Health Data Sharing Perspectives of Patients Receiving Care in CancerLinQ-Participating Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: CancerLinQ seeks to use data sharing technology to improve quality of care, improve health outcomes, and advance evidence-based research. Understanding the experiences and concerns of patients is vital to ensure its trustworthiness and success. METHODS: In a survey of 1,200 patients receiving care in four CancerLinQ-participating practices, we evaluated awareness and attitudes regarding participation in data sharing. RESULTS: Of 684 surveys received (response rate 57%), 678 confirmed cancer diagnosis and constituted the analytic sample; 54% were female, and 70% were 60 years and older; 84% were White. Half (52%) were aware of the existence of nationwide databases focused on patients with cancer before the survey. A minority (27%) indicated that their doctors or staff had informed them about such databases, 61% of whom indicated that doctors or staff had explained how to opt out of data sharing. Members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely to be comfortable with research (88% v 95%; P = .002) or quality improvement uses (91% v 95%; P = .03) of shared data. Most respondents desired to know how their health information was used (70%), especially those of minority race/ethnicity (78% v 67% of non-Hispanic White respondents; P = .01). Under half (45%) felt that electronic health information was sufficiently protected by current law, and most (74%) favored an official body for data governance and oversight with representation of patients (72%) and physicians (94%). Minority race/ethnicity was associated with increased concern about data sharing (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; P < .001). Women were less concerned about data sharing than men (OR, 0.61; P = .001), and higher trust in oncologist was negatively associated with concern (OR, 0.75; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Engaging patients and respecting their perspectives is essential as systems like CancerLinQ evolve.

"Extremely slow and capricious": A qualitative exploration of genetic researcher priorities in selecting shared data resources.

PURPOSE: Genetic researchers' selection of a database can have scientific, regulatory, and ethical implications. It is important to understand what is driving database selection such that database stewards can be responsive to user needs while balancing the interests of communities in equitably benefiting from advances. METHODS: We conducted 23 semistructured interviews with US academic genetic researchers working with private, government, and collaboratory data stewards to explore factors that they consider when selecting a genetic database. RESULTS: Interviewees used existing databases to avoid burdens of primary data collection, which was described as expensive and time-consuming. They highlighted ease of access as the most important selection factor, integrating concepts of familiarity and efficiency. Data features, such as size and available phenotype, were also important. Demographic diversity was not originally cited by any interviewee as a pivotal factor; when probed, most stated that the option to consider diversity in database selection was limited. Database features, including integrity, harmonization, and storage were also described as key components of efficient use. CONCLUSION: There is a growing market and competition between genetic data stewards. Data need to be accessible, harmonized, and administratively supported for their existence to be translated into use and, in turn, result in scientific advancements across diverse communities.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Enrollment in Precision Oncology Research: Qualitative Ethical Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The genomic frontier continues to revolutionize the practice of oncology. Advances in cancer biology from tumorigenesis to treatment resistance are driven by the molecular underpinnings of malignancy. The framing of precision oncology as both a clinical and research tool is constantly evolving and directly influences conversations between oncologists and their patients. Prior research has shown that patient-participants often have unmet or unrealistic expectations regarding the clinical utility of oncology research and genomic sequencing. This indicates the need for more in-depth investigation of how and why patients choose to participate in such research. OBJECTIVE: This study presents a qualitative ethical analysis to better understand patient and provider perspectives on enrollment in precision oncology research. METHODS: Paired semistructured interviews were conducted with patient-participants enrolled in a prospective head and neck precision oncology research platform, along with their oncology providers, at a National Cancer Institute-designated academic cancer center. RESULTS: There were three major themes that emerged from the analysis. (1) There are distinct and unique challenges with informed consent to precision medicine, chiefly involving the ability of both patient-participants and providers to effectively understand the science underlying the research. (2) The unique benefits of precision medicine enrollment are of paramount importance to patients considering enrollment. (3) Patient-participants have little concern for the risks of research enrollment, particularly in the context of a low-burden protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-participants and their providers offer complementary and nuanced perspectives on their motivation to engage in precision oncology research. This reflects both the inherent promise and enthusiasm within the field, as well as the limitations and challenges of ensuring that both patient-participants and clinicians understand the complexities of the science involved.

