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.

Falls are a critical problem for older people, including those from ethnically diverse communities, who are under-represented in research. The aim of this pilot trial is to evaluate (1) the implementability of a co-designed intervention developed to support the sustained uptake of tailored exercise to reduce falls (MOVE Together: Reduce Falls) and (2) the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in older people from Italian, Arabic, Cantonese or Mandarin-speaking communities.

Investigator and assessor-blinded pilot two-arm parallel RCT. 60 older people at risk of falls from Italian, Arabic, Cantonese or Mandarin speaking communities will be recruited, with the option to enrol on their own or with another participant (dyad). Participants or dyads will be randomly assigned to the experimental or control arm. The experimental arm will receive MOVE Together: Reduce Falls, which provides up to 12 sessions with a physiotherapist over 12 months and supports participants to engage in individualised exercises. Both arms will receive educational resources in the participant’s preferred language. The primary outcome is implementability of the co-designed intervention, MOVE Together: Reduce Falls; operationalised as fidelity (>70% of intended sessions delivered), feasibility (> 95% of sessions delivered with no serious adverse events related or likely related to the intervention) and acceptability (>50% acceptability score). The secondary outcome is feasibility of the RCT protocol, which will be evaluated quantitatively (eg, recruitment and retention rates, completion of clinical outcome data including prospective collection of falls data for 12 months via falls calendars) and qualitatively (eg, barriers and enablers to data collection).

Ethical approval has been granted for this study (HREC/106010/MH-2024). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences and community forums.

ACTRN12624000658516.

The mental health first aid (MHFA) training is an evidence-based programme that is known to improve undergraduate students’ attitudes towards mental illness and confidence in helping people with mental health problems. MHFA training will be implemented at a university in Hong Kong to address growing concerns about mental health challenges among students. Given the context of a university-wide systematic MHFA training implementation, this evaluation uses an intervention logic framework to evaluate the processes and longitudinal outcomes.

A mixed-method approach will be used where the quantitative component will gather data from a review of records and a case-control study for outcome evaluation; the qualitative component will gather data from individual interviews. All first-year students from the university in the academic year 2024–2025 (ie, September 2024 to August 2025) will be enrolled in the mandatory MHFA training. The outcome evaluation will assess effectiveness through short-, intermediate- and long-term outcomes. An online questionnaire will be distributed to the students before (pre) and immediately after (post) the MHFA training. For comparison, second-year students who had not participated in MHFA training will be invited to complete the same online questionnaire. The questionnaires will be administered further to those who completed the MHFA training at 12 months (ie, academic year 2025–2026) and 24 months (ie, academic year 2026–2027) post-training to evaluate intermediate-term and long-term effects, respectively. The process evaluation explores feasibility, fidelity, adoption and the barriers and enablers to implementation.

This evaluation has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Hong Kong Metropolitan University (reference number HE-SF2024/35). The findings are expected to contribute to establishing long-term effects on mental health literacy and on the actual mental health support actions provided by participants, which goes beyond the intention to help. This evaluation would also facilitate a better understanding of the processes that need to be considered in a systematic MHFA training implementation in a university context. The findings will be disseminated in academic and public health community settings.

This project has been registered in the Open Science Framework. Fully anonymised data will be saved and subsequently made available through the following OSF registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/92N5Q.

Cancer patients often experience psychological distress, while optimism has been identified as a protective factor. However, the mental health of postradiotherapy cancer survivors and its association with optimism remain largely unexplored. This study assesses the mental health status and optimism levels of postradiotherapy cancer survivors and evaluates their associations.

Cross-sectional survey study.

114 Hong Kong cancer survivors who (1) were aged 18 years or above and (2) had received radiotherapy for their cancer treatment and finished the radiotherapy within the previous 3 years (2021–2024).

Mental health was assessed using the Chinese Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale, and optimism was measured using the Revised Life Orientation Test. Correlation and regression analyses were used to examine the associations between these measures.

Participants reported overall low optimism with mild to moderate depression, anxiety and stress. Strong negative correlations were identified between optimism and depression (r=–0.833, p

This study highlights the importance of incorporating optimism-promoting interventions in postradiotherapy care. Routine optimism screening and gender-specific support are proposed to improve mental health outcomes for radiotherapy patients. While this study provides novel insights into postradiotherapy survivorship, further research should employ longitudinal designs and evaluate intervention effectiveness in clinical settings.