"Choice of law" in precision medicine research.

Large-scale precision medicine research requires massive amounts of data representing people from all walks of life; thus, in the US, it is often multistate research. Significant legal and ethical quandaries arise as a result of the patchwork of laws states have enacted that may apply to research, are not preempted by federal law, and may impose requirements or provide participant rights and protections that differ from other states. Determining which state's laws apply, and under what circumstances, is not solved by the transition to a single-IRB model and researchers cannot simply choose one state's laws to apply uniformly. At a minimum, the current process of meeting each state's requirements could be made more reliable and efficient. To fundamentally change this status quo, however, requires action at multiple levels. Federally, well-known gaps in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act should be closed, and a coherent system of compensation for research injury-including non-physical injuries-should be developed. States should clarify which of their laws are intended to apply to research and work collaboratively to harmonize them. At the level of individual research projects, numerous policies and procedures could be standardized through authoritative guidelines. Examples include clarifying the scope of broad consent, understanding and upholding Certificates of Confidentiality, offering individual research results responsibly, and consistently disseminating aggregate results to participants and the public. Overall, development of a choice of law framework specific to the research context could significantly promote clarity and consistency.

Data stewardship in FTLD research: Investigator and research participant views.

INTRODUCTION: Federal policies and guidelines have expanded the return of individual results to participants and expectations for data sharing between investigators and through repositories. Here, we report investigators' and study participants' views and experiences with data stewardship practices within frontotemporal lobal degeneration (FTLD) research, which reveal unique ethical challenges. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with (1) investigators conducting FTLD research that includes genetic data collection and/or analysis and (2) participants enrolled in a single site longitudinal FTLD study. RESULTS: Analysis of the interviews identified three meta themes: perspectives on data sharing, experiences with enrollment and participation, and data management and security as mechanisms for participant protections. DISCUSSION: This study identified a set of preliminary gaps and needs regarding data stewardship within FTLD research. The results offer initial insights on ethical challenges to data stewardship aimed at informing future guidelines and policies.

Patient Perspectives on Perioperative Supportive Care Needs Surrounding Major Abdominal Operations for Cancer.

PURPOSE: The development of supportive care interventions delivered by surgeons for their patients is a major research priority. Designing such interventions requires understanding patients' supportive care needs for major operations. This qualitative analysis aimed to determine the supportive care needs of patients undergoing major abdominal operations for cancer. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants in a randomized, controlled trial of a specialist palliative care intervention for patients undergoing abdominal resections for cancer (NCT03436290). Sampling was designed to balance the population by sex, age (older vs. younger than 65 years), and treatment group assignment (intervention vs. control). The interview guide was developed to elicit patient perceptions of their supportive care needs from diagnosis to the time of interview, about 1 month after their operation. Two coders used an iterative, inductive method to identify recurring themes in the interviews. RESULTS: Analysis of interview transcripts revealed five primary themes: preoperative preparation, postoperative recovery, expectation setting, coordination of care, and provider characteristics. Cutting across these themes were patients' focus on time, timeliness, and timelines, as well as their desires for information both from their surgeons and other sources. Surgeons inspired trust through the quality of their communication and their responsiveness to questions. Patients were sensitive to perceived deviations from their expectations and spoke of the need to develop patience and to expect the unexpected. CONCLUSIONS: Patients expressed several needs for supportive care that surgical teams can potentially address to improve the experience of major cancer surgery.

Overcoming refusal of treatment in pediatric cancer without legal involvement: A descriptive case series from interviews with pediatric oncologists.

To describe strategies that pediatric oncologists utilize to persuade families to initiate or continue chemotherapy after refusing treatment, we examined transcripts from interviews of oncologists with relevant experience. We identified three cases in which the pediatric oncologists' approaches led to voluntary acceptance of recommended treatment without legal intervention. Strategies used include direct communication with alternative medicine providers, time-limited trial of alternative therapy, and praying with the family. While we cannot conclude whether these approaches could be generalized to other cases, they offer ideas for pediatric oncologists to consider when facing the decision to seek judicial involvement or discontinue persuasive efforts.

Developing model biobanking consent language: what matters to prospective participants?

