Sharing Clinically Relevant Research Results with Active-Duty Special Operations Forces: Toward an Ethical Framework for Responsible Disclosure

Structured acquisition and analysis of individual-level health data in the context of biomedical research can yield novel results with potential clinical or personal relevance to participants. While approaches to returning individual-level research results to study participants in civilian contexts have received some attention, unique ethical considerations informing approaches to sharing military research results, and particularly in research studies involving active-duty Special Operations Forces (SOF), are underexplored. As the number of research studies enrolling active-duty military personnel grows, an ethical framework to guide responsible handling and sharing of individual-level research results in these distinctive contexts is crucial to safeguard the rights and welfare of research participants and to elucidate appropriate practices for investigators. After exploring the landscape of ethical, clinical, legal, and logistical considerations, both motivating and complicating routine sharing of individual-level biomedical research results with active-duty SOF personnel, we propose a framework to guide responsible disclosure of results to capture potential benefits while mitigating possible risks.

• Publication year

  2026

• Venue

  Journal of Neurotrauma

• Publication date

  2026-01-09

• Fields of study

  Not labeled

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1177/08977151251398056
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Electronic health record in military healthcare systems: A systematic review

  2025cited by this paper
• Returning individual wearable sensor results to participants: perspectives on challenges and lessons learned

  2025cited by this paper
• Distinct Functional MRI Connectivity Patterns and Cortical Volume Variations Associated with Repetitive Blast Exposure in Special Operations Forces Members.

  2025cited by this paper
• The Supreme Court's Loper Bright Ruling: Implications for Clinical Testing, Innovation, and Public Health.

  2024cited by this paper
• Additive effects of mild head trauma, blast exposure, and aging within white matter tracts: A novel Diffusion Tensor Imaging analysis approach.

  2024cited by this paper
• What Happens After a Neural Implant Study? Neuroethics Expert Workshop on Post-Trial Obligations

  2024cited by this paper
• Impact of repeated blast exposure on active-duty United States Special Operations Forces

  2024cited by this paper
• Irregular warfare must combine good medicine, with both good tactics and good strategies: Position paper by the French Special Operations Forces Medical Command

  2024cited by this paper
• Cumulative Blast Impulse Is Predictive for Changes in Chronic Neurobehavioral Symptoms Following Low Level Blast Exposure during Military Training.

  2024cited by this paper
• Return of participant-level clinical trial results to participants: pilot of a simplified centralised approach

  2024cited by this paper
• Disclosing Results of Tests for Covert Consciousness: A Framework for Ethical Translation

  2024cited by this paper
• Returning Clinically Relevant Research Results to Participants: Guidelines for Investigators and the IRB.

  2024cited by this paper
• Neuroinflammation at the Gray–White Matter Interface in Active-Duty U.S. Special Operations Forces

  2024cited by this paper
• Differences in Brain Volume in Military Service Members and Veterans After Blast-Related Mild TBI

  2024cited by this paper
• Sharing Pediatric Trial Results With Youth and Families: From Why to How.

  2023cited by this paper
• Intersecting Moral Spheres, and the Ethical Structures and Functional Roles of Military Medicine: Frameworks in—and for—Reciprocal Rectitude

  2023cited by this paper
• Interrogating the Value of Return of Results for Diverse Populations: Perspectives from Precision Medicine Researchers

  2023cited by this paper
• Neurological Effects of Repeated Blast Exposure in Special Operations Personnel

  2023cited by this paper
• ‘It is a complex process, but it’s very important to return these results to participants’. Stakeholders’ perspectives on the ethical considerations for returning individual pharmacogenomics research results to people living with HIV

  2023cited by this paper
• The consequences of heroization for exploitation.

  2023cited by this paper
• Cumulative Blast Exposure During a Military Career Negatively Impacts Recovery from Traumatic Brain Injury

  2023cited by this paper
• Integrating participant feedback and concerns to improve community and individual level chemical exposure assessment reports

  2023cited by this paper
• Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry

  2023cited by this paper
• Engaging participants with research findings: A rights‐informed approach

  2023cited by this paper
• Post-trial access in implanted neural device research: Device maintenance, abandonment, and cost

  2022cited by this paper
• Ethical Considerations in Clinical Trials for Disorders of Consciousness

  2022cited by this paper
• Long-Term Effects of Repeated Blast Exposure in United States Special Operations Forces Personnel: A Pilot Study Protocol

  2022cited by this paper
• Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study

  2022cited by this paper
• Perspectives of older participants on the delivery of individual results: Study within a trial (SWAT) hosted by the HAEL Study

  2022cited by this paper
• Lessons learned during the process of reporting individual genomic results to participants of a population-based biobank

  2022cited by this paper
• Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

  2021cited by this paper
• Disclosure of individual research results at federally funded Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers

  2021cited by this paper
• Return of research results (RoRR) to the healthy CHRIS cohort: designing a policy with the participants

  2021cited by this paper
• Special Operations Cognitive Agility Training (SOCAT) for Special Operations Forces and spouses

  2021cited by this paper
• Do solidarity and reciprocity obligations compel African researchers to feedback individual genetic results in genomics research?

