Genetic research within Indigenous communities: Engagement opportunities and pathways forward.

PURPOSE: Against a historical backdrop of researchers who violated trust through lack of benefit sharing, transparency, and engagement, efforts are underway to develop better approaches for genetic and genomic research with Indigenous communities. To increase engagement, there is a need to understand factors that affect researcher and community collaborations. This study aimed to understand the barriers, challenges, and facilitators of Indigenous Peoples in the United States participating in genetic research. METHODS: We conducted 42 semistructured interviews with Tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and Tribal research review board members across the United States to explore perceived risks, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of genetic research participation. RESULTS: Participants, identifying as Indigenous (88%) or non-Indigenous allies (12%), described their concerns, hesitancy, and fears about genetic research, as well as the roles of trust, transparency, and respect for culture in facilitating partnerships. Previous harms-such as sample and data misuse, stigmatization, or misrepresentation by researchers-revealed strategies for building trust to create more equitable and reciprocal research partnerships. CONCLUSION: Participants in this study offered strategies for increasing genetic research engagement. The pathway forward should foster transparent research policies and practices to facilitate informed research that supports the needs and priorities of participants, communities, and researchers.

Motivations for and against Participation in Neonatal Research: Insights from Interviews of Diverse Parents Approached for Neonatal Research in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To describe parents' motivations for and against participation in neonatal research, including the views of those who declined participation. STUDY DESIGN: We performed 44 semi-structured, qualitative interviews of parents approached for neonatal research. Here we describe their motivations for and against participation. RESULTS: Altruism was an important reason parents chose to participate. Some hoped participation in research would benefit their infant. Burdens of participation to the family, such as transportation to follow up (distinct from risks/burdens to the infant), were often deciding factors among those who declined participation. Perceived risks to the infant were reasons against participation, but parents often did not differentiate between baseline risks and incremental risk of study participation. Concerns regarding their infant being treated like a "guinea pig" were common among those who declined. Finally, historical abuses and institutional racism were reported as important concerns by some research decliners from minoritized populations. CONCLUSIONS: Within a diverse sample of parents approached to enroll their infant in neonatal research, motivations for and against participation emerged, which may be targets of future interventions. These motivations included reasons for participation which we may hope to encourage, such as altruism. They also included reasons against participation, which we may hope to, as feasible, eliminate, mitigate, or at least acknowledge. These findings can help clinical trialists, regulators, and funders attempting to improve neonatal research recruitment processes.

Experiences and preferences for learning about neonatal research: insights from parent interviews.

INTRODUCTION: Parents struggle with being asked to participate in neonatal research. Past work has largely failed to include views of minoritized parents, low-socioeconomic status parents, and those who declined research. We aimed to describe parents' preferences related to learning about eligibility for neonatal research. METHODS: Qualitative interviews of parents who were asked to enroll their infant in neonatal research. Themes related to parental experiences and preferences for learning about neonatal research were identified using content analysis. RESULTS: Many parents desired greater involvement of their clinical team. Emotions at the time of recruitment were critically important to parents' experience, where were deeply impacted by interpersonal relationships with research staff. DISCUSSION: Increased involvement of the clinical team and greater sensitivity to the stressors around parent and infant conditions at the time of recruitment for neonatal research should be considered by those attempting to improve recruitment for neonatal research.

Equity Concerns Across Pediatric Research Recruitment: An Analysis of Research Staff Interviews.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Difficulty recruiting individuals from minoritized and underserved populations for clinical research is well documented and has health equity implications. Previously, we reported findings from interviews with research staff about pediatric research recruitment processes. Respondents raised equity concerns related to recruitment and enrollment of participants from minoritized, low resourced, and underserved populations. We therefore decided to perform a secondary coding of the transcripts to examine equity-related issues systematically. METHODS: We conducted a process of secondary coding and analysis of interviews with research staff involved in recruitment for pediatric clinical research. Through consensus we identified codes relevant to equity and developed a conceptual framework including 5 stages of research. RESULTS: We analyzed 28 interviews and coded equity-related items. We report 6 implications of our findings. First, inequitable access to clinical care is an upstream barrier to research participation. Second, there is a need to increase research opportunities where underserved and under-represented populations receive care. Third, increasing research team diversity can build trust with patients and families, but teams must ensure adequate support of all research team members. Fourth, issues related to consent processes raise institutional-level opportunities for improvement. Fifth, there are numerous study procedure-related barriers to participation. Sixth, our analysis illustrates that individuals who speak languages other than English face barriers across multiple stages. CONCLUSIONS: Research staff members identified equity-related concerns and recommended potential solutions across 5 stages of the research process, which may guide those endeavoring to improve research recruitment for pediatric patients from minoritized and underserved populations.