Eliciting patient views on the allocation of limited healthcare resources: a deliberation on hepatitis C treatment in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: In response to the development of highly effective but expensive new medications, policymakers, payors, and health systems are considering novel and pragmatic ways to provide these medications to patients. One approach is to target these treatments to those most likely to benefit. However, to maximize the fairness of these policies, and the acceptance of their implementation, the values and beliefs of patients should be considered. The provision of treatments for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) in the resource-constrained context of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) offered a real-world example of this situation, providing the opportunity to test the value of using Democratic Deliberation (DD) methods to solicit the informed opinions of laypeople on this complex issue. METHODS: We recruited Veterans (n = 30) from the VHA to attend a DD session. Following educational presentations from content experts, participants engaged in facilitated small group discussions to: 1) identify strategies to overcome CHC treatment barriers and 2) evaluate, vote on, and modify/improve two CHC treatment policies - "first come, first served" (FCFS) and "sickest first" (SF). We used transcripts and facilitators' notes to identify key themes from the small group discussions. Additionally, participants completed pre- and post-DD surveys. RESULTS: Most participants endorsed the SF policy over the FCFS policy, emphasizing the ethical and medical appropriateness of treating the sickest first. Concerns about SF centered on the difficulty of implementation (e.g., how is "sickest" determined?) and unfairness to other Veterans. Proposed modifications focused on: 1) the need to consider additional health factors, 2) taking behavior and lifestyle into account, 3) offering education and support, 4) improving access, and 5) facilitating better decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: DD offered a robust and useful method for addressing the allocation of the scarce resource of CHC treatment. Participants were able to develop a modified version of the SF policy and offered diverse recommendations to promote fairness and improve quality of care for Veterans. DD is an effective approach for incorporating patient preferences and gaining valuable insights for critical healthcare policy decisions in resource-limited environments.

"My Research Is Their Business, but I'm Not Their Business": Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Commercialization of Precision Oncology Data.

BACKGROUND: Genetic sequencing and precision oncology have supported clinical breakthroughs but depend upon access to vast arrays of research specimens and data. One way for academic medical centers to fund such infrastructure and research is "commercialization" of access to specimens and data to industry. Here we explore patient and clinician perspectives regarding cancer specimen and data commercialization with the goal of improving such processes in the future. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative analysis was embedded within a prospective precision oncology sequencing study of adults with head and neck cancer. Via semistructured dyadic interviews with patients with cancer and their doctors, we assessed understanding and concerns regarding potential commercialization, opinions regarding investment of profits, and perspectives regarding the return of information directly to participants from industry. RESULTS: Several patient- and clinician-participants did not understand that the consent form already permitted commercialization of patient genetic data and expressed concerns regarding who would profit from the data, how profits would be used, and privacy and access. Patients were generally more comfortable with commercialization than clinicians. Many patients and clinicians were comfortable with investing profits back into research, but clinicians were more interested in investment in head and neck cancer research specifically. Patients generally supported potential return-of-results from a private entity, but their clinicians were more skeptical. CONCLUSION: Our results illustrate the limitations of mandatory disclosures in the informed consent process. The voices of both patients and their doctors are critical to mitigate violations of privacy and a degradation of trust as stakeholders negotiate the terms of academic and commercial engagement. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Further education is needed regarding how and why specimens and data in precision oncology research may be commercialized for both patients and providers alike. This process will require increased transparency, comprehension, and engagement of involved stakeholders.

A Survey Of Americans With High-Deductible Health Plans Identifies Opportunities To Enhance Consumer Behaviors.

