Use of a web-based portal to return normal individual research results in Early Check: Exploring user behaviors and attitudes.

Early Check is a voluntary, large-scale expanded newborn screening study in North Carolina that uses a self-directed web-based portal for return of normal individual research results (IRR). Little is known about participant perspectives in using web-based portals to receive IRR. This study explored user attitudes and behaviors within the Early Check portal using three methods: (1) a feedback survey available to the consenting parent of participating infants (typically mothers), (2) semi-structured interviews conducted with a subset of parents, and (3) Google Analytics. During an approximate 3-year period, 17 936 newborns received normal IRR and there were 27 812 visits to the portal. Most surveyed parents reported viewing their baby's results (86%, 1410/1639). Parents largely found the portal easy to use to get results, and helpful in understanding the results. However, 10% of parents said it was difficult to find enough information to understand their baby's results. In Early Check, providing normal IRR via the portal made a large-scale study practical, and was highly rated by most users. Return of normal IRR may be particularly amenable to web-based portals, as the consequences to participants from not viewing results are modest, and the interpretation of a normal result is relatively straightforward.

Out of This World: re-grounding justice through science fiction.

Good science fiction can be a successful vehicle for portraying justice. Science fiction can stimulate moral imagination in much the same way as the most effective justice theories, connecting the world in which we live with a range of alternative futures deliberately and creatively made plausible. A selective examination of classic and recent science fiction stories and novels provides contextual framing for considering questions of climate justice, virtuous personal action in the face of structural injustice, and the problem of what justice means when some people are regarded as "other." By connecting compelling images of individual responsibility with the complex challenges posed by striving for social justice, science fiction can also help render justice work appealing and achievable-an essential step that is reinforced in closing by a brief set of maxims.

Dobbs, the Intrusive State, and the Future of Solidarity.

The intrusive state has long viewed women as fetal containers. The Dobbs decision goes further, essentially causing women to vanish when fetuses are abstracted from their relationships to pregnant persons. The ways in which women are first controlled and then made invisible are clearly connected with the move from obedience to omission that has historically affected black Americans. When personal decisionmaking and participation in democracy are regarded as threats, those threatened restrict decisional freedom and political power, deepening structural injustices relating to sex, race, and poverty. Fear of Dobbs has health effects on conditions unrelated to pregnancy and connects with erasures of human value that are not health-related. We reaffirm solidarity as a countering influence. Taking account of the richly relational context in which issues like abortion and political representation arise should lead to better, more meaningful policies, making so many people impossible to unsee.

Othering and Health Justice.

Bioethics needs to expand its vision. We must examine and interrogate the social and structural barriers that help traditionally privileged communities maintain minoritized groups as inherently inferior "others." Justice requires the field to look beyond the walls of hospitals, clinics, and medical academia to address and ameliorate the structural injustices that give rise to health disparities long before differential access to health services becomes an issue for underserved patients. Doing so means engaging in challenging multidisciplinary collaborations in order to understand the sociohistorical complexities of health and illness, appreciate the factors that contribute to shaming and blaming those "others" who are not "us," and work to lessen the discomfort with uncertainty that impedes equity. All of this necessary work takes bioethics well beyond the well-trodden pathways of our usual scholarship and practice. But we simply have to reach higher to do health justice.

Tracheostomy decision-making for children with medical complexity: What supports and resources do caregivers need?

OBJECTIVES: Caregivers of children with medical complexity (CMC) face decisions about life-sustaining interventions, such as tracheostomy. Our objective is to describe the support needs of caregivers of CMC and the resources they use surrounding tracheostomy decision-making (TDM) for their children. METHODS: This qualitative study, conducted between 2013 and 2015, consisted of semi-structured interviews with 56 caregivers of 41 CMC who had tracheostomies, and 5 focus groups of 33 clinicians at a tertiary care children's hospital. Participants were asked about their perspectives on the TDM process. Qualitative data were transcribed, coded, and organized into themes. RESULTS: Caregivers used five domains of resources surrounding TDM: (1) social network including extended family members, friends, and clergy; (2) healthcare providers including physicians and nurses; (3) other parents of children with tracheostomy; (4) tangible materials such as print materials, videos, tracheostomy tubes, mannequins, and simulation labs; and (5) internet including websites, social media, and online health communities. Caregivers used these resources for (1) decision-making, (2) becoming knowledgeable and skillful about child's diagnosis, tracheostomy, and home care, and (3) emotional and spiritual well-being. Caregivers agreed that they received enough support, but there were gaps. Clinicians were knowledgeable about these resources, discussed social network and internet less often than the other domains, and identified gaps in supporting caregivers. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Caregivers' need for support and use of resources surrounding tracheostomy placement for CMC extended beyond decision-making, and included becoming knowledgeable and getting emotional/spiritual support. Healthcare providers exploring these resources with caregivers could improve the quality of TDM communication.

