ArticleSSM. Qualitative research in health2026
Community perspectives on the return of research results and ownership of data and specimens for brain tumor genomic research.
Article in SSM. Qualitative research in health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study explores community perspectives on operationalizing ethical values in genomic research involving individuals with low grade glioma (LGG) brain tumors - a condition in which genomic characterization is central to diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. We conducted qualitative directed content analysis of data generated in the course of 11 facilitated engagement discussions conducted via a research advisory council and established brain tumor communities on social media with LGG genomic research community members-including patients, care partners, clinicians, and researchers. This analysis of data from LGG community engagement examines how operationalizing ethical values of autonomy, privacy, ownership, and relevance may guide participant recruitment, communication, and return of results LGG genomic studies. Engagement participants expressed strong support for receiving both individual and aggregate research results, viewing this as a matter of reciprocity and recognition for contributions to research. While engagement participants valued transparency and control over their data and specimens, many held misconceptions about research processes, including the clinical applicability of research findings and the logistics of specimen use. These findings highlight a gap between potential research participant expectations and current LGG genomic research practices, underscoring the need for clear communication and ethically-grounded participant engagement strategies. This analysis informed LGG genomic research participant recruitment and communication practices, including priorities for returning research results and clarifying data and specimen ownership in LGG genomic research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.