OBJECTIVES: We surveyed authors of publications in high-impact psychiatry journals to assess the (1) proportion that disseminated results to study participants or others with lived experience, and, among those who disseminated, (2) methods (eg, email) and (3) tools (eg, plain-language summary) used.
DESIGN: Meta-research review.
DATA SOURCE: PubMed search on 14 December 2022 and emails to study authors for information on dissemination.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies collected primary human data and were published in psychiatry journals with 2021 impact factor ≥10.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study information was extracted by one investigator and validated by a second investigator, with conflicts resolved by consensus, with a third investigator consulted as necessary. We emailed authors approximately 2 years post-publication to ensure sufficient time had passed to share results. We estimated the proportion of authors that may have disseminated results to participants or others with lived experience, assuming that non-respondents (1) did not disseminate, (2) were half as likely to disseminate as respondents or (3) disseminated in the same proportion as respondents.
RESULTS: Of 141 studies, 94 (67%) authors responded. Among respondents, 21 (22%) reported disseminating to study participants, and an additional 9 (10%) reported disseminating lay materials to people with lived experience (total of 30 studies, 32%). Overall, we estimated that 15% (95% CI 10% to 22%) to 23% (95% CI 17% to 30%) of authors may have disseminated results directly to study participants and 21% (95% CI 15% to 29%) to 32% (95% CI 25% to 40%) to participants or others with lived experience. Among the 30 that reported disseminating, the most common methods were sending mail or emails to study participants (17 studies, 57%) and posting on social media (15 studies, 50%). The most common tools were plain-language summaries (22 studies, 73%) and webinars or other meetings (15 studies, 50%).
CONCLUSIONS: Dissemination of results to participants in mental health research is uncommon. Funding agencies, ethics committees, journals and academic institutions should support dissemination.