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve informed consent have led to calls for providing information a reasonable person would want to have, in a way that facilitates understanding of the reasons why one might or might not want to participate. At the same time, advances in large-scale genomic research have expanded both the opportunities and the risks for participants, families, and communities. To advance the use of effective consent materials that reflect this landscape, we used empirical data to develop model consent language, as well as brief questions to assist people in thinking about their own values relative to participation. METHODS: We conducted in-person interviews to gather preliminary input on these materials from a diverse sample (n = 32) of the general population in Nashville, Tennessee. We asked them to highlight information they found especially reassuring or concerning, their hypothetical willingness to participate, and their opinions about the values questions. RESULTS: Consent information most often highlighted as reassuring included the purpose of the biobank, the existence and composition of a multidisciplinary oversight committee, the importance of participants' privacy and efforts to protect it, and controlled access to a scientific database. Information most often highlighted as concerning included the deposition of data in a publicly accessible database, the risk of unintended access to data, the potential for non-research use of data, and use of medical record information in general. Seventy-five percent of participants indicated initial willingness to participate in the hypothetical biobank; this decreased to 66% as participants more closely considered the information over the course of the interview. A large majority rated the values questions as helpful. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with other research on public perspectives on biobanking and genomic cohort studies, suggesting that our model language effectively captures commonly expressed reasons for and against participation. Our study enriches this literature by connecting specific consent form disclosures with qualitative data regarding what participants found especially reassuring or concerning and why. Interventions that facilitate individuals' closer engagement with consent information may result in participation decisions more closely aligned with their values.

Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens.

Human biospecimens have played a crucial role in scientific and medical advances. Although the ethical and policy issues associated with biospecimen research have long been the subject of scholarly debate, the story of Henrietta Lacks, her family, and the creation of HeLa cells captured the attention of a much broader audience. The story has been a catalyst for policy change, including major regulatory changes proposed in the United States surrounding informed consent. These proposals are premised in part on public opinion data, necessitating a closer look at what such data tell us. The development of biospecimen policy should be informed by many considerations-one of which is public input, robustly gathered, on acceptable approaches that optimize shared interests, including access for all to the benefits of research. There is a need for consent approaches that are guided by realistic aspirations and a balanced view of autonomy within an expanded ethical framework.

Patient perspectives on use of electronic health records for research recruitment.

BACKGROUND: EHR phenotyping offers the ability to rapidly assemble a precisely defined cohort of patients prescreened for eligibility to participate in health-related research. Even so, stakeholders in the process must still contend with the practical and ethical challenges associated with research recruitment. Patient perspectives on these matters are particularly important given that the success of research recruitment depends on patients' willingness to participate. METHODS: We conducted 15 focus groups (n = 110 participants) in four counties in diverse regions of the southeastern US: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Piedmont area of North Carolina. Based on a hypothetical study of a behavioral intervention for type 2 diabetes, we asked about the acceptability and appropriateness of direct investigator versus physician-mediated contact with patients for research recruitment, and whether patients should be asked to opt in or opt out of further contact in response to recruitment letters. RESULTS: For initial contact, nearly all participants said it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients directly and three-fourths said that it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients through their physicians. When we asked which would be most appropriate, a substantial majority chose direct contact. Themes that arose in the discussion included trust and transparency, decision-making power, the effect on research, and the effect on patient care. For response expectations, the vast majority of participants said both opt-in and opt-out would be acceptable-typically finding neither especially problematic and noting that both afford patients the opportunity to make their own decisions. CONCLUSIONS: External validity relies heavily on researchers' success enrolling eligible patients and failure to reach accrual targets is a costly and common barrier to advancing scientific knowledge. Our results suggest that patients recognize multiple advantages and disadvantages of different research recruitment strategies and place value on the implications not just for themselves, but also for researchers and healthcare providers. Our findings, including rich qualitative detail, contribute to the body of empirical and ethical literature on improving research recruitment and suggest specific ways forward as well as important areas for future research.

Exploring Understanding of "Understanding": The Paradigm Case of Biobank Consent Comprehension.