  2020cited by this paper
• First Do No Harm: Ethical Concerns of Health Researchers That Discourage the Sharing of Results With Research Participants

  2020cited by this paper
• Return of Individual Research Results: A Guide for Biomedical Researchers Utilizing Human Biospecimens.

  2020cited by this paper
• Assessing the adoption of clinical trial results summary disclosure to patients and the public

  2019cited by this paper
• Health researchers’ experiences, perceptions and barriers related to sharing study results with participants

  2019cited by this paper
• Understanding What Information Is Valued By Research Participants, And Why.

  2019cited by this paper
• The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

  2019cited by this paper
• The Military Biomedical Complex: Are Service Members a Vulnerable Population?

  2019cited by this paper
• How can we get Iraq- and Afghanistan-deployed US Veterans to participate in health-related research? Findings from a national focus group study

  2018cited by this paper
• Return of secondary findings in genomic sequencing: Military implications

  2018cited by this paper
• Military medical research in Britain and the USA: the challenge of informed consent

  2018cited by this paper
• Informed Consent and the Disclosure of Clinical Results to Research Participants

  2017cited by this paper
• Qualitative study of participants' perceptions and preferences regarding research dissemination

  2017cited by this paper
• First-Person FOIA

  2017cited by this paper
• Special Operations Forces in the Gray Zone: An Operational Framework for Using Special Operations Forces in the Space Between War and Peace

  2016cited by this paper
• Health research participants’ preferences for receiving research results

  2016cited by this paper
• Once a clinician, always a clinician: a systematic review to develop a typology of clinician-researcher dual-role experiences in health research with patient-participants

  2016cited by this paper
• Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research

  2015cited by this paper
• ‘Ethical responsibility’ or ‘a whole can of worms’: differences in opinion on incidental finding review and disclosure in neuroimaging research from focus group discussions with participants, parents, IRB members, investigators, physicians and community members

  2015cited by this paper
• Regulatory changes raise troubling questions for genomic testing

  2014cited by this paper
• Ethical, legal, social, and policy issues in the use of genomic technology by the U.S. Military

  2014cited by this paper
• Effect of knowledge of APOE genotype on subjective and objective memory performance in healthy older adults.

  2014cited by this paper
• Return of results: Ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care

  2014cited by this paper
• Dissemination of Research Findings to Research Participants Living with HIV in Rural Uganda: Challenges and Rewards

  2013cited by this paper
• Conceptual, Methodological, and Ethical Problems in Communicating Uncertainty in Clinical Evidence

  2013cited by this paper
• Justice and Beneficence in Military Medicine and Research

  2012cited by this paper
• Providing the results of research to participants: a mixed-method study of the benefits and challenges of a consultative approach

  2011cited by this paper
• Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy

  2011cited by this paper
• A legal duty to disclose individual research findings to research subjects?

  2009cited by this paper
• Subjects’ views of obligations to ensure post-trial access to drugs, care and information: qualitative results from the Experiences of Participants in Clinical Trials (EPIC) study

  2009cited by this paper
• A glossary of scientific terms for general use

  2008cited by this paper
• Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants

  2008cited by this paper
• Communicating the Results of Clinical Research to Participants: Attitudes, Practices, and Future Directions

  2008cited by this paper
• The Growing Relevance of Special Operations Forces in U.S. Military Strategy

  2006cited by this paper
• Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants

  2006cited by this paper
• Research in the Ranks: Vulnerable Subjects, Coercible Collaboration, and the Hepatitis E Vaccine Trial in Nepal

  2006cited by this paper
• The challenge of assuring continued post-trial access to beneficial treatment.

  2005cited by this paper
• Access to Research Data: Reconciling Risks and Benefits

  2005cited by this paper
• Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants.

  2005cited by this paper
• The Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program: innovations in the federal funding of biomedical research.

  2002cited by this paper

• No citing papers are available for this paper.