Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42813900›Full record

ArticleJournal of Parkinson's disease2026

Reciprocity in research: Participant views on return of results in the WATCH-PD qualitative study.

Mirinda Tyo, Jennifer Mammen, Jocelyn Silva, Varun Reddy, Nami Shah, Kristin Magan, John Hornickel, Sue Marek, Russell Lott, Dang Thao-Uyen and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Parkinson's disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Mirinda TyoAdult Department, College of Nursing & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9730-3344
Jennifer MammenAdult Department, College of Nursing & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA, USA.
Jocelyn SilvaAdult Department, College of Nursing & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA, USA.
Varun ReddyCenter for Health + Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Nami ShahCenter for Health + Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Kristin MaganAdult Department, College of Nursing & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA, USA.
John HornickelParticipants in the WATCH-PD Study and Community Advisory Members.
Sue MarekParticipants in the WATCH-PD Study and Community Advisory Members.
Russell LottParticipants in the WATCH-PD Study and Community Advisory Members.
Dang Thao-UyenCenter for Health + Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Tatiana SolodovaCenter for Health + Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-8491-6422
Joyce H CadoretteAdult Department, College of Nursing & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5125-6813
Peggy AuingerCenter for Health + Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Melissa KostrzebskiCenter for Health + Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5532-1288
Katherine PurdyClinical Research Department, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, New York, NY, USA.
Catherine M KopilClinical Research Department, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, New York, NY, USA.
Diane StephensonCritical Path for Parkinson's, Tucson, AZ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4262-436X
Jamie L AdamsCenter for Health + Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundResearch participants increasingly desire access to their personalized results. A growing emphasis on patient engagement and recognition of participants as partners in research has intensified ethical considerations around data sharing and return of results. While some research teams have started returning personalized results, important questions remain about how to do so responsibly and effectively.ObjectiveTo explore the perspectives of people with Parkinson's on return of individual research results, including preferences regarding digital data.MethodsThis qualitative sub-study was conducted as part the WATCH-PD study (Wearable Assessments in The Clinic and at Home in PD). Online qualitative interviews to explore perceptions on return of research results were conducted annually each year from 2022-2025. Content analysis techniques were used to analyze transcripts.Results33 participants completed interviews and were included in the analysis. Three themes emerged: (1) Most participants desire to receive personal results provided the results are understandable to them; (2) Knowing personal results could support disease management and future planning; and (3) Access to data is an ethical obligation of the research team and a reciprocal return of personal information.ConclusionsParticipants in this study wanted the choice to receive personal research results, and most preferred disclosure even when findings might be unfavorable. Although returning person-level data presents logistical and ethical challenges, engaging participants as partners through transparent data sharing may strengthen engagement, trust, and advance patient-centered research.

Indexed as

data management and sharingdigital health technologymeaningfulnessParkinson'spatient experience dataqualitativereciprocity

Identifiers

PMID42813900
PMCPMC13627459

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.