Data documenting poor understanding among research participants and real-time efforts to assess comprehension in large-scale studies are focusing new attention on informed consent comprehension. Within the context of biobanking consent, we previously convened a multidisciplinary panel to reach consensus about what information must be understood for a prospective participant's consent to be considered valid. Subsequently, we presented them with data from another study showing that many U.S. adults would fail to comprehend the information the panel had deemed essential. When asked to evaluate the importance of the information again, panelists' opinions shifted dramatically in the direction of requiring that less information be understood. Follow-up interviews indicated significant uncertainty about defining a threshold of understanding and what should happen when prospective participants are unable to grasp key information. These findings have important implications for urgently needed discussion of whether consent comprehension is an ethical requirement or an ethical aspiration.

New and Improved? 21st Century Cures Act Revisions to Certificates of Confidentiality.

Certificates of Confidentiality ("Certificates") are a federal legal tool designed to protect sensitive, identifiable research data from compelled disclosure. Congress first authorized their use in 1970 to facilitate research on illegal drug use. The scope of their use was later expanded to cover mental health research and then again to apply broadly to identifiable, sensitive research data, regardless of topic. Certificates can be critical to enabling conduct of essential research on sensitive topics, such as effective interventions to curb the opioid epidemic or reduce HIV transmission among minority youth. Nevertheless, there have been criticisms about Certificates and their use on several grounds. For example, researchers and institutional review boards ("IRBs") may lack sufficient knowledge about them and, therefore, may not consider using them in studies for which they would be appropriate. In contrast to other protections, such as Department of Justice Privacy Certificates, Certificate protections were not automatically extended to these studies, but instead required an application. In addition, the concept of identifiable data had not kept up with technological changes that may allow for reidentification of data previously considered unidentifiable. Although a researcher who obtained a Certificate could use it to resist a legal demand for identifiable data, little was known about the actual effectiveness of the protection provided. The 21st Century Cures Act substantially revises the Certificates authorizing statute, and many of the changes are directly responsive to the criticisms that have been raised. Significantly, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") must issue Certificate protection to federally funded research involving identifiable, sensitive research data, and the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") will automatically include such protections to research it funds. Non-federally funded researchers can continue to apply for Certificate protection. The definition of identifiable has been expanded to include data "for which there is at least a very small risk" of identification. Certificates will now not only protect against compelled disclosure, but also render protected data inadmissible in legal proceedings without participant consent. In addition, voluntary disclosure is no longer authorized, but there is now a broad exception for disclosure as required by federal, state, and local laws. In this paper, based on our previous research on Certificates, we critically evaluate the 21st Century Cures Act's Certificates revisions and their positive and negative impact on the dual goals of facilitating important, sensitive research while maximally protecting individual research participants.

Improving biobank consent comprehension: a national randomized survey to assess the effect of a simplified form and review/retest intervention.

PURPOSE: To determine the individual and combined effects of a simplified form and a review/retest intervention on biobanking consent comprehension. METHODS: We conducted a national online survey in which participants were randomized within four educational strata to review a simplified or traditional consent form. Participants then completed a comprehension quiz; for each item answered incorrectly, they reviewed the corresponding consent form section and answered another quiz item on that topic. RESULTS: Consistent with our first hypothesis, comprehension among those who received the simplified form was not inferior to that among those who received the traditional form. Contrary to expectations, receipt of the simplified form did not result in significantly better comprehension compared with the traditional form among those in the lowest educational group. The review/retest procedure significantly improved quiz scores in every combination of consent form and education level. Although improved, comprehension remained a challenge in the lowest-education group. Higher quiz scores were significantly associated with willingness to participate. CONCLUSION: Ensuring consent comprehension remains a challenge, but simplified forms have virtues independent of their impact on understanding. A review/retest intervention may have a significant effect, but assessing comprehension raises complex questions about setting thresholds for understanding and consequences of not meeting them.Genet Med advance online publication 13 October 2016.

Informed consent for biobanking: consensus-based guidelines for adequate comprehension.