Refining a Multifaceted Model of Perceived Utility of Genomic Sequencing Results.

INTRODUCTION: Research on the perceived utility of genomic sequencing has focused primarily on pediatric populations and on individuals and families with rare genetic diseases. Here, we evaluate how well a multifaceted perceived utility model developed with these populations applies to a diverse, adult population aged 18-49 at risk for hereditary cancer and propose new considerations for the model. METHODS: Participants received clinical genomic sequencing in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of participants at 1 and 6 months after results disclosure. We used an approach influenced by grounded theory to examine perceptions of the utility of genomic sequencing and analyzed how utility in CHARM mapped to the published multifaceted perceived utility model, noting which domains were represented or absent and which were most salient to our population. RESULTS: Participants' discussions of utility often involved multiple domains and revealed the variety of ways in which receiving sequencing results can impact one's life. Results demonstrated that an individual's perception of utility can change over the life course when sequenced at a relatively young age and may be influenced by the resources available to them to act on the results. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the relevance of a multifaceted perceived utility model for a diverse adult population at risk for hereditary cancer. We identified refinements that could make the model more robust, including emphasizing the overlapping nature of the domains and the importance of life stage and personal resources to the perception of utility.

Current landscape of research ethics consultation services: National survey results.

Introduction: The goal of a research ethics consultation service (RECS) is to assist relevant parties in navigating the ethical issues they encounter in conduct of research. The goal of this survey was to describe the current landscape of research ethics consultation and document if and how it has changed over the last decade. Methods: The survey instrument was based on the survey previously circulated. We included a number of survey domains from the previous survey with the goal of direct comparison of outcomes. The survey was sent to 57 RECS in the USA and Canada. Results: Forty-nine surveys were completed for an overall response rate of 86%. With the passing of 10 years, the volume of consults received by RECS surveyed has increased. The number of consults received by a subset of RECS remains low. RECS continues to receive requests for consults from a wide range of stakeholders. About a quarter of RECS surveyed actively evaluate their services, primarily through satisfaction surveys routinely shared with requestors. The number of RECS evaluating their services has increased. We identified a group of eight key competencies respondents find as key to providing RECS. Conclusions: The findings from our survey demonstrate that there have been growth and development of RECS since 2010. Further developing evaluation and competency guidelines will help existing RECS continue to grow and facilitate newly established RECS maturation. Both will allow RECS personnel to better serve their institutions and add value to the research conducted.

Research recruitment through the patient portal: perspectives of community focus groups in Seattle and Atlanta.

Objective: Research recruitment through patient portals (ie, patient-facing, web-based clinical interfaces) has the potential to be effective, efficient, and inclusive, but best practices remain undefined. We sought to better understand how patients view this recruitment approach. Materials and Methods: We conducted 6 focus groups in Atlanta, GA and Seattle, WA with members of patient advisory committees and the general public. Discussions addressed acceptability of patient portal recruitment and communication preferences. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using deductive and inductive codes. Iterative team discussions identified major themes. Results: Of 49 total participants, 20 were patient advisory committee members. Participants' mean age was 49 (range 18-74); 59% identified as non-Hispanic White and 31% as Black/African American. Participants were supportive of patient portal recruitment and confident that messages were private and legitimate. Participants identified transparency and patient control over whether and how to participate as essential features. Concerns included the frequency of research messages and the ability to distinguish between research and clinical messages. Participants also discussed how patient portal recruitment might affect diversity and inclusion. Discussion: Focus group participants generally found patient portal recruitment acceptable and perceived it as secure and trustworthy. Transparency, control, and attention to inclusiveness were identified as key considerations for developing best practices. Conclusion: For institutions implementing patient portal recruitment programs, continued engagement with patient populations can help facilitate translation of these findings into best practices and ensure that implemented strategies accomplish intended goals.

