Voices of Women With Lived Experience of Substance Use During Pregnancy: A Qualitative Study of Motivators and Barriers to Recruitment and Retention in Research.

Despite concerns about negative neurocognitive effects of in utero substance exposure on child and brain development, research in this area is limited. This study gathered perspectives of persons with lived experience of substance use (eg, alcohol, prescription and illicit opioids, and other illicit substances) during a previous pregnancy to determine facilitators and barriers to research engagement in this vulnerable population. We conducted structured, in-depth, individual interviews and 2 focus groups of adult persons with lived experience of substance use during a previous pregnancy. Questions were developed by clinical, research, bioethics, and legal experts, with input from diverse stakeholders. They inquired about facilitators and barriers to research recruitment and retention, especially in long-term studies, with attention to bio-sample and neuroimaging data collection and legal issues. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive coding qualitative analysis methods. Ten participants completed in-depth interviews and 7 participated in focus groups. Three main themes emerged as potential barriers to research engagement: shame of using drugs while pregnant, fear of punitive action, and mistrust of health care and research professionals. Facilitative factors included trustworthiness, compassion, and a nonjudgmental attitude among research personnel. Inclusion of gender-concordant recovery peer support specialists as research team members was the most frequently identified facilitator important for helping participants reduce fears and bolster trust in research personnel. In this qualitative study, persons with lived experience of substance use during a previous pregnancy identified factors critical for engaging this population in research, emphasizing the involvement of peer support specialists as research team members.

A socioecological framework for engaging substance-using pregnant persons in longitudinal research: Multi-stakeholder perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the impact of substance use during pregnancy on fetal development and child health is essential for designing effective approaches for reducing prenatal substance exposures and improving child outcomes. Research on the developmental impacts of prenatal substance exposure has been limited by legal, ethical, and practical challenges. This study examined approaches to engage substance-using (with an emphasis on opioids) pregnant persons in longitudinal research, from multi-stakeholder perspectives. METHODS: The present study solicited the expertise of 1) an advisory group of community stakeholders, including people with lived experienced of opioid/substance use; and 2) an online survey with content experts. Qