an ethical framework.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of patients with HF who participated in a larger 8-week study that involved the collection and return of PROs using a web-based interface. Guided by an ethical framework, patients were asked questions about their preferences for having PRO data returned to them and shared with other groups. Interview transcripts were coded by three study team members using directed content analysis. A total of 22 participants participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants were mostly male (73%), White (68%) with a mean age of 72. Themes were grouped into priorities, benefits, and barriers to data access and sharing. Priorities included ensuring anonymity when data are shared, transparency with intentions of data use, and having access to all collected data. Benefits included: using data as a communication prompt to discuss health with clinicians and using data to support self-management. Barriers included: challenges with interpreting returned results, and potential loss of benefits and anonymity when sharing data.

CONCLUSION

Our interviews with HF patients highlight opportunities for researchers to return and share data through an ethical lens, by ensuring privacy and transparency with intentions of data use, returning collected data in comprehensible formats, and meeting individual expectations for data sharing.

Health Research with Data in a Time of Privacy: Which Information do Patients Want?

When hospitals ask broad consent for the secondary use of patient data for scientific research, it is unknown for which studies the data will be used. We investigated what patients at a cancer hospital consider to be an adequate level and most suitable method of information provision using questionnaires (n = 71) and interviews (n = 24). A part of the respondents indicated that they would feel sufficiently informed by either being notified about potential further use, or by receiving a general brochure before being asked for consent. Others stated that additional information would be interesting and appreciated. Yet, when discussing required resources needed to provide additional information, interviewees lowered the bar of what they considered minimally required, voicing the importance of spending resources on research.

Return of aggregate results to study participants: Facilitators, barriers, and recommendations

Background

Most researchers and study participants believe that the summary, or aggregate, results of health research should be returned to study participants. However, researchers often do not return aggregate results. A better understanding of the impediments to results return could support improvements in this practice.

Methods

This qualitative study convened eight virtual focus groups, four with investigators and four with patient partners from research studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). In total, 23 investigators and 20 partners participated. We explored perspectives, experiences, influences, and recommendations related to aggregate results return.

Results

Focus group participants described the ethical importance of returning aggregate results, as well as the benefits to study participants. They also noted important impediments to results return, emphasizing IRB and logistical challenges and describing a lack of support for the practice both on the part of institutions and the field at large. Participants highlighted the value of patients and caregivers' perspectives and contributions to results return, which focused on returning the most relevant findings through effective channels and formats. They further emphasized the importance of planning and identified resources that could support results return.

Conclusion

Researchers, funders, and the field can better facilitate results return by promoting standardized processes in research, such as the earmarking of funds for results return and inclusion of results returns milestones in research plans. More intentional policies, infrastructures, and resources that support results return may lead to more widespread return of study results to those who make these studies possible.

Engaging participants with research findings: A rights-informed approach

BACKGROUND

Sharing research findings with participants is recognized as an ethical imperative for the research community. However, most discourse on this topic in mainstream public health takes a paternalistic approach, with researchers retaining the power to choose if, when, and how research findings are shared.

METHODS

Fieldwork took place from August 2018 to January 2019 and again from August 2019 to December 2019 among two communities in the south Indian state of Kerala. We integrated participant engagement with study findings into the research protocol, using various collaborative strategies identified during the design stage, forming partnerships with participants and determining appropriate forms of dissemination for different participant groups during fieldwork.

RESULTS

Findings from previous research projects undertaken with these communities by other researchers had not been shared with them. This was interpreted by the communities as researchers not being interested in making a difference to their situation. In the current study, building reciprocal relationships that minimized power disparities, and providing outputs in tailored formats that promoted active engagement were key factors that enabled participants to engage with results. This engagement added value by enabling us to co-develop study recommendations. This process also enabled the community to have ownership of the results and use them to advocate for health system change to improve access to health care.

CONCLUSION

Research should be transformative for participating communities. Participants have a right to know the results of the research they participate in since their knowledge provides the research data which can in turn promote community change. Operationalising this requires researchers to build partnerships with participants and their communities from the outset. The role of participants must be reimagined, and adequate resources should be built into the research process. This is both socially responsible and ethical, but also improves the impact and legitimacy of research for the participants and the communities that they represent.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Participants of our research contributed to the design of various aspects of the engagement processes including the venue, the formats used for engagement, interpretation of the findings and recommendations from our research.

Creating a best practice template for participant communication plans in global health clinical studies

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial participants have a right to be informed throughout the entire process of human subject research. As part of this pillar of research ethics, participants and other stakeholders should be made aware of research findings after a trial has been completed. Though participants have both a right, and a desire to be informed of research outcomes, studies show that they rarely receive communication about study findings. Our aim was (1) to understand what, if any, role communication plans play in current global health clinical research protocols and (2) to use our findings to develop a communication plan template tailored to clinical research carried out in low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC) while minimizing colonial assumptions. While the template was drafted in the LMIC context, the principles are universally applicable and should be considered best practices for all global health clinical trials.

METHODS

We carried out a mixed-method study over a period of 6 months to understand the role of communication with study participants and other stakeholders in clinical trials. The semiquantitative analysis included mining publicly available clinical trial protocols for communication-related language. Qualitative interviews (n = 7) were used to gather knowledge and insight from clinical trial experts to inform the development of a communication plan template.

RESULTS

None of the 48 mined clinical trial protocols included a communication plan. Of the 48, 21% (n = 21) protocols included communication-related language, and 10% (n = 5) described plans to share trial results with participants.

CONCLUSION

The use of communication plans in global health clinical trials is lacking. To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth analysis of communication plans in clinical trials to date. We recommend that researchers utilize the developed communication plan template throughout the entire research process to ensure a human-centered approach to participant communication. This communication plan should apply to all phases of a research trial, with a particular emphasis on plans to share results in an accessible and engaging manner once the trial has been completed.

Nurses' Knowledge, Communication Needs, and Future Directions in Neonatal Research: Results of an International Survey

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth is a significant contributor to neonatal morbidity and mortality. Despite legislative efforts to increase pediatric drug development, neonatal clinical trials continue to be infrequent. The International Neonatal Consortium (INC) includes nurses as key stakeholders in their mission to accelerate safe and effective therapies for neonates.

PURPOSE

INC developed a survey for nurses, physicians, and parents to explore communication practices and stakeholders' perceptions and knowledge regarding clinical trials in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).

METHODS

A stepwise consensus approach was used to solicit responses to an online survey. The convenience sample was drawn from INC organizations representing the stakeholder groups. Representatives from the National Association of Neonatal Nurses and the Council of International Neonatal Nurses, Inc, participated in all stages of the survey development process, results analysis, and publication of results.

RESULTS

Participants included 188 nurses or nurse practitioners, mainly from the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Japan; 68% indicated some level of research involvement. Nurses expressed a lack of effective education to prepare them for participation in research. Results indicated a lack of a central information source for staff and systematic approaches to inform families of studies. The majority of nurses indicated they were not asked to provide input into clinical trials. Nurses were uncertain about research consent and result disclosure processes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

This study indicates the need to educate nurses in research, improve NICU research communication through standardized, systematic pathways, and leverage nurse involvement to enhance research communication.

Returning study results to research participants: Data access, format, and sharing preferences

INTRODUCTION

Research participants have a growing expectation for transparency with their collected information; however, there is little guidance on participant preferences for receiving health information and how researchers should return this information to participants.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with a representative sample of 502 participants in the United States. Participants were asked about their preferences for receiving, sharing, and the formatting of health information collected for research purposes.