Literacy-adapted, electronic family history assessment for genetics referral in primary care: patient user insights from qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment for hereditary cancer syndromes is recommended in primary care, but family history is rarely collected in enough detail to facilitate risk assessment and referral - a roadblock that disproportionately impacts individuals with healthcare access barriers. We sought to qualitatively assess a literacy-adapted, electronic patient-facing family history tool developed for use in diverse, underserved patient populations recruited in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study. METHODS: Interview participants were recruited from a subpopulation of CHARM participants who experienced barriers to tool use in terms of spending a longer time to complete the tool, having incomplete attempts, and/or providing inaccurate family history in comparison to a genetic counselor-collected standard. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants about barriers and facilitators to tool use and overall tool acceptability; interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were coded based on a codebook developed using inductive techniques, and coded excerpts were reviewed to identify overarching themes related to barriers and facilitators to family history self-assessment and acceptability of the study tool. RESULTS: Interviewees endorsed the tool as easy to navigate and understand. However, they described barriers related to family history information, literacy and language, and certain tool functions. Participants offered concrete, easy-to-implement solutions to each barrier. Despite experience barriers to use of the tool, most participants indicated that electronic family history self-assessment was acceptable or preferable in comparison to clinician-collected family history. CONCLUSIONS: Even for participants who experienced barriers to tool use, family history self-assessment was considered an acceptable alternative to clinician-collected family history. Barriers experienced could be overcome with minor adaptations to the current family history tool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is a sub-study of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) trial, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03426878. Registered 8 February 2018.

ORCA, a values-based decision aid for selecting additional findings from genomic sequencing in adults: Efficacy results from a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Individuals having genomic sequencing can choose to be notified about pathogenic variants in genes unrelated to the testing indication. A decision aid can facilitate weighing one's values before making a choice about these additional results. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial (N = 231) comparing informed values-choice congruence among adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome who viewed either the Optional Results Choice Aid (ORCA) or web-based additional findings information alone. ORCA is values-focused with a low-literacy design. RESULTS: Individuals in both arms had informed values-choice congruence (75% and 73% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.58-2.08). Most participants had adequate knowledge (79% and 76% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.61-2.34), with no significant difference between groups. Most had information-seeking values (97% and 98% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.10-3.61) and chose to receive additional findings. CONCLUSION: The ORCA decision aid did not significantly improve informed values-choice congruence over web-based information in this cohort of adults deciding about genomic results. Both web-based approaches may be effective for adults to decide about receiving medically actionable additional results.

Ethical Considerations in Balancing Use of Seclusion and Restraint With Risk of COVID-19 Exposure: Recommendations for Youth Inpatient Psychiatry Units.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for inpatient psychiatry units (IPUs). IPUs, especially those caring for children and adolescents, rely heavily on milieu group programming to provide care and supervision for patients, and have had to adapt unit policies and procedures to maintain a therapeutic milieu while minimizing COVID-19 transmission.1 Simultaneously providing care while preventing transmission of COVID-19 within IPUs is a formidable task, and many IPUs face the additional challenge of treating youth who have been exposed to, or are actively infected with, COVID-19. In addition, given the need to prevent transmission of COVID-19, recommendations include "mandatory quarantine and isolation when patients refuse to adhere to guidelines,"2 potentially leading to the use of restraint when patients attempt to leave isolation; thus a conflict between the potential risks of enforcing infection prevention policies in order to reduce virus transmission and best practices of eliminating seclusion and restraint (S/R) creates an ethical dilemma for IPUs.

Motivations and concerns of patients considering participation in an implementation study of a hereditary cancer risk assessment program in diverse primary care settings.

