Pulse Brain · Growing Health Evidence Index
Tier 3 — Observational / field trialPeer-reviewed

Understanding What Information Is Valued By Research Participants, And Why

Consuelo H. Wilkins, Brandy Mapes, Rebecca N Jerome, Victoria Villalta‐Gil, Jill M. Pulley, Paul A. Harris

Health Affairs · 2019

Read source ↗ All evidence

Summary

This national survey documents research participants' preferences for receiving research results and ancillary information beyond clinically actionable findings. The authors propose a framework called 'return of value' to encompass the diverse ways participants value different types of research information. Findings indicate substantial public demand for comprehensive result return, with clear demographic variation in informational needs that should inform future research governance policies.

UK applicability

The findings are relevant to UK research ethics and governance frameworks, particularly regarding participant consent and data return practices in biomedical research. However, as a United States study, direct policy applicability would require confirmation that UK participant preferences and values align with the observed American patterns.

Key measures

Proportion of participants valuing research results (78.5%); proportion indicating results would increase researcher trust (70.3%); variation in valued information types by education, race/ethnicity, and age

Outcomes reported

The study surveyed a nationally diverse sample to determine what types of research results and information research participants valued, including genetic findings, disease risk predictions, clinical trial information, and data usage transparency. It measured the proportion of participants who found results valuable (78.5%), the likelihood that receiving results would increase trust in researchers (70.3%), and variation in information preferences across demographic subgroups.

Theme
Policy, governance & rights
Subject
Other / interdisciplinary
Study type
Research
Study design
Cross-sectional survey
Source type
Peer-reviewed study
Status
Published
Geography
United States
System type
Human clinical
DOI
10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05046
Catalogue ID
BFmoso8xrl-5jy86k

Topic tags

Pulse AI · ask about this record

Dig deeper with Pulse AI.

Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.