Early Check: translational science at the intersection of public health and newborn screening.

BACKGROUND: Newborn screening (NBS) occupies a unique space at the intersection of translational science and public health. As the only truly population-based public health program in the United States, NBS offers the promise of making the successes of translational medicine available to every infant with a rare disorder that is difficult to diagnose clinically, but for which strong evidence indicates that presymptomatic treatment will substantially improve outcomes. Realistic NBS policy requires data, but rare disorders face a special challenge: Screening cannot be done without supportive data, but adequate data cannot be collected in the absence of large-scale screening. The magnitude and scale of research to provide this expanse of data require working with public health programs, but most do not have the resources or mandate to conduct research. METHODS: To address this gap, we have established Early Check, a research program in partnership with a state NBS program. Early Check provides the infrastructure needed to identify conditions for which there have been significant advances in treatment potential, but require a large-scale, population-based study to test benefits and risks, demonstrate feasibility, and inform NBS policy. DISCUSSION: Our goal is to prove the benefits of a program that can, when compared with current models, accelerate understanding of diseases and treatments, reduce the time needed to consider inclusion of appropriate conditions in the standard NBS panel, and accelerate future research on new NBS conditions, including clinical trials for investigational interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration # NCT03655223 . Registered on August 31, 2018.

Caregiver Perceptions about their Decision to Pursue Tracheostomy for Children with Medical Complexity.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the perceptions of caregivers of children with medical complexity (CMC) about their decision to pursue tracheostomy for their children, in particular the satisfaction with their decision. STUDY DESIGN: In this qualitative study conducted in western North Carolina between 2013 and 2014, we interviewed 56 caregivers of 41 CMC who had received tracheostomies in the past 5 years. Three of the CMC were deceased at the time of the interview; 8 were decannulated. In-depth interviews (35 English, 6 Spanish) were conducted, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. We used ATLAS.ti software to manage data and identified themes related to caregiver perceptions about tracheostomy decision. RESULTS: We found that caregivers often chose tracheostomy because extending the lives of their children and being able to care for them at home were important. Caregivers reported the many benefits of tracheostomy including improvement in respiratory symptoms, physical and developmental health, quality of life, and means to provide medical care quickly when needed. There were negative effects of tracheostomy such as mucous plugs, excessive secretions, accidental decannulation necessitating emergency tracheostomy tube change, and the increased infection risk. Providing medical care for CMC with tracheostomy at home was difficult, but improved over time. Caregivers were generally satisfied with their decision to pursue tracheostomy for their CMC. CONCLUSIONS: Decisional satisfaction with tracheostomy for CMC is high. In counseling caregivers about tracheostomy, clinicians should present both the benefits and risks. Future studies should quantify the outcomes described in this study.

Ensuring respect for persons in COMPASS: a cluster randomised pragmatic clinical trial.

Cluster randomised clinical trials present unique challenges in meeting ethical obligations to those who are treated at a randomised site. Obtaining informed consent for research within the context of clinical care is one such challenge. In order to solve this problem it is important that an informed consent process be effective and efficient, and that it does not impede the research or the healthcare. The innovative approach to informed consent employed in the COMPASS study demonstrates the feasibility of upholding ethical standards without imposing undue burden on clinical workflows, staff members or patients who may participate in the research by virtue of their presence in a cluster randomised facility. The COMPASS study included 40 randomised sites and compared the effectiveness of a postacute stroke intervention with standard care. Each site provided either the comprehensive postacute stroke intervention or standard care according to the randomisation assignment. Working together, the study team, institutional review board and members of the community designed an ethically appropriate and operationally reasonable consent process which was carried out successfully at all randomised sites. This achievement is noteworthy because it demonstrates how to effectively conduct appropriate informed consent in cluster randomised trials, and because it provides a model that can easily be adapted for other pragmatic studies. With this innovative approach to informed consent, patients have access to the information they need about research occurring where they are seeking care, and medical researchers can conduct their studies without ethical concerns or unreasonable logistical impediments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02588664, recruiting. This article covers the development of consent process that is currentlty being employed in the study.

Ethical considerations in tissue engineering research: Case studies in translation.