PURPOSE: Understanding the motivations and concerns of patients from diverse populations regarding participation in implementation research provides the needed evidence about how to design and conduct studies for facilitating access to genetics services. Within a hereditary cancer screening study assessing a multifaceted intervention, we examined primary care patients' motivations and concerns about participation. METHODS: We surveyed and interviewed study participants after they enrolled, surveyed those who did not complete enrollment, and used descriptive qualitative and quantitative methods to identify motivations and concerns regarding participation. RESULTS: Survey respondents' most common motivations included a desire to learn about their future risk (81%), receiving information that may help family (58%), and a desire to advance research (34%). Interviews revealed 3 additional important factors: affordability of testing, convenience of participation, and clinical relationships supporting research decision-making. Survey data of those who declined enrollment showed that the reasons for declining included concerns about privacy (38%), burdens of the research (19%), and their fear of not being able to cope with the genetic information (19%). CONCLUSION: Understanding the facilitating factors and concerns that contribute to decisions about research may reveal ways to improve equity in access to care and research that could lead to greater uptake of genomic medicine across diverse primary care patient populations.

Relationship building in pediatric research recruitment: Insights from qualitative interviews with research staff.

Introduction: Clinical research staff play a critical role in recruiting families for pediatric research, but their views are not well described. We aimed to describe how pediatric research staff build trusting research relationships with patients and their families. Methods: We interviewed research staff at one pediatric research institution and its affiliated academic medical center between November 2020 and February 2021. Staff were eligible if they conducted participant recruitment, consent, and/or enrollment for clinical research. We developed our semi-structured interview guide based on a framework for trusting researcher-community partnerships. Results: We interviewed 28 research staff, with a median age of 28 years (range 22-50) and a median of 5 years of experience (range 1-29). Interviewees identified factors relevant to relationship building across three levels: the individual staff member, the relational interaction with the family, and the institutional or other structural backdrop. Individual factors included how staff developed recruitment skills, their perceived roles, and their personal motivations. Relational factors spanned four stages of recruitment: before the approach, forming an initial connection with a family, building the connection, and following up. Structural factors were related to access and diversity, clinical interactions, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: Research staff discussed tensions and supports with various actors, challenges with the integration of research and clinical care, the importance of voluntariness for building trust, and multiple contributors to inequities in research. These findings reveal the importance of ensuring research staff have a voice in institutional policies and are supported to advocate for patients and families.

Creating a Research Ethics Consultation Service: Issues to Consider.

This article provides pragmatic advice for organizations interested in creating a research ethics consultation service (RECS). A robust RECS has the potential to build capacity among investigators to identify and consider the ethical issues they encounter while conducting their research. Determining whether to establish an RECS should begin with an institutional-needs assessment that includes three key questions: What are the current resources available to research teams to navigate ethical concerns that arise from their research? Is there a demand or perceived need for more resources? Is there institutional support (financial and otherwise) to establish and maintain an RECS? If this results in the decision to establish the consultation service, relevant institutional stakeholders must be identified and consulted, and personnel with the requisite skills recruited. The next step is to establish an RECS and build the infrastructure to process and respond to requests. The RECS's long-term sustainability will depend on a stable source of funding and a mechanism to receive constructive feedback to ensure that the service is meeting the institutional needs it set out to address.

Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM): A clinical trial assessing a multimodal cancer genetics services delivery program and its impact on diverse populations.

Advances in the application of genomic technologies in clinical care have the potential to increase existing healthcare disparities. Studies have consistently shown that only a fraction of eligible patients with a family history of cancer receive recommended cancer genetic counseling and subsequent genetic testing. Care delivery models using pre-test and post-test counseling are not scalable, which contributes to barriers in accessing genetics services. These barriers are even more pronounced for patients in historically underserved populations. We have designed a multimodal intervention to improve subsequent cancer surveillance, by improving the identification of patients at risk for familial cancer syndromes, reducing barriers to genetic counseling/testing, and increasing patient understanding of complex genetic results. We are evaluating this intervention in two large, integrated healthcare systems that serve diverse patient populations (NCT03426878). The primary outcome is the number of diagnostic (hereditary cancer syndrome) findings. We are examining the clinical and personal utility of streamlined pathways to genetic testing using electronic medical record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews. We will assess downstream care utilization of individuals receiving usual clinical care vs. genetic testing through the study. We will evaluate the impacts of a literacy-focused genetic counseling approach versus usual care genetic counseling on care utilization and participant understanding, satisfaction, and family communication. By recruiting participants belonging to historically underserved populations, this study is uniquely positioned to evaluate the potential of a novel genetics care delivery program to reduce care disparities.

Reframing Recruitment: Evaluating Framing in Authorization for Research Contact Programs.