RESULTS

Most participants wanted their health information returned (84 %) to use it for their own knowledge and to manage their own health. Email was the most preferred format for receiving health data (67 %), followed by online website (44 %), and/or paper copy (32 %). Data format preferences varied by age, education, financial resources, subjective numeracy, and health literacy. Around one third of Generation Z (25 %), Millennials (30 %), and Generation X (29 %) participants preferred to receive their health information with a mobile app. In contrast, very few Baby Boomers (12 %) and none from the Silent Generation preferred the mobile app format. Having a paper copy of the data was preferred by 38 % of participants without a college degree compared to those with a college degree. Preferences were highest for sharing all health information with doctors and nurses (77 %), and some information with friends and family (66 %).

CONCLUSION

Study findings support returning research information to participants in multiple formats, including email, online websites, and paper copy. Preferences for whom to share information with varied by stakeholders and by sociodemographic characteristics. Researchers should offer multiple formats to participants and tailor data sharing options to participants' preferences. Future research should further explore combinations of individual characteristics that may further influence data sharing and format preferences.

User-centered design of feedback regarding health-related behaviors derived from wearables: An approach targeting older adults and persons living with neurodegenerative disease

Objective

There has been tremendous growth in wearable technologies for health monitoring but limited efforts to optimize methods for sharing wearables-derived information with older adults and clinical cohorts. This study aimed to co-develop, design and evaluate a personalized approach for information-sharing regarding daily health-related behaviors captured with wearables.

Methods

A participatory research approach was adopted with: (a) iterative stakeholder, and evidence-led development of feedback reporting; and (b) evaluation in a sample of older adults (n  =  15) and persons living with neurodegenerative disease (NDD) (n  =  25). Stakeholders included persons with lived experience, healthcare providers, health charity representatives and individuals involved in aging/NDD research. Feedback report information was custom-derived from two limb-mounted inertial measurement units and a mobile electrocardiography device worn by participants for 7-10 days. Mixed methods were used to evaluate reporting 2 weeks following delivery. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics for the group and stratified by cohort and cognitive status.

Results

Participants (n  =  40) were 60% female (median 72 (60-87) years). A total of 82.5% found the report easy to read or understand, 80% reported the right amount of information was shared, 90% found the information helpful, 92% shared the information with a family member or friend and 57.5% made a behavior change. Differences emerged in sub-group comparisons. A range of participant profiles existed in terms of interest, uptake and utility.

Conclusions

The reporting approach was generally well-received with perceived value that translated into enhanced self-awareness and self-management of daily health-related behaviors. Future work should examine potential for scale, and the capacity for wearables-derived feedback to influence longer-term behavior change.

Disseminating complex primary outcome results from a community-randomised trial to Zambian communities: lessons learned using a community dialogue approach in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial

The HPTN 071 (PopART) trial of universal HIV testing and treatment to reduce HIV incidence was conducted in nine communities in South Africa and 12 in Zambia. The trial's primary outcome results were complicated to explain. Dissemination of these complicated results in participating communities in Zambia was done using a community dialogue approach. The approach, which involved interactive activities and a gradual and systematic approach to discussion of results in each community, facilitated respect and inclusion of participants in the dissemination process. The use of local language, pictures, images, and familiar analogies enhanced comprehension of the findings and created a two-way communication process between researchers and participants. The dialogue approach enabled both groups to use community perspectives, lived experiences, and local socio-structural features to interpret the trial results. Further, community members reflected on what the results meant to them individually and collectively. Although this community dialogue was both productive and appreciated, making this community interpretation apparent across disciplines in key quantitative scientific outputs remained a challenge.

Evaluating Levels of Community Participation in a University-Community Partnership: The Jackson Heart Study

Objective: This research was designed to evaluate the perceptions of the Jackson Heart Study (JHS) community relating to their levels of involvement in JHS activities that were developed to address health disparities and promote health education and health promotion. Methods: The participants for this study comprised 128 community members, who included JHS participants, as well as family members and other friends of the JHS who resided in the JHS community of Hinds, Madison, and Rankin Counties in Mississippi and attended the JHS Annual Celebration of Life. We used the Chi-Square test to analyze the participants’ responses to the survey questions developed to address the six areas of focus: (1) ways to increase participation in community outreach activities; (2) reasons for participating in community outreach activities; (3) interest in research participation; (4) factors influencing engagement; (5) Participants’ preferences for communicating; (6) Chronic disease prevalence. Results: Participants residing in rural counties perceived television and radio as a medium to increase participation; More female respondents cited trust working with the JSU JHS Community Outreach Center (CORC) as a reason for remaining engaged in the community outreach activities; younger participants under 66 years of age recommended social media as a way to increase participation; participants residing in the rural areas saw their participation in the community outreach activities as a way to address community health problems. Conclusions: The knowledge gained from the details provided by the JHS community members can be used to refine research studies in existence, while promoting their sustainability.

Acceptability and feasibility of a multidomain harmonized data collection protocol in youth mental health

OBJECTIVE

To develop targeted treatment for young people experiencing mental illness, a better understanding of the biological, psychological, and social changes is required, particularly during the early stages of illness. To do this, large datasets need to be collected using standardized methods. A harmonized data collection protocol was tested in a youth mental health research setting to determine its acceptability and feasibility.

METHOD

Eighteen participants completed the harmonization protocol, including a clinical interview, self-report measures, neurocognitive measures, and mock assessments of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and blood. The feasibility of the protocol was assessed by recording recruitment rates, study withdrawals, missing data, and protocol deviations. Subjective responses from participant surveys and focus groups were used to examine the acceptability of the protocol.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight young people were approached, 18 consented, and four did not complete the study. Most participants reported positive subjective impressions of the protocol as a whole and showed interest in participating in the study again, if given the opportunity. Participants generally perceived the MRI and neurocognitive tasks as interesting and suggested that the assessment of clinical presentation could be shortened.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the harmonized data collection protocol appeared to be feasible and generally well-accepted by participants. With a majority of participants finding the assessment of clinical presentation too long and repetitive, the authors have made suggestions to shorten the self-reports. The broader implementation of this protocol could allow researchers to create large datasets and better understand how psychopathological and neurobiological changes occur in young people with mental ill-health.

Experiences of sharing results of community based serosurvey with participants in a district of Maharashtra, India

A growing number of organisations, including medical associations, recommend that research subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study. We recently completed a study involving nine serosurveys from 2018 to 2020 in five districts of India among three age groups (children 9 months to < 5 years; 5 to < 15 years of age, and women 15 to < 50 years of age before and after the measles and rubella (MR) vaccination campaigns). In Palghar district of Maharashtra all individuals in 30 selected clusters were enumerated, and 13 individuals per age group were randomly sampled. We established the procedures to return the results to the respondents for each stage of the survey. Of the 1,166 individuals selected for the measles and rubella serosurvey, 971 (83%) agreed to participate and were enrolled. Participants were informed that they will only be contacted if they test seronegative for measles and/or rubella antibodies. Overall, 140 individuals enrolled in the survey tested seronegative for IgG antibodies to measles and/or rubella viruses; were provided the reports and informed to seek medical advice. Upon follow up by phone, 10% (14) of the 140 participants reported to have been vaccinated. In this paper we discuss the procedures, experiences and considerations in returning results to participants in a community-based measles and rubella serosurvey. Although the lessons learned are specific to post measles-rubella vaccine campaign serosurvey in India, they might be helpful to those contemplating sharing results to participants of large scale survey settings.

