To synthesise the current evidence about practices, preferences and challenges related to returning aggregate research results to participants, with implications for public health, health equity and policy development.

Scoping review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews framework.

Four electronic databases—PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Excerpta Medica Database (Elsevier), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (Elton B. Stephens CO(mpany)) and Cochrane Library (Wiley)—were from inception to February 2025.

English-language, peer-reviewed articles reporting practices or preferences for returning aggregate clinical research results to participants. Studies reporting only individual/incidental findings, opinion pieces and non-original research were excluded.

Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Study quality was assessed using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine scale. Thematic synthesis identified patterns in dissemination methods, participant preferences and implementation barriers.

Of 272 articles screened, 12 published between 2002 and 2019 were included. They employed cross-sectional, qualitative and mixed-methods design across North America, Europe, Africa and Australia. Half focused on cancer; others addressed malaria, autism, hypothyroidism, HIV prevention and preterm labour. Most (8/12) included patients; others also included researchers, caregivers or mixed stakeholders. Participants were predominantly middle-aged or older, female and well-educated. Only two studies assessed literacy, both using unvalidated self-reports. Eight studies explored preferences without returning results; four implemented disseminations via mailed reports, printed summaries, in-person discussions or digital platforms. Participants favoured mailed letters and face-to-face meetings over online methods. Six themes emerged: receiving results as respect; preference for personalised, timely formats; importance of cultural tailoring; emotional and ethical considerations; institutional barriers; and community engagement as a facilitator.

Returning aggregate research results to participants is ethically supported and strongly desired yet rarely practised. Bridging this gap requires clearer policy guidance, institutional support and equity-focused dissemination strategies. Health systems and researchers should adopt scalable, participant-centred approaches to fulfil ethical obligations and strengthen public trust in science.

The purpose of this article is to share insights from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) in delivering research for Multiple Long Term Conditions (MLTC) and to highlight lessons of wider relevance across the research ecosystem.

Designing health and care systems to be more responsive to the needs of people living with MLTC requires a considerable evidence base. When compared with research focused on a single disease area, research relating to MLTC raises unique considerations at the stages of planning, placing, and delivering research studies. Our article describes challenges associated with MLTC research outcomes and outlines different types of interventions to target MLTC, along with related research delivery considerations. Our article also raises important considerations for placing research in the most appropriate setting and highlights the vital role of robust feasibility studies, informed by the lived experience of patients and carers with MLTC, for ensuring that studies are conducted, recruited to, and completed in a timely and appropriate way.

Increasing the evidence base for the prevention and management of MLTC is a necessity for our health and care system. This presents novel challenges that require collaboration between multiple stakeholders. The UK benefits from a unique research infrastructure, including support for the stages of planning and delivery of health and care research. As the health and care system moves towards bringing care closer to patients and service users, the appropriate selection of the health and care settings and research sites in which to deliver MLTC research, in addition to understanding and removing barriers to recruitment and participation for people with MLTCs, are important considerations to enable us to collectively respond to this challenge.