BACKGROUND: The changing clinical research recruitment landscape involves practical challenges but introduces opportunities. Researchers can now identify large numbers of eligible patients through electronic health record review and can directly contact those who have authorized contact. Applying behavioral science-driven strategies to design and frame communication could affect patients' willingness to authorize contact and their understanding of these programs. The ethical and practical implications of various strategies warrant empirical evaluation. METHODS: We conducted an online survey (n = 1070) using a nationally-representative sample. Participants were asked to imagine being asked for authorization for research contact in clinic. They were randomly assigned to view one of three flyers: #1-neutral text flyer; #2-a positive text flyer; or #3-positive graphics-based flyer. Primary outcomes included likelihood of enrollment and comprehension of the program. Chi-Square tests and regression analyses were used to examine whether those who saw the positive flyers were more likely to enroll and had increased comprehension. RESULTS: Compared to the neutral flyer, individuals who received the positive text flyer were numerically more likely to enroll, but this was not statistically significant (24.2% v. 19.0%, p = 0.11). Individuals who received the positive graphics flyer were more likely to enroll (28.7% v. 19.0%, p = 0.002). After adjustment, individuals assigned to both novel flyers had increased odds of being likely to enroll (OR = 1.55 95%CI [1.04, 2.31] and OR = 1.95 95%CI [1.31, 2.91]). Flyer type did not affect overall comprehension (p = 0.21), and greater likelihood of enrollment was observed only in individuals with better comprehension. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that employing behavioral science-driven communication strategies for authorization for research contact had an effect on likelihood of hypothetical enrollment but did not significantly affect comprehension. Strategies using simple, positive language and visual tools may be effective and ethically appropriate. Further studies should explore how these and other approaches can help to optimize research recruitment.

Public attitudes toward an authorization for contact program for clinical research.

We conducted an online experimental survey to evaluate attitudes toward an authorization for contact (AFC) program allowing researchers to contact patients about studies based on electronic record review. A total of 1070 participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 flyers varying in design and framing. Participants were asked to select concerns about and reasons for signing up for AFC. Logistic regression and latent class analysis were conducted. The most commonly selected concerns included needing more information (43%), privacy (40%), and needing more time to think (28%). A minority were not interested in participating in research (16%) and did not want to be bothered (15%). Latent class analysis identified clusters with specific concerns about privacy, lack of interest in research, and not wanting to be bothered. A novel flyer with simple and positive framing was associated with lower odds of both not wanting to be bothered (P = .01) and not being interested in research (P = .01). Many concerns about AFC programs appear nonspecific. Addressing privacy, lack of interest in research, and not wanting to be bothered warrant further study as ways to enhance recruitment.

Participant Reactions to a Literacy-Focused, Web-Based Informed Consent Approach for a Genomic Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genomic implementation studies pose challenges for informed consent. Consent forms often include complex language and concepts, which can be a barrier to diverse enrollment, and these studies often blur traditional research-clinical boundaries. There is a move toward self-directed, web-based research enrollment, but more evidence is needed about how these enrollment approaches work in practice. In this study, we developed and evaluated a literacy-focused, web-based consent approach to support enrollment of diverse participants in an ongoing clinical genomic implementation study. Methods: As part of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, we developed a web-based consent approach that featured plain language, multimedia, and separate descriptions of clinical care and research activities. CHARM offered clinical exome sequencing to individuals at high risk of hereditary cancer. We interviewed CHARM participants about their reactions to the consent approach. We audio recorded, transcribed, and coded interviews using a deductively and inductively derived codebook. We reviewed coded excerpts as a team to identify overarching themes. Results: We conducted 32 interviews, including 12 (38%) in Spanish. Most (69%) enrolled without assistance from study staff, usually on a mobile phone. Those who completed enrollment in one day spent an average of 12 minutes on the consent portion. Interviewees found the information simple to read but comprehensive, were neutral to positive about the multimedia support, and identified increased access to testing in the study as the key difference from clinical care. Conclusions: This study showed that interviewees found our literacy-focused, web-based consent approach acceptable; did not distinguish the consent materials from other online study processes; and valued getting access to testing in the study. Overall, conducting empirical bioethics research in an ongoing clinical trial was useful to demonstrate the acceptability of our novel consent approach but posed practical challenges.