Tissue engineering research is a complex process that requires investigators to focus on the relationship between their research and anticipated gains in both knowledge and treatment improvements. The ethical considerations arising from tissue engineering research are similarly complex when addressing the translational progression from bench to bedside, and investigators in the field of tissue engineering act as moral agents at each step of their research along the translational pathway, from early benchwork and preclinical studies to clinical research. This review highlights the ethical considerations and challenges at each stage of research, by comparing issues surrounding two translational tissue engineering technologies: the bioartificial pancreas and a tissue engineered skeletal muscle construct. We present relevant ethical issues and questions to consider at each step along the translational pathway, from the basic science bench to preclinical research to first-in-human clinical trials. Topics at the bench level include maintaining data integrity, appropriate reporting and dissemination of results, and ensuring that studies are designed to yield results suitable for advancing research. Topics in preclinical research include the principle of "modest translational distance" and appropriate animal models. Topics in clinical research include key issues that arise in early-stage clinical trials, including selection of patient-subjects, disclosure of uncertainty, and defining success. The comparison of these two technologies and their ethical issues brings to light many challenges for translational tissue engineering research and provides guidance for investigators engaged in development of any tissue engineering technology.

Why Climate Literacy Is Health Literacy.

Health problems of global warming are daunting in severity and magnitude and will only get worse. Yet literacy about these problems is poor and plans to alleviate them are too early in development to be responsive to current levels of global threat and individual need. Social and ecological determinants of health and illness are exacerbated by excessive heat and flooding; lack of food, safe water, and secure shelter; and loss of arable land for farming. This article considers the nature and scope of ethicists' roles in awakening clinicians and the public to this crisis and offers 4 recommendations to reduce morbidity and mortality from climate change.

Perceptions regarding genetic testing in populations at risk for nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: Population ancestry-based differences exist in genetic risk for many kidney diseases. Substantial debate remains regarding returning genetic test results to participants. African-Americans (AAs) and European-Americans (EAs) at risk for end-stage kidney disease were queried for views on the value and use of genetic testing in research. METHODS: A standardized survey regarding attitudes toward genetic testing was administered to 130 individuals (64 AA, 66 EA) with first-degree relatives on dialysis. Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in participant attitudes between population groups. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of surveyed AAs and EAs was 45.5 (12.8) and 50.5 (14.4) years, respectively (p = 0.04), with similar familial relationships (p = 0.22). AAs and EAs wished to know their test results if risk could be: (1) reduced by diet or exercise (100 and 98%, p = 0.99); (2) reduced by medical treatment (100 and 98%, p = 0.99), or (3) if no treatments were available (90 and 82%, p = 0.21). If informed they lacked a disease susceptibility variant, 87% of AAs and 88% of EAs would be extremely or pretty likely to inform family members (p = 0.84). If informed they had a disease susceptibility variant, 92% of AAs and 89% of EAs would be extremely or pretty likely to inform their family (p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes toward obtaining and using genetic test results for disease in research contexts were similar in AAs and EAs at risk for end-stage kidney disease. A substantial majority would want information regardless of available treatments and would share the information with the family. These results have important implications for patient care, study design and the informed consent process.

Why we should continue to worry about the therapeutic misconception.

In a recent article in The Journal of Clinical Ethics, David Wendler argues that worries about the therapeutic misconception (TM) are not only misconceived, but detract from the larger agenda of a proper informed consent for subjects involved in clinical research.1 By contrast, we argue that Wendler mischaracterizes those who support TM research, and that his arguments are fragmentary, often illogical, and neglect a critical difference between clinical care and clinical research. A clear explanation about the chief aim of research is, in fact, what gives the other elements in a consent process their meaning. We argue that informed consent must be both trial-specific and context-sensitive, and that concern about the TM is needed now more than ever.

DEI Is Not Enough.

The movement under way to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in every workplace, including academia, medicine, and science, is an essential step toward health justice, but only a first step. Bioethics, health care, and health-related research all need more professionals from minoritized groups, but all of us need to do more to address justice at every level. From inclusive workplace policies and practices to research into structural injustices and health disparities, bioethics can and must lead the way in collaborative efforts. The work belongs to all of us, and DEI is only the beginning.

The role of religion and spirituality in caregiver decision-making about tracheostomy for children with medical complexity.

Children with medical complexity (CMC) receive life-sustaining treatments such as tracheostomy. The objective of this paper is to explore the roles of religion and spirituality (R&S) of caregivers of children with medical complexity (CMC) in their decision to pursue tracheostomy for their children. We conducted 41 in-depth interviews of caregivers of CMC who had received tracheostomies in the prior 5 years. Four themes emerged: (1) Caregivers believed R&S to be powerful for their children's healing, and helped them cope with their children's illnesses; (2) Spirituality was an important factor for caregivers in the decision to pursue tracheostomy for their children; (3) Many caregivers did not discuss their spirituality with clinicians for a variety of reasons; (4) Clergy and hospital chaplains played a major supportive role overall; however, they did not play a significant role in the decision-making process. Our study shows the importance of R&S, and the roles of clergy and chaplains in pediatric tracheostomy decision-making.

Collaborative decision-making: A framework for decision-making about life-sustaining treatments in children with medical complexity.

