ArticleJournal of Parkinson's disease2026
Reciprocity in research: Participant views on return of results in the WATCH-PD qualitative study.
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.
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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.