What, how, when and who of trial results summaries for trial participants: stakeholder-informed guidance from the RECAP project
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To generate stakeholder informed evidence to support recommendations for trialists to implement the dissemination of results summaries to participants. Design: A multiphase mixed-methods triangulation design involving Q-methodology, content analysis, focus groups and a coproduction workshop (the REporting Clinical trial results Appropriately to Participants project). Setting: Phase III effectiveness trials. Participants: A range of participants were included from ongoing and recently completed trials, public contributors, trialists, sponsors, research funders, regulators, ethics committee members. Results: Fewer than half of the existing trial result summaries contained information on the clinical implications of the study results, an item deemed to be of high importance to participants in the Q-methodology study. Priority of inclusion of a thank you message varied depending on whether considering results for individuals or populations. The need for personally responsive modes of sharing trial result summaries was highlighted as important. Ideally, participants should be the first to know of the results with regard to the timing of sharing results summaries but given this can be challenging it is therefore important to manage expectations. In addition to patients, it was identified that it is important to engage with a range of stakeholders when developing trial results summaries. Conclusions: Results summaries for trial participants should cover four core questions: (1) What question the trial set out to answer?; (2) What did the trial find?; (3) What effect have the trial results had and how will they change National Health Service/treatment?; and (4) How can I find out more? Trial teams should develop appropriately resourced plans and consult patient partners and trial participants on how ‘best’ to share key messages with regard to content, mode, and timing. The study findings provide trial teams with clear guidance on the core considerations of the ‘what, how, when and who’ with regard to sharing results summaries.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A plain language summary of results for the wider public serves to increase public knowledge and inform future patients.
“A plain language summary of results for the wider public also serves to increase public knowledge and inform future patients.137”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [137]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research
(2002) · Analyzing Qualitative Data · doi:10.4324/9780203413081-14 · Cited by 4,964 · see citing works
Doing Q ethodology: theory, method and interpretation
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. H. D. (2005) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088705qp022oa · Cited by 1,256 · see citing works
Shalowitz, D. I., & Miller, F. G. (2008) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050091 · Cited by 261 · see citing works
Reactions of participants to the results of a randomised controlled trial: exploratory study
Snowdon, C., Garcia, J. N., & Elbourne, D. R. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7150.21 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Molnar, F., Man‐Son‐Hing, M., & Fergusson, D. A. (2009) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02122.x · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Schroter, S., Price, A. I., Malički, M., Richards, T., & Clarke, M. J. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032701 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Understanding Science in Conservation: A Q Method Approach on the Galápagos Islands
Cairns, R. (2012) · Conservation and Society · doi:10.4103/0972-4923.101835 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Raza, M. Z., Bruhn, H., & Gillies, K. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035730 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationProviding trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review
Bruhn, H., Cowan, E.-J., Campbell, M., et al. (2021) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05300-x · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Self-citationBruhn, H., Anderson, A. S., Hickman, A., Macaskill, E. J., & Treweek, S. P. (2021) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05340-3 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationWood, J., Cotton, S. C., & Gillies, K. (2021) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.13402 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [9]Bruhn H, Cowan E-J, Campbell MK, et al. Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review. Trials 2021; 22: 361. 10.1186/s13063-021-05300-x 34030707 PMC8147098 · DOI
- [19]Getz K, Oullette E, Simmons D. Providing results to volunteers. Appl Clin Trials 2010; 19: 52.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials
Hróbjartsson, A., Boutron, I., Hopewell, S., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Collins, G. S., Tunn, R., Aggarwal, R., Berkwits, M., Berlin, J. A., et al. (2025) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081660 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Self-citationReturn of aggregate results to study participants: Facilitators, barriers, and recommendations
Sgro, G. M., Maurer, M., Nguyen, B., & Siegel, J. E. (2023) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101136 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bruhn, H., Campbell, M., Entwistle, V., Humphreys, R., Jayacodi, S., Knapp, P., Tizzard, J., & Gillies, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Aberdeen (GB)
- University of York (GB)
- Health Research Authority (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Gillies, Katie
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2022-03
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e057019
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8961145
- OpenAlex
- W4221044838
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 9.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2023-12-13)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council (MR/L01193X/1)
- Academy of Medical Sciences (SBF002\1014)
- Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government (CZU/3/3)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Keywords
- participant communication, research dissemination, stakeholder engagement, patient and public involvement, Q methodology
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Referral and Consultation, Research Design, State Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review