"A Gift to My Family for Their Future": Attitudes about Genetic Research Participation

BACKGROUND

Broad participation in genetic research is needed to promote equitable advances in disease treatment and prevention.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess motivations for, and concerns about, genetic research participation.

METHODS

The Genetics in Research and Health Care Survey was sent in winter 2017-2018 to 57,331 adult Kaiser Permanente (KP) members from 7 US regions to assess attitudes about genetic testing in health care and research. The survey included an open-ended question on why members would or would not participate in genetic research. Open text responses to this question were coded in the qualitative analysis software Dedoose and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Code summaries were organized by major themes, subthemes, and exemplary quotes.

RESULTS

Of the 10,369 participants who completed the survey, 2,645 (25%) provided a comment describing reasons they would or would not participate in research involving genetic testing. Respondents who provided a text comment were 64% female, 49% non-Hispanic (NH) White, 17% Asian/Pacific Islander, 20% Hispanic, and 14% NH Black. The primary themes identified were (1) altruism; (2) decision-making and planning; (3) data use; and (4) data security. These major themes were consistent across each race and ethnic group.

CONCLUSIONS

To promote broad participation in genetic research, it is important that recruitment materials address the primary motivators for genetic research participation, including altruism and the potential use of results for personal decision-making. Study materials should also address concerns about possible misuse of genetic information and fears over potential data breaches.

Parents’ and Childcare Workers’ Perspectives Toward SARS-CoV-2 Test and Surveillance Protocols in Pre-school Children Day Care Centers: A Qualitative Study Within the German Wü-KiTa-CoV Project

Background

Feasibility of surveillance through continuous SARS-CoV-2 testing in pre-school children and childcare workers (CCWs) to prevent closure of day care centers (DCCs) was proven in the Wü-KiTa-CoV study. The purpose of this study was to describe the factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation of continuous SARS-CoV-2 testing from the perspective of parents and CCWs involved in the study.

Methods

A total of 148 semi–structured telephone interviews, repeated before and after the implementation of the surveillance protocols, were conducted with parents and CCWs belonging to the DCCs involved in Wü-KiTa-CoV and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Five main topical categories that influences implementation of surveillance protocols for SARS-CoV-2 in DCCs emerged: Generating valuable knowledge, Impact on daily life, Communication and information, Children’s wellbeing and the Sense of security. Smooth integration in daily routines, quickly delivered test results, and efficient communication and information between the study team and the participants were identified as factors that had a positive impact on implementation. To ensure children’s wellbeing, the introduction of non-invasive testing procedures such as saliva testing, parental involvement to motivate, and prepare children for the procedure, the creation of a child-friendly environment for testing, and use of child-friendly explanations were considered critical. The surveillance was found to increase the sense of security during the pandemic. Conversely, reliability of tests in the surveillance protocols, low participation rates, non-transparent communication, the need to travel to testing sites, fear of quarantine in case of positive test results, concerns about higher workloads, the fear of unpleasant feelings for children, their young age, and changing test teams were considered as hindering factors.

Conclusion

This qualitative study of parents of children in day care and DCC staff under surveillance through continuous testing for SARS-CoV-2 in nine German DCCs identified several factors that facilitate or hinder its implementation. These should be considered when planning screening interventions to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or other infectious diseases in pre-school children DCCs.

Increasing Engagement of Women Veterans in Health Research

BACKGROUND

Meaningful engagement of patients in health research has the potential to increase research impact and foster patient trust in healthcare. For the past decade, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has invested in increasing Veteran engagement in research.

OBJECTIVE

We sought the perspectives of women Veterans, VA women's health primary care providers (WH-PCPs), and administrators on barriers to and facilitators of health research engagement among women Veterans, the fastest growing subgroup of VA users.

DESIGN

Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were conducted from October 2016 to April 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Women Veterans (N=31), WH-PCPs (N=22), and administrators (N=6) were enrolled across five VA Women's Health Practice-Based Research Network sites.

APPROACH

Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Consensus-based coding was conducted by two expert analysts.

KEY RESULTS

All participants endorsed the importance of increasing patient engagement in women's health research. Women Veterans expressed altruistic motives as a personal determinant for research engagement, and interest in driving women's health research forward as a stakeholder or research partner. Challenges to engagement included lack of awareness about opportunities, distrust of research, competing priorities, and confidentiality concerns. Suggestions to increase engagement include utilizing VA's patient-facing portals of the electronic health record for outreach, facilitating "warm hand-offs" between researchers and clinic staff, developing an accessible research registry, and communicating the potential research impact for Veterans.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants expressed support for increasing women Veterans' engagement in women's health research and identified feasible ways to foster and implement engagement of women Veterans. Given the unique healthcare needs of women Veterans, engaging them in research could translate to improved care, especially for future generations. Knowledge about how to improve women Veterans' research engagement can inform future VA policy and practice for more meaningful interventions and infrastructure.

Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

A fundamental ethical challenge in conducting genomics research is the question of what and how individual level genetic findings and aggregate genomic results should be conveyed to research participants and communities. This is within the context of minimal guidance, policies, and experiences, particularly in Africa. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders' on returning genomics research results to participants in Kenya.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with 69 stakeholders. The purposively selected participants, included research ethics committee (REC) members (8), community members (44), community resource persons (8), and researchers (9). A semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate discussions. Six FGDs and twenty-five (IDIs) were conducted among the different stakeholders. The issues explored in the interviews included: (1) views on returning results, (2) kind of results to be returned, (3) value of returning results to participants, and (4) challenges anticipated in returning results to participants and communities. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded in Nvivo 12 pro. Thematic and content analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants agreed on the importance of returning genomic results either as individual or aggregate results. The most cited reasons for returning of genomic results included recognizing participants' contribution to research, encouraging participation in future research, and increasing the awareness of scientific progress. Other aspects on how genomic research results should be shared included sharing easy to understand results in the shortest time possible and maintaining confidentiality when sharing sensitive results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified key stakeholders' perspectives on returning genomic results at the individual and community levels in two urban informal settlements of Nairobi. The majority of the participants expect to receive feedback about their genomic results, and it is an obligation for researchers to see how to best fulfil it.

Technology to Support Collaborative Dissemination of Research with Alaska Native Communities

Marginalized communities often mistrust research due to a history of unethical practice and limited community engagement. Research community engagement is expected with Indigenous communities, but few empirical studies have explored engagement in results dissemination, let alone using technology. Studies on using technology to disseminate results focus on health and research professional audiences. This paper discusses Alaska Native stakeholder values on technology to facilitate collaborative results dissemination. In this formative study, six participants engaged in participatory design activities on collaborative results dissemination. Sketches and interviews were analyzed deductively using a value-based codebook. Study findings highlight the importance of community context and transparency. Contextual awareness includes understanding local culture and power dynamics, acknowledging the diversity of cultural practices within Alaska Native groups. Transparency is tied to clear communication: encouraging active dialogue and providing alternatives to communicate research. Technology that supports such collaborative dissemination could increase trust and improve adoption of research-recommended actions.

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

BACKGROUND

Participants want to receive the results of trials that they have participated in. Dissemination practices are disparate, and there is limited guidance available on what information to provide to participants and how to deliver it.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to establish what trial participants believe should be included in a results summary and how this information should be delivered.

METHODS

A mixed-methods design was used with focus groups and interviews involving women convenience-sampled from two host randomized-controlled trials. Participants ranked information items in order of their importance for inclusion in a trial results summary and potential modes of delivery by preference. All participants provided written informed consent.

RESULTS

Sixteen women (mean age [SD] = 71.6 [9.7] years) participated. Participants ranked 'individual results from the study' and 'summary of overall trial results' as most important. Themes such as reassurance and setting results in context were identified as contributing to participants' decisions around ranking. 'A thank you for your contribution to the study' was ranked the least important. Delivery by post was the preferred mode of receiving results, with receiving a hard copy of results cited as helpful to refer back to.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide insight into what information trial participants deem as important when receiving trial results and how they would like results delivered. Involving patients during development of trial results to be communicated to participants could help to ensure that the right information is delivered in the right way.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Public partners were involved in focussed aspects of study conduct.

Evaluating Patient Preferences in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Treatment Using Conjoint Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To quantify BPH patient preferences to promote guidelines-compliant, patient-centered care. Discordance between patient and urologist priorities for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) hinders patient-centered care. Physician assumptions regarding patient preferences lead to dissatisfied patients; a poor outcome in any quality of life surgery. American Urologic Association guidelines urge urologists to consider patient preferences when recommending a BPH treatment.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional, online survey study using researchmatch.org, participants were required to decide between theoretical BPH treatments in a balanced, choice-based conjoint analysis. The treatments had varying levels of four attributes: efficacy, recovery difficulty, risk of complications (Clavien-Dindo 2+), and risk of de novo ejaculatory dysfunction. Demographic information and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) were collected and analyzed using comparative statistics. Each attribute was analyzed using a conditional logit model, and attribute importance (range in utility between attribute-levels) was calculated.

RESULTS

Out of 1235 recruited participants, 812 (66%) completed the study. Median IPSS and age was 6 (IQR 3-12) and 56 (IQR 38-67), respectively. Complication risk was the most important attribute, followed by efficacy, recovery difficulty, and risk of ejaculatory dysfunction. In a subgroup analysis of age quartiles, participants age <38 and >67 held efficacy (31%) and complication risk (47%) to the highest relative importance, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Males valued BPH treatments that minimize complication risks, while ejaculatory dysfunction was least impactful. Variation in results between age subgroups emphasizes the need for individualized care to maximize patient satisfaction.

The RIC COVID-19 Recruitment & Retention Toolkit: A community-informed resource of recruitment tools and strategies for clinical trial investigators

The Recruitment Innovation Center (RIC) has created a toolkit of novel strategies to engage potential participants in response to recruitment and retention challenges associated with COVID-19 studies. The toolkit contains pragmatic, generalizable resources to help research teams increase awareness of clinical trials and opportunities to participate; produce culturally sensitive and engaging recruitment materials; improve consent and return of results processes; and enhance recruitment of individuals from populations disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. This resource, the “RIC COVID-19 Recruitment and Retention Toolkit,” is available free online. We describe the toolkit and the community feedback used to author and curate this resource.

Testing approaches to sharing trial results with participants: The Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed methods trial

BACKGROUND

Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. We tested an Enhanced Webpage versus a Basic Webpage, Mailed Printed Summary versus no Mailed Printed Summary, and Email List Invitation versus no Email List Invitation to see which approach resulted in the highest patient satisfaction with how the results were communicated.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We carried out a cluster randomised, 2 by 2 by 2 factorial, nonblinded study within a trial, with semistructured qualitative interviews with some patients (ISRCTN96189403). Each cluster was a UK hospital participating in the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial. Interventions were shared with 384 ICON8 participants who were alive and considered well enough to be contacted, at 43 hospitals. Hospitals were allocated to share results with participants through one of the 8 intervention combinations based on random permutation within blocks of 8, stratified by number of participants. All interventions contained a written plain English summary of the results. The Enhanced Webpage also contained a short video. Both the Enhanced Webpage and Email contained links to further information and support. The Mailed Printed Summary was opt-out. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 1 month after patients had been offered the interventions. Patients' reported satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale, analysed by ordinal logistic regression estimating main effects for all 3 interventions, with random effects for site, restricted to those who reported receiving the results and assuming no interaction. Data collection took place in 2018 to 2019. Questionnaires were sent to 275/384 randomly selected participants and returned by 180: 90/142 allocated Basic Webpage, 90/133 Enhanced Webpage; 91/141 no Mailed Printed Summary, 89/134 Mailed Printed Summary; 82/129 no Email List Invitation, 98/146 Email List Invitation. Only 3 patients opted out of receiving the Mailed Printed Summary; no patients signed up to the email list. Patients' satisfaction was greater at sites allocated the Mailed Printed Summary, where 65/81 (80%) were quite or very satisfied compared to sites with no Mailed Printed Summary 39/64 (61%), ordinal odds ratio (OR) = 3.15 (1.66 to 5.98, p < 0.001). We found no effect on patient satisfaction from the Enhanced Webpage, OR = 1.47 (0.78 to 2.76, p = 0.235) or Email List Invitation, OR = 1.38 (0.72 to 2.63, p = 0.327). Interviewees described the results as interesting, important, and disappointing (the ICON8 trial found no benefit). Finding out the results made some feel their trial participation had been more worthwhile. Regardless of allocated group, patients who received results generally reported that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. The main limitation of our study is the 65% response rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all respondents wanted to know the results and were glad to receive them. Adding an opt-out Mailed Printed Summary alongside a webpage yielded the highest reported satisfaction. This study provides evidence on how to share results with other similar trial populations. Further research is needed to look at different results scenarios and patient populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: ISRCTN96189403.

People with Cerebral Palsy and Their Family's Preferences about Genomics Research

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this study was to understand individuals with cerebral palsy (CP) and their family's attitudes and preferences to genomic research, including international data sharing and biobanking.

METHODS

Individuals with CP and their family members were invited to participate in the web-based survey via email (NSW/ACT CP Register) or via posts on social media by Cerebral Palsy Alliance, CP Research Network, and CP Now. Survey responses included yes/no/unsure, multiple choices, and Likert scales. Fisher's exact and χ2 tests were used to assess if there were significant differences between subgroups.

RESULTS

Individuals with CP and their families (n = 145) were willing to participate in genomics research (68%), data sharing (82%), and biobanking efforts (75%). This willingness to participate was associated with completion of tertiary education, previous genetic testing experience, overall higher genomic awareness, and trust in international researchers. The survey respondents also expressed ongoing communication and diverse information needs regarding the use of their samples and data. Major concerns were associated with privacy and data security.

DISCUSSION

The success of genomic research and international data sharing efforts in CP are contingent upon broad support and recruitment. Ongoing consultation and engagement of individuals with CP and their families will facilitate trust and promote increased awareness of genomics in CP that may in turn maximize participant uptake and recruitment.

Training researchers in dissemination of study results to research participants and communities

Dissemination of research beyond the academic community is an ethical responsibility of researchers and necessary in translational research to help ensure the uptake of research findings to improve health outcomes. Often, partnerships between community and academicians do not include research dissemination plans, possibly reflecting researchers not knowing how to create these plans. This manuscript details the development process of a research dissemination training module for academicians and researchers. This training was conceptualized and developed by Core faculty and staff. Development steps were: (a) identifying researchers' dissemination needs using the Core Investigator Survey; (b) identifying communities dissemination needs/preferences using feedback from our community advisory board; (c) conducting a literature search to identify dissemination concepts from researchers and community perspectives; (d) developing the training module; (e) conducting a cognitive review with one basic science researcher and one community-based participatory researcher; (f) evaluating the training; and (g) finalizing the training module. Training attendees included 1 clinical and 3 basic science clinical researchers, a biomedical postdoctoral fellow, and 10 research staff. Of those completing the feedback survey, 60% had some experience with research dissemination. As a result of training, more than 50% of respondents strongly agreed that as researchers they have a clear understanding of dissemination, a greater understanding of the dissemination process, how to identify stakeholders and successfully develop a dissemination plan. While disseminating research findings beyond academic publications may be new to some researchers, this training provided the tools to implement dissemination practices in their current and future research.

Preferences for Updates on General Research Results: A Survey of Participants in Genomic Research from Two Institutions

There is a need for multimodal strategies to keep research participants informed about study results. Our aim was to characterize preferences of genomic research participants from two institutions along four dimensions of general research result updates: content, timing, mechanism, and frequency.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey that was administered from 25 June 2018 to 5 December 2018.

RESULTS

397 participants completed the survey, most of whom (96%) expressed a desire to receive research updates. Preferences with high endorsement included: update content (brief descriptions of major findings, descriptions of purpose and goals, and educational material); update timing (when the research is completed, when findings are reviewed, when findings are published, and when the study status changes); update mechanism (email with updates, and email newsletter); and update frequency (every three months). Hierarchical cluster analyses based on the four update preferences identified four profiles of participants with similar preference patterns. Very few participants in the largest profile were comfortable with budgeting less money for research activities so that researchers have money to set up services to send research result updates to study participants.

CONCLUSION

Future studies may benefit from exploring preferences for research result updates, as we have in our study. In addition, this work provides evidence of a need for funders to incentivize researchers to communicate results to participants.

Utilizing a large-scale biobanking registry to assess patient priorities and preferences for cancer research and education

Patients consented to biobanking studies typically do not specify research conducted on their samples and data. Our objective was to gauge cancer biobanking participant preferences on research topics. Patient-participants of a biobanking study at a comprehensive cancer center who had an appointment within the last 5 years, had a valid email address, and with a last known vital status of alive, were emailed a newsletter containing a link to a survey about preferences and priorities for research. The survey assessed demographics and research interest in three domains: cancer site, cancer-related topics, and issues faced by cancer patients. 37,384 participants were contacted through email to participate in the survey. 16,158 participants (43.2%) opened the email, 1,626 (4.3% overall, 10% of those who opened the email) completed the survey, and 1,291 (79.4% of those who completed the survey) selected at least one research priority. Among those who selected at least one research priorities for cancer-relevant topics, the most commonly selected were cancer treatment (66%), clinical trials (54%), and cancer prevention (53%). Similarly, the most selected priorities for cancer-related issues faced by patients were physical side effects of cancer (57%), talking to the oncologist (53%), and emotional challenges due to cancer (47%). Differences by gender were observed, with females reporting more interest in research generally. Cancer patients participating in a biobanking protocol prioritized research on treatments, prevention and side effects, which varied by gender.

Developing an Infrastructure to Cultivate Equitable and Sustainable Community-Academic Research Partnerships: Meharry Community Engagement Core

Objectives

Achieving health equity and reducing racial and ethnic health disparities require intentional community engagement efforts by academicians. Primary among these efforts is the acknowledgement of research-related mistrust. Efforts to build trust must begin with recognition of the invaluable knowledge and experience community stakeholders possess.

Methods

The Meharry Community Engagement Core builds on the foundation provided by Meharry Medical College, a Historically Black College and University, to achieve its mission to improve health and health outcomes through long-term collaborative research partnerships with community stakeholders. Early in its development, the Core actively engaged community stakeholders throughout all research phases.

Results

Early successes include achieving community feedback on research priorities, policies, and procedures and developing partnerships that span the research spectrum. Core work to date is promising and may serve as a model for addressing research-related mistrust and efforts to build trust.

Disseminating clinical study results to trial participants in Ethiopia: insights and lessons learned

International regulatory authorities and funders require that research be disseminated promptly and appropriately to all involved stakeholders. However, following completion of clinical trials participants often either do not receive any feedback or materials provided are not appropriate for the context. The investigators of a multicentre anti-malarial clinical trial (the IMPROV study) conducted a dissemination meeting at one of the study sites in Ethiopia; trial participants and medical staff were provided feedback on the study results. This report summarizes the dissemination strategies adopted by the investigators, including a plain language visual aid and simple communication techniques. Lessons learned are reported with a discussion on the operational challenges to dissemination of clinical trials in resource limited settings.

First Do No Harm: Ethical Concerns of Health Researchers That Discourage the Sharing of Results With Research Participants

Background: Health researchers and health research participants support the sharing of research results; however, results are typically only shared through peer-reviewed publications. Few studies have investigated researchers' ethical concerns related to sharing results with research participants. Methods: An explanatory approach was used to explore the ethical concerns researchers may have with returning aggregate results to research participants. Researchers (N = 414) responded to an online survey of open-ended questions that allowed researchers to provide in-depth explanations regarding their responses to closed-ended questions. Results: Across researchers, the mean percentage of studies for which ethical concerns were reported as a barrier to results sharing was 38.5% (SD= 30.7). Researchers' primary ethical concerns with returning results were articulated as an overarching desire to prevent harm to participants. Three broad ethical concerns emerged, each with underlying subthemes: 1) distress, 2) understanding, and 3) privacy. Conclusions: This is the first study to broadly explore researchers' ethical concerns with sharing aggregate research results with participants and reveals that researchers' ethical concerns are closely tied to the ethical obligation to do no harm. In order to increase results sharing, steps must be taken to help researchers understand how to minimize potential harm when sharing results.

"The results are encouragements to make positive changes to be healthier:" qualitative evaluation of Marshallese participants' perceptions when receiving study results in a randomized control trial

Background

Study participants express a desire to receive the results of studies in which they have participated even when the results are not what researchers expected. Sharing results with participants is a core principle of community-based participatory research (CBPR), however, many researchers using a community-based participatory approach report that they encounter barriers to sharing results with study participants. Researchers at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences established a CBPR partnership with Marshallese community stakeholders in an effort to reduce the health disparities of this vulnerable population. Marshallese are a Pacific Islander population that faces significant health disparities and have a high prevalence of diabetes, obesity, obesity-related cancers, and other chronic diseases compared to the general US population.

Methods

A qualitative descriptive design was used to evaluate Marshallese participants' perceptions related to receiving results of a culturally adapted Diabetes Self-Management Education randomized control trial in which they participated. Participants were provided with a summary of their individual results as well as preliminary, overall aggregate study results. Interviews were conducted with half of (N = 111) of the 221 enrolled participants that provided them with the opportunity to share in-depth responses related to their perceptions of the study results they received.

Results

There was no statistically significant differences between study arms in participant desire to receive overall study results, desire to receive personal study results, or willingness to participate in future research. Participants described their desire for results and the effect of these results on their future behavior. Within the a priori theme of participants' desire for results, three subthemes emerged: 1) results showed current health status, 2) results showed improvement, and 3) demonstrated the overall results of the study. Within the a priori theme of effects of results on future behavior, two sub-themes emerged: 1) encourage future healthy behavior, and 2) encourage future research participation.

Conclusions

Participants overwhelmingly stated they wanted to receive personal and aggregate study results. This finding is consistent with previous qualitative studies that documented that participants want results. Marshallese participants also reported that receiving study results would affect their future health behavior. This study documents specifically how participants anticipate using the results of studies in which they participated.

Clinical trials registration information

The study is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02407132).

"Becoming myself": how participants in a longitudinal substance use disorder recovery study experienced receiving continuous feedback on their results

BACKGROUND

Being a participant in longitudinal follow-up studies is not commonly a factor considered when investigating useful self-change aspects for individuals attempting recovery from substance use disorder (SUD). This study reports on how ongoing monitoring, and feedback on data results in a longitudinal follow-up study of SUD recovery were perceived by individuals who had achieved long-term abstinence and social recovery.

METHODS

Interviewers with first-hand experience with the topic conducted interviews with 30 participants and analysed the data using a thematic analytic approach within an interpretative-phenomenological framework.

RESULTS

Analyses resulted in the following themes. 1) Ongoing short text messaging (SMS) monitoring: helped participants by offering recovery milestones and reminders of the past. 2) Feedback on data results helped participants track physical and cognitive recovery: "I am more like myself". 3) Using feedback in treatment: understanding the importance of a functional brain to participants may help with long-term retention in treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-changes that were challenging to detect on a day-to-day basis were available for reflection through longitudinal study participation, including ongoing monitoring and feedback on the results, allowing personal consolidation of change processes. Clinical services could benefit from continuing development and implementation of such technology for ongoing monitoring and feedback on assessments to motivate self-change in SUD recovery. The development of guidelines for providing the results of research assessments to individuals could help reduce attrition in research projects and support recovery and healthy choices for study participants.

Characterizing health researcher barriers to sharing results with study participants

INTRODUCTION

Research participants want to receive results from studies in which they participate. However, health researchers rarely share the results of their studies beyond scientific publication. Little is known about the barriers researchers face in returning study results to participants.

METHODS

Using a mixed-methods design, health researchers (N = 414) from more than 40 US universities were asked about barriers to providing results to participants. Respondents were recruited from universities with Clinical and Translational Science Award programs and Prevention Research Centers.

RESULTS

Respondents reported the percent of their research where they experienced each of the four barriers to disseminating results to participants: logistical/methodological, financial, systems, and regulatory. A fifth barrier, investigator capacity, emerged from data analysis. Training for research faculty and staff, promotion and tenure incentives, and funding agencies supporting dissemination of results to participants were solutions offered to overcoming barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings add to literature on research dissemination by documenting health researchers' perceived barriers to sharing study results with participants. Implications for policy and practice suggest that additional resources and training could help reduce dissemination barriers and increase the return of results to participants.

Frequency and format of clinical trial results dissemination to patients: a survey of authors of trials indexed in PubMed

OBJECTIVE

Dissemination of research findings is central to research integrity and promoting discussion of new knowledge and its potential for translation into practice and policy. We investigated the frequency and format of dissemination to trial participants and patient groups.

DESIGN

Survey of authors of clinical trials indexed in PubMed in 2014-2015.

RESULTS

Questionnaire emailed to 19 321 authors; 3127 responses received (16%). Of these 3127 trials, 2690 had human participants and 1818 enrolled individual patients. Among the 1818, 498 authors (27%) reported having disseminated results to participants, 238 (13%) planned to do so, 600 (33%) did not plan to, 176 (10%) were unsure and 306 (17%) indicated 'other' or did not answer. Of the 498 authors who had disseminated, 198 (40%) shared academic reports, 252 (51%) shared lay reports, 111 (22%) shared both and 164 (33%) provided individualised study results. Of the 1818 trials, 577 authors (32%) shared/planned to share results with patients outside their trial by direct contact with charities/patient groups, 401 (22%) via patient communities, 845 (46%) via presentations at conferences with patient representation, 494 (27%) via mainstream media and 708 (39%) by online lay summaries. Relatively few of the 1818 authors reported dissemination was suggested by institutional bodies: 314 (17%) of funders reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 252 (14%) to patient groups; 333 (18%) of ethical review boards reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 148 (8%) to patient groups. Authors described many barriers to dissemination.

CONCLUSION

Fewer than half the respondents had disseminated to participants (or planned to) and only half of those who had disseminated shared lay reports. Motivation to disseminate results to participants appears to arise within research teams rather than being incentivised by institutional bodies. Multiple factors need to be considered and various steps taken to facilitate wide dissemination of research to participants.

Assessing research participant preferences for receiving study results

Introduction:

Dissemination of results to research participants is largely missing from the practices of most researchers. Few resources exist that describe best practices for disseminating information to this important stakeholder group.

Methods:

Four focus groups were conducted with a diverse group of individuals. All participants were part of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded survey study. Focus groups aimed to identify participants’ preferences about receiving research results and their reactions to three different dissemination platforms.

Results:

Four focus groups with 37 participants were conducted, including: (1) adults with one comorbidity, at least a college education, and high socioeconomic status (SES); (2) adults with one comorbidity, less than a college education, and lower SES; (3) adults with low health literacy and/or numeracy; and (4) Black or African American adults. Participants discussed their preferences for research results delivery and how each of the platforms met those preferences. This included information needs as they relate to content and scope, including a desire to receive both individual and aggregate results, and study summaries. Email, paper, and website were all popular avenues of presentation. Some desired a written summary, and others preferred videos or visual graphics. Importantly, participants emphasized the desire for having a choice in the timing, frequency, and types of results.

Conclusion:

Research participants prefer to receive research results, including study impact and key findings, disseminated to them in an engaging format that allows choice of when and how the information is presented. The results encourage new standards whereby research participants are considered a critical stakeholder group.

Health Research Funding Agencies' Policies, Recommendations, and Tools for Dissemination

THE PROBLEM

Dissemination is a key component of translational research. However, research participants rarely receive findings from the studies in which they have participated. Funding agencies have a significant amount of influence to promote research dissemination through requirements, recommendations, and tools. However, it is not clear to what extent current funding agencies promote dissemination to study participants.Purpose of Article: A review of major health research funders was conducted to ascertain the current policies, recommendations, and tools related to 1) academic dissemination, 2) lay community dissemination, and 3) returning results to research participants.

KEY POINTS

Several agencies have policies, recommendations, and tools for academic dissemination; however, few have the same policies, recommendations, and tools for dissemination to research participants and the lay communities they are recruited from.

CONCLUSIONS

Funding agencies have a unique opportunity to encourage the dissemination of research results to research participants and lay community audiences by developing policies to increase dissemination of grantees' research findings.

Health researchers' experiences, perceptions and barriers related to sharing study results with participants

BACKGROUND

Although research participants are generally interested in receiving results from studies in which they participate, health researchers rarely communicate study findings to participants. The present study was designed to provide opportunity for a broad group of health researchers to describe their experiences and concerns related to sharing results (i.e. aggregate study findings) with research participants.

METHODS

We used a mixed-methods concurrent triangulation design, relying on an online survey to capture health researchers' experiences, perceptions and barriers related to sharing study results with participants. Respondents were health researchers who conduct research that includes the consent of human subjects and hold a current appointment at an accredited academic medical institution within the United States. For quantitative data, the analytic strategy focused on item-level descriptive analyses. For the qualitative data, analyses focused on a priori themes and emergent subthemes.

RESULTS

Respondents were 414 researchers from 44 academic medical institutions; 64.5% reported that results should always be shared with participants, yet 60.8% of respondents could identify studies in which they had a leadership role where results were not shared. Emergent subthemes from researchers' reasons why results should be shared included participant ownership of findings and benefits of results sharing to science. Reasons for not sharing included concerns related to participants' health literacy and participants' lack of desire for results. Across all respondents who described barriers to results sharing, the majority described logistical barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings contribute to the literature by documenting researchers' perspectives and experiences about sharing results with research participants, which can inform efforts to improve results sharing. Most respondents indicated that health research results should always be shared with participants, although the extent to which many respondents described barriers to results sharing as well as reported reasons not to share results suggests difficulties with a one-size-fits-all approach to improving results sharing.

How can we get Iraq- and Afghanistan-deployed US Veterans to participate in health-related research? Findings from a national focus group study

Background

Research participant recruitment is often fraught with obstacles. Poor response rates can reduce statistical power, threaten both internal and external validity, and increase study costs and duration. Military personnel are socialized to a specific set of laws, norms, traditions, and values; their willingness to participate in research may differ from civilians. The aims of this study were to better understand the views of United States (US) Veterans who served in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)/ Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) on research and motivators for participating in research to inform recruitment for a planned observational study of respiratory health in OEF/OIF Veterans.

Methods

We conducted 10 focus groups in a purposive sample of OEF/OIF Veterans (n = 89) in five US cities in 2015. Key topics included: reasons for participating or declining to participate in health-related research, logistics around study recruitment and conduct, compensation, written materials, and information sharing preferences for study results. Two authors independently coded the data using template analysis.

Results

Participants identified three criteria that motivated a decision to participate in health-related research: 1) adequate compensation, 2) desire to help other Veterans, and 3) significance and relevance of the research topic. For many, both sufficient compensation and a sense that the study would help other Veterans were critical. The importance of transparency arose as a key theme; Veterans communicated that vague language about study aims or procedures engendered distrust. Lastly, participants expressed a desire for studies to communicate results of their specific health tests, as well as overall study findings, back to research participants.

Conclusions

OEF/OIF Veterans described trust, transparent communication, and respect as essential characteristics of research in which they would be willing to participate. Additional studies are needed to determine whether our results generalize to other US Veterans; nevertheless, our results highlight precepts that have been reported as important for recruitment in other populations. Researchers may benefit from using community-engaged research methods to seek feedback on recruitment materials and strategies prior to initiating research. For costly studies targeting a large sample (i.e. in the thousands), it may be important to test a variety of recruitment strategies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0546-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Researchers' experiences with and perceptions of returning results to participants: Study protocol

Background

Health research participants want to receive the results from research studies in which they have participated, and health research funding agencies encourage the returning of results to research participants. However, researchers rarely return results to research participants. This study protocol aims to fill the significant gap in knowledge that exists regarding experiences, perceptions, and challenges health researchers have with returning results to research participants.

Design

The study will use a mixed-methods concurrent triangulation design that will collect qualitative and quantitative data in one simultaneous phase to allow researchers to utilize each type of data to corroborate the findings from the other. The research team developed a mixed-methods survey to assess the experiences, perceptions, and challenges health researchers have with returning results to research participants.

Method

The survey includes both quantitative and qualitative (open-ended) questions and will be implemented online and will take approximately 10-15 min for respondents to complete. The survey is divided into four topics areas, which include respondents': 1) general opinion of returning results to participants in health research studies, 2) experiences with a specific study in which they did not return results to participants, 3) perceptions of specific challenges they face in returning results to participants, and 4) demographic characteristics and professional background information.

Summary

The study to be conducted will address knowledge gaps related to researchers' experiences, perceptions, and challenges with returning research results. The study is an important step toward pragmatic solutions that can improve researchers' ability to return results to participants.

Participants' perspectives and preferences on clinical trial result dissemination: The TRUST Thyroid Trial experience

Background: While there is an increasing consensus that clinical trial results should be shared with trial participants, there is a lack of evidence on the most appropriate methods. The aim of this Study Within A Trial (SWAT) is to use a patient and public involvement (PPI) approach to identify, develop and evaluate a patient-based approach to receiving trial results for participants in the Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Subclinical Hypo-Thyroidism Trial (TRUST), a trial of thyroxine versus placebo in people aged 65 years and older.

Methods: Mixed methods study with three consecutive phases. Phase 1 iteratively developed a patient-based approach using semi-structured focus groups and a consensus-orientated-decision model, a PPI group to refine the method and adult literacy review for plain English assessment. Phase 2 was a single-blind parallel group trial. Irish TRUST participants were randomised to the intervention (patient-based approach) and control group (standard approach developed by lead study site). Phase 3 used a patient understanding questionnaire to compare patient understanding of results between the two groups.

Results: Participants want to receive results of clinical trials, with qualitative findings indicating three key themes including ‘acknowledgement of individual contribution’, ‘contributing for a collective benefit’ and ‘receiving accessible and easy to understand results’. Building on these findings, the patient-based approachwas developed. TRUST participants (n=101) were randomised to the intervention (n=51) or control group (n=50). The questionnaire response rate was 74% for the intervention group and 62% for the control group.  There were no differences in patient understanding between the two approaches. 

Conclusions: We have demonstrated that it is feasible to involve trial participants in the development of result dissemination materials. Although, in this study PPI did not influence patients’ understanding of results, it documents the process of conducting PPI within the clinical trial setting.

Participants' perspectives and preferences on clinical trial result dissemination: The TRUST Thyroid Trial experience

Background: While there is an increasing consensus that clinical trial results should be shared with trial participants, there is a lack of evidence on the most appropriate methods. The aim of this study is to use a patient and public involvement (PPI) approach to identify, develop and evaluate a patient-preferred method of receiving results of the Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Subclinical Hypo-Thyroidism Trial (TRUST). Methods: This is a mixed methods study with three consecutive phases. Phase 1 iteratively developed a patient-preferred result method using semi-structured focus groups and a consensus-orientated-decision model, a PPI group to refine the method and adult literacy review for plain English assessment. Phase 2 was a single-blind parallel group trial. Irish TRUST participants were randomised to the intervention (patient-preferred method) and control group (standard method developed by lead study site). Phase 3 used a patient understanding questionnaire to compare patient understanding of results between the two methods. Results: Patients want to receive results of clinical trials, with qualitative findings indicating three key themes including 'acknowledgement of individual contribution', 'contributing for a collective benefit' and 'receiving accessible and easy to understand results'. Building on these findings, a patient-preferred method of receiving results was developed as described above. TRUST participants (n=101) were randomised to the intervention. The questionnaire response rate was 74% for the intervention group and 62% for the control group.  There were no differences in patient understanding between the two methods.  Conclusions: We have demonstrated that it is feasible to conduct PPI with regard to the dissemination of results. The study identified and developed a patient-preferred method of receiving clinical trial results for older adults over 65 years. Although, in this study PPI did not influence patients' final understanding of results, it provides a record of the process of conducting PPI within the clinical trial setting.