Most high-deductible health plan (HDHP) enrollees do not engage in consumer behaviors such as price shopping. Why not? We surveyed 1,637 Americans in HDHPs-which can be linked to health savings accounts (HSAs) but usually are not-about factors that may predict, facilitate, or impede HDHP enrollees' engagement in consumer behaviors. We found that having an HSA was associated with saving for future care, high financial literacy was associated with comparing prices and quality, and high confidence in talking with providers about costs and trying to negotiate prices was associated with engaging in these behaviors. Employer HSA contributions were the most frequent facilitator of saving, websites were the most frequent facilitators of comparing prices and quality, and "someone at the doctor's office" was the most frequent facilitator of discussing costs with providers and trying to negotiate prices. The most frequent impediment to all of these behaviors was not having considered them when making decisions. These results suggest strategies that health plans, employers, and health systems should explore to promote greater engagement in consumer behaviors among patients in HDHPs.

Biobanks and the Moral Concerns of Donors: A Democratic Deliberation.

Do members of the public believe that biobanks should accommodate the moral concerns of donors about the types of research done with their biospecimens? The answer to this question is critical to the future of genomic and precision medicine, endeavors that rely on a public willing to share their biospecimens and medical data. To explore public attitudes regarding the requirements of consent for biobank donations, we organized three democratic deliberations involving 180 participants. The deliberative sessions involved small group discussions informed by presentations given by experts in both biobank research and ethics. We found that participants had a sophisticated understanding of the ethical problems of biobank consent and the complexity of balancing donor concerns while promoting research important to the future of health care. Our research shows how deliberative methods can offer policy makers creative ideas for accommodating the moral concerns of donors in the biobank consent process.

Effect of deliberation on the public's attitudes toward consent policies for biobank research.

In this study, we evaluate the effect of education and deliberation on the willingness of members of the public to donate tissue to biobank research and on their attitudes regarding various biobank consent policies. Participants were randomly assigned to a democratic deliberation (DD) group, an education group that received only written materials, and a control group. Participants completed a survey before the deliberation and two surveys post-deliberation: one on (or just after) the deliberation day, and one 4 weeks later. Subjects were asked to rate 5 biobank consent policies as acceptable (or not) and to identify the best and worst policies. Analyses compared acceptability of different policy options and changes in attitudes across the three groups. After deliberation, subjects in the DD group were less likely to find broad consent (defined here as consent for the use of donations in an unspecified range of future research studies, subject to content and process restrictions) and study-by-study consent acceptable. The DD group was also significantly less likely to endorse broad consent as the best policy (OR = 0.34), and more likely to prefer alternative consent options. These results raise ethical challenges to the current widespread reliance on broad consent in biobank research, but do not support study-by-study consent.

The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate.

Donors to biobanks are typically asked to give blanket consent, allowing their donation to be used in any research authorized by the biobank. This type of consent ignores the evidence that some donors have moral, religious, or cultural concerns about the future uses of their donations - concerns we call "non-welfare interests". The nature of non-welfare interests and their effect on willingness to donate to a biobank is not well understood.In order to better undersand the influence of non-welfare interests, we surveyed a national sample of the US population (in June 2014) using a probability-based internet panel. Logistic regression models assessed the demographic and attitudinal characteristics associated with participants' willingness to give consent for unspecified future uses of their donation when presented with 7 research scenarios that raised possible non-welfare interest concerns. Most people had non-welfare interests that significantly affect their willingness to donate to a biobank using blanket consent. Some non-welfare interests are associated with subgroups but others are not. A positive attitude toward biomedical research in general was associated with increased willingness to donate, while concerns about privacy and being African American were associated with decreased willingness.Non-welfare interests matter and can diminish willingness to donate to a biobank. Our data suggest that trust in research promotes willingness to donate. Ignoring non-welfare interests could erode this trust. Donors' non-welfare interests could be accommodated through greater transparency and easier access to information about the uses of donations.