OBJECTIVE: Caregivers of children with medical complexity (CMC) face decisions about life-sustaining treatments (LST) like tracheostomy. We sought to develop a clinically relevant and realistic model for decision-making about tracheostomy placement that might apply to other LST in CMC. DESIGN: This qualitative study, conducted between 2013 and 2015, consisted of 41 interviews with 56 caregivers of CMC who had received tracheostomies and 5 focus groups of 33 healthcare providers (HCPs) at a tertiary-care children's hospital in North Carolina. Participants were asked about their perspectives on the tracheostomy decision-making process. Data were transcribed, and coded. Using thematic content analysis, we inductively developed a tracheostomy decision-making framework and process. RESULTS: Many factors influenced caregivers' decisions, including children's well-being and caregivers' values, faith, knowledge, experience, emotional state, and social factors; preserving the child's life was the most important. HCPs consider many clinical and nonclinical factors; recommending tracheostomy for children with limited survival, perceived poor functioning and quality of life, and progressive conditions is ethically difficult. The framework of tracheostomy decision-making has inter-related caregiver- and HCP-level factors that influence the process. The framework contains elements not captured in a shared decision-making model, but better fits a collaborative decision-making (CDM) model. The tracheostomy CDM process that emerged from the data has two nonsequential components that HCPs could use: (1) gaining understanding and (2) holding decision-making conversations. CONCLUSIONS: CDM could be a useful model for clinicians guiding families about tracheostomy for CMC. The applicability of CDM for decision-making about other LSTs needs further exploration.

Education and Consent for Population-Based DNA Screening: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Early Check Newborn Screening Pilot Study.

A challenge in implementing population-based DNA screening is providing sufficient information, that is, understandable and acceptable, and that supports informed decision making. Early Check is an expanded newborn screening study offered to mothers/guardians whose infants have standard newborn screening in North Carolina. We developed electronic education and consent to meet the objectives of feasibility, acceptability, trustworthiness, and supporting informed decisions. We used two methods to evaluate Early Check among mothers of participating infants who received normal results: an online survey and interviews conducted via telephone. Survey and interview domains included motivations for enrollment, acceptability of materials and processes, attitudes toward screening, knowledge recall, and trust. Quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics and assessment of factors associated with knowledge recall and trust. Qualitative data were coded, and an inductive approach was used to identify themes across interviews. Survey respondents (n = 1,823) rated the following as the most important reasons for enrolling their infants: finding out if the baby has the conditions screened (43.0%), and that no additional blood samples were required (20.1%). Interview respondents (n = 24) reported the value of early knowledge, early intervention, and ease of participation as motivators. Survey respondents rated the study information as having high utility for decision making (mean 4.7 to 4.8 out of 5) and 98.2% agreed that they had sufficient information. Knowledge recall was relatively high (71.8-92.5% correct), as was trust in Early Check information (96.2% strongly agree/agree). Attitudes about Early Check screening were positive (mean 0.1 to 0.6 on a scale of 0-4, with lower scores indicating more positive attitudes) and participants did not regret participation (e.g., 98.6% strongly agreed/agreed Early Check was the right decision). Interview respondents further reported positive attitudes about Early Check materials and processes. Early Check provides a model for education and consent in large-scale DNA screening. We found evidence of high acceptability, trustworthiness and knowledge recall, and positive attitudes among respondents. Population-targeted programs need to uphold practices that result in accessible information for those from diverse backgrounds. Additional research on those who do not select screening, although ethically and practically challenging, is important to inform population-based DNA screening practices.

Clarifying the Ethics and Oversight of Chimeric Research.

This article is the lead piece in a special report that presents the results of a bioethical investigation into chimeric research, which involves the insertion of human cells into nonhuman animals and nonhuman animal embryos, including into their brains. Rapid scientific developments in this field may advance knowledge and could lead to new therapies for humans. They also reveal the conceptual, ethical, and procedural limitations of existing ethics guidance for human-nonhuman chimeric research. Led by bioethics researchers working closely with an interdisciplinary work group, the investigation focused on generating conceptual clarity and identifying improvements to governance approaches, with the goal of helping scholars, funders, scientists, institutional leaders, and oversight bodies (embryonic stem cell research oversight [ESCRO] committees and institutional animal care and use committees [IACUCs]) deliver principled and trustworthy oversight of this area of science. The article, which focuses on human-nonhuman animal chimeric research that is stem cell based, identifies key ethical issues in and offers ten recommendations regarding the ethics and oversight of this research. Turning from bioethics' previous focus on human-centered questions about the ethics of "humanization" and this research's potential impact on concepts like human dignity, this article emphasizes the importance of nonhuman animal welfare concerns in chimeric research and argues for less-siloed governance and oversight and more-comprehensive public communication.