Making the most of the waiting room: Electronic patient engagement, a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore whether patients with musculoskeletal conditions would agree to use digital technologies to learn about research registries and make a decision about signing up whilst in the clinic waiting room.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from four hospital clinics across Oxfordshire. We used an explanatory mixed methods design with two sequential phases comprising an exploratory, cross-sectional questionnaire (n = 84), followed by focus group interviews (n = 8) to provide context for the findings from the questionnaire. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression models were used to explore relationships between patient preferences and characteristics. Thematic analysis was used to understand the reasons for patient preferences regarding digital technologies and research registries.

RESULTS

As participants' age increased, they were more likely to report a preference for face-to-face recruitment methods compared to those using digital technologies. Findings from the focus groups indicated this was primarily due to a fear of technology and physical limitations associated with a patient's condition. Patients also reported a preference for making a decision about signing up at a later date, which was attributed to patients feeling distracted whilst in the waiting room due to anxieties related to their upcoming appointment.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with musculoskeletal conditions in the UK may be interested in learning about opportunities to participate in research whilst using digital technologies within the waiting room. The results suggest the need for choice regarding the presentation and format of information and whether it can be accessed at a later date at home.

Shaping an Effective Health Information Website on Rare Diseases Using a Group Decision-Making Tool: Inclusion of the Perspectives of Patients, Their Family Members, and Physicians

BACKGROUND

Despite diverging definitions on rare conditions, people suffering from rare diseases share similar difficulties. A lack of experience by health professionals, a long wait from first symptoms to diagnosis, scarce medical and scientific knowledge, and unsatisfactory treatment options all trigger the search for health information by patients, family members, and physicians. Examining and systematically integrating stakeholder needs can help design information platforms that effectively support this search.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to innovate on the group decision-making process involving patients, family members, and physicians for the establishment of a national rare disease Internet platform. We determined differences in the relevance of health information-especially examining quantifiable preference weights-between these subgroups and elucidated the structure and distribution of these differences in people suffering from rare diseases, their family members, and physicians, thus providing information crucial to their collaboration.

METHODS

The included items were identified using a systematic Internet research and verified through a qualitative interview study. The identified major information needs included medical issues, research, social help offers, and current events. These categories further comprised sublevels of diagnosis, therapy, general disease pattern, current studies, study results, registers, psychosocial counseling, self-help, and sociolegal advice. The analytic hierarchy process was selected as the group decision-making tool. A sensitivity analysis was used to determine the stability and distribution of results. t tests were utilized to examine the results' significance.

RESULTS

A total of 176 questionnaires were collected; we excluded some questionnaires in line with our chosen consistency level of 0.2. Ultimately, 120 patients, 24 family members, and 32 physicians participated in the study (48 men and 128 women, mean age=48 years, age range=17-87 years). Rankings and preference weights were highly heterogeneous. Global ranking positions of patients, family members, and physicians are shown in parentheses, as follows: medical issues (3/4, 4, 4), research (3/4, 2/3, 3), social help offers (1, 2/3, 2), and current events (2, 1, 1); diagnosis (6, 8, 9), therapy (5, 9, 7), general disease pattern (9, 4/5/6, 6), current studies (7, 4/5/6, 3), study results (8, 7, 8), registers (4, 1, 5), psychosocial counseling (1, 2, 4), self-help (3, 3, 2), and sociolegal advice (2, 4/5/6, 1). Differences were verified for patients for 5 information categories (P=.03), physicians for 6 information categories (P=.03), and family members for 4 information categories (P=.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results offer a clear-cut information structure that can transparently translate group decisions into practice. Furthermore, we found different preference structures for rare disease information among patients, family members, and physicians. Some websites already address differences in comprehension between those subgroups. Similar to pharmaceutical companies, health information providers on rare diseases should also acknowledge different information needs to improve the accessibility of information.

Publication Rates in Podium and Poster Presentations at the 2012-2014 American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Annual Meetings

BACKGROUND

Subspecialty conferences are an important forum for disseminating the latest research relevant to clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to identify publication rates in podium and poster abstracts for the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) Annual Meeting and to identify the most common journals of publication and the reasons for nonpublication.

METHODS

Six hundred ten accepted abstracts (182 podium presentations, 428 posters) from the 2012-2014 AAHKS meetings were searched using Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed. If an abstract could not be found after efforts by multiple searchers, the first author was emailed to determine where the research was published or why it was not published. For articles that were published, the journal, time to publication, and journal impact factor were noted.

RESULTS

The overall rate of publication was 71% (436/610). Podium presentations (164/182, 90%) were published at a higher rate than posters (271/428, 63%). The most common journal of publication was the Journal of Arthroplasty (218/436, 50%), followed by Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (77/436, 18%) and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (40/436, 9%). Average time to publication was 14.5 months (range, -4 to 44 months) from the date of the conference in which it was presented.

CONCLUSION

Presentations at the AAHKS annual meeting have an impressive rate of publication. The research presented at the meeting is impactful and high quality, warranting consideration for future publication.

Health research participants are not receiving research results: a collaborative solution is needed

Health research participants want the results of the studies in which they participate but do not typically receive them. Researchers generally express support for sharing results with participants but, in practice, may be unprepared or unwilling to do so. Many funders call for increased dissemination of research results beyond academic and clinical audiences, but few funders sponsor research to improve result sharing with participants. Although the solution appears straightforward (e.g., funders could incentivize researchers to share results with participants), there are critical gaps in knowledge that suggest the need for a more deliberate approach. For example, what ethical or practical concerns discourage researchers from returning results to participants? What exactly do participants plan to do with the results that they would like to receive? What are the best channels of communication for sharing results with particular participant populations? To address these knowledge gaps, we argue for a collaborative process to develop a research agenda related to result sharing with participants. With support and encouragement by funders, such research should evaluate the effects of different types of results (and results from different types of studies) on participants’ behaviors, attitudes, and emotions; it should also examine the researchers’ ethical, financial, logistical, methodological, and skill-related concerns and constraints related to sharing results with participants. Over time, collaborative research between researchers and participants can yield an evolving set of evidence-based guidelines for ethical, effective result sharing with participants.

Leveraging community-based participatory research capacity to recruit Pacific Islanders into a genetics study

Pacific Islanders face many health disparities, including higher rates of cardiovascular disease, cancer, obesity, and diabetes compared to other racial and ethnic groups. Specifically, the Marshallese population suffers disproportionately from type 2 diabetes, with rates 400% higher than the general US population. As part of an ongoing community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnership, 148 participants were recruited for a study examining genetic variants to better understand diabetes. Participants provided a saliva specimen in an Oragene® DNA self-collection kit. Each participant provided approximately 2 mL volume of saliva and was asked qualitative questions about their experience. The study yielded a recruitment rate of 95.5%. Among the 148 persons who participated, 143 (96.6%) agreed to be contacted for future studies; 142 (95.9%) agreed to have their samples used for future IRB-approved studies; and 144 (97.3%) gave permission for the researchers to link information from this study to other studies in which they had participated. Qualitative responses showed that the majority of participants were willing to participate because of their desire to contribute to the health of their community and to understand the genetic influence related to diabetes. This study demonstrates willingness to participate in genetic research among Marshallese living in Arkansas. Willingness was likely enhanced because the feasibility study was part of a larger CBPR effort. This study is important to community stakeholders who have voiced a desire to collaboratively conduct genetic research related to diabetes, perinatal outcomes, and cancer.