PURPOSE: Federal regulations and best practice guidelines identify categories of information that should be communicated to prospective biobank participants during the informed consent process. However, uncertainty remains about which of this information participants must understand to provide valid consent. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi process to define "adequate comprehension" in the context of biobanking consent. The process involved an iterative series of three online surveys of a diverse panel of 51 experts, including genome scientists, biobank managers, ethics and policy experts, and community and participant representatives. We sought consensus (>70% agreement) concerning what specific details participants should know about 16 biobank consent topics. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for 15 of the 16 consent topics. The exception was the comprehension needed regarding the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. CONCLUSION: Our Delphi process was successful in identifying a concise set of key points that prospective participants must grasp to provide valid consent for biobanking. Specifying the level of knowledge sufficient for individuals to make an informed choice provides a basis for improving consent forms and processes, as well as an absolute metric for assessing the effectiveness of other interventions to improve comprehension.Genet Med 17 3, 226-233.

Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research.

There are situations in which the requirement to obtain conventional written informed consent can impose significant or even insurmountable barriers to conducting pragmatic clinical research, including some comparative effectiveness studies and cluster-randomized trials. Although certain federal regulations governing research in the United States (45 CFR 46) define circumstances in which any of the required elements may be waived, the same standards apply regardless of whether any single element is to be waived or whether consent is to be waived in its entirety. Using the same threshold for a partial or complete waiver limits the options available to institutional review boards as they seek to optimize a consent process. In this article, we argue that new standards are necessary in order to enable important pragmatic clinical research while at the same time protecting patients' rights and interests.

Proposed regulations for research with biospecimens: responses from stakeholders at CTSA consortium institutions.

Secondary research with biospecimens acquired through clinical care and through research is often conducted without the informed consent of individuals from whom the specimens were acquired. While such uses are consistent with the current federal regulations, surveys of the general public suggest that many individuals would prefer more information and choice regarding research use of biospecimens. The federal government issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in 2011 that proposed a number of potential changes in the regulations governing human subjects. These proposed regulations are particularly pertinent to institutions committed to research involving human subjects-including institutions in the NIH-funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium. In this study, we reviewed public responses by CTSA-funded institutions and CTSA-affiliated organizations and groups regarding the proposed changes in the ANPRM with respect to research with biospecimens. Our results indicate that the majority of responses to the ANPRM from CTSA institutions were not supportive of the proposed changes. While many responses acknowledge a need to change current research practices regarding biospecimens, the proposed changes in the ANPRM received only limited support from this subgroup of academic research institutions.

Certificates of confidentiality: privileging research data.

With the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs, reproductive research now joins other sensitive research topics that present legal risks to research participants, underscoring the role of Certificates in protecting them. Yet, stakeholders question whether Certificates will hold up in court. In this article, we describe the essential arguments supporting Congress's regulation of biomedical research and, thus, Certificates, under its authority to regulate interstate commerce. Our analysis should reassure researchers and Institutional review boards who rely on Certificates to protect the confidentiality of research participants' data. We conclude with recommendations for stakeholders based on our analysis.

Corrigendum: Landscape of pediatric cancer treatment refusal and abandonment in the US: a qualitative study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.1049661.].

Legal Involvement in Pediatric Cancer Treatment Refusal: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the spectrum of legal options considered in cases of treatment refusal, nonadherence, and abandonment (TRNA); clinicians' thought processes regarding legal intervention; and perceived consequences of legal involvement. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 30 pediatric oncologists between May and September of 2019 regarding experiences with TRNA. The interview guide covered types of conflicts encountered; factors and strategies considered in response; effects of TRNA cases, personally and professionally; the role of ethical frameworks and legal requirements; and resources needed to manage TRNA cases. Interviews were transcribed and coded iteratively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants represented a range of institutional sizes, geographic locations, and years in practice. Twenty-five of 30 interviewees discussed legal consideration with regard to TRNA. Most participants first engaged the legal system through child protective service agencies. They considered patient age, treatment efficacy, quality of life (burden of treatment), and prognosis; family resources and social context; and preservation of therapeutic relationships and possible consequences of reporting. Experiences and outcomes of legal involvement varied. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians struggle with the tension between obligations to report medical neglect and fears that reporting may result in more harm than benefit to the child in question. We urgently need more dialog between health care professionals and child protective services and legal professionals. Stakeholders from both groups would benefit from a greater understanding of the other's thought processes; clarity regarding the relevant facts; and mutual progress toward creative, evidence-based solutions to working out these complex challenges.