Abstract
Background: Offering research results to study participants is increasingly considered an ethical obligation founded on the principle of respect for persons. This practice acknowledges the importance of the participant’s contribution in the study and, in some instances, enables the participant to benefit directly from the health information derived from the research. Recent studies have established that there is growing support for this practice among investigators and study participants in highly selected populations. The frequency and means of this practice is unknown in the broader national and international research community.
Methods: We pilot-tested a questionnaire, which we designed for this study. It had a high content validity. The questionnaire was designed to document the frequency with which researchers offer return of results to research participants, the means by which researchers offer results, the role of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) in the return of research results, and the demographics of the study participants.
We classified all 887 abstracts presented at the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting in December 2003 according to study type. Only those abstracts involving human subjects were included. Of the 478 eligible abstracts, email addresses for 472 (98.7%) first or senior authors were found using public web sites. The investigators were sent the 4–5 minute survey by email. Two reminders were sent to non-respondents. Responses were downloaded to a secure server and analyzed by descriptive and Chi squared techniques.
Results: Interim results were obtained 11 days after initiating the survey. Complete responses were received from 84 of the 471 (18%) investigators. Most responders were physicians (n=68; 81%) and almost half (n=40; 47%) received Research Ethics Board (REB) approval for their study in the United States. Only 23 (27%) investigators had a formal plan for the return of results to study participants. No clear preference for any one means of returning research results was indicated. The majority (n=18; 78%) indicated that they would provide the participant with a choice of whether or not to receive research results and most (n=14; 61%) indicated that they would provide an overall summary of results rather than an overall summary plus individual level results. Reasons for not returning research results included: did not consider it (n=25), contact difficulties (n=22), and participant difficulty in understanding results (n=19). Cost and concern for the patient regarding adverse effects of receiving results were infrequently cited. Only 2 (2%) of investigators reported that their REB mandated the offer of return of research results to all participants. 55 researchers (66%) supported or strongly supported the return of results to participants, 27 (32%) were neutral, and only 2 (2%) opposed or strongly opposed this practice. Updated data and further analyses will be reported at the annual meeting.
Conclusion: Investigators in the international research community infrequently offer to return results to research participants, and REBs rarely mandate this practice. Our study reaffirms the findings of other studies that indicate a high level of support for this practice among researchers. Further work is needed to assess participant needs and concerns, and how to bridge the gap between the expressed attitudes of researchers and actual practice.
Statement of principles on the return of research results and incidental findings in paediatric research: a multi-site consultative process
