Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Jan 8;23(1):25.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05945-8.

Sharing research results with Latina breast cancer survivors who participated in a community-engaged behavioral RCT study: a descriptive cross-sectional survey study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Sharing research results with Latina breast cancer survivors who participated in a community-engaged behavioral RCT study: a descriptive cross-sectional survey study

Jackie Bonilla et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: An often heard and justifiable concern of ethnic minorities is related to researchers' lack of attention to sharing the results of a study with participants after the study has concluded. Few studies have examined the effects of returning overall study results on participants' attitudes, especially among populations underrepresented in research. Among Latina research participants, providing a summary of study results could enhance participation in research. We assess Latina breast cancer survivors' reactions to receiving study results and their attitudes about participating in future studies.

Methods: For this cross-sectional survey study, all women who had participated in two behavioral randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were mailed a letter summarizing the study results (using written and graphic formats) and a questionnaire assessing problems and understanding the results, importance of sharing results, willingness to participate in future studies, and format preferences for receiving the results. A postage-paid envelope for returning the completed questionnaire was included. Logistic regression examined the associations of age, education, and rural/urban residence on format preferences and willingness to participate. The survey sample consisted of 304 low-income, predominantly Spanish-speaking Latina breast cancer survivors (151 from urban and 153 from rural communities) who had participated in two RCTs testing a stress management program designed for Latina breast cancer survivors.

Results: Ninety-two women returned the questionnaires (30.3%). Most of the women (91.1%) indicated that they had no trouble understanding the results of the study, and 97% agreed that it is very/extremely important for researchers to share the study result with the participants. The majority (60.2%) reported that receiving the results increased their willingness to participate in future studies. About half (51.7%) did not have a format preference, 37.4% preferred written summaries, and 10.9% preferred graphs.

Conclusions: This study is an important first step to understanding the impact of returning study results among a population that is underrepresented in research. Returning the results of studies and understanding the impact of doing so is consistent with maintaining community involvement in all phases of research. The findings suggest that sharing aggregate research results in simple language yields few problems in participants' understanding of the results and is viewed as important by participants.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02931552 Date registered: October 13, 2016 and NCT01383174 Date registered: June 28, 2011.

Keywords: Cancer survivors; Community participation; Community-based participatory research; Hispanic Americans; Information dissemination; Language; Literacy; Minority groups; Rural population; Surveys and questionnaires.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Results in English and Spanish

References

    1. Cortés YI, Arcia A, Kearney J, Luchsinger J, Lucero RJ. Urban-dwelling community members’ views on biomedical research engagement. Qual Health Res. 2017;27(1):130–137. doi: 10.1177/1049732315627650. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Scharff DP, Mathews KJ, Jackson P, Hoffsuemmer J, Martin E, Edwards D. More than Tuskegee: understanding mistrust about research participation. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2010;21(3):879–897. doi: 10.1353/hpu.0.0323. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Flicker S, Travers R, Guta A, McDonald S, Meagher A. Ethical dilemmas in community-based participatory research: recommendations for institutional review boards. J Urban Health. 2007;84(4):478–493. doi: 10.1007/s11524-007-9165-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chastain D, Osae S, Henao A, Franco-Paredes C, Chastain J, Young H. Racial disproportionality in COVID clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(9):e59. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2021971. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lackland DT, Sims-Robinson C, Jones Buie JN, Voeks JH. Impact of COVID-19 on clinical research and inclusion of diverse populations. Ethn Dis. 2020;30(3):429–432. doi: 10.18865/ed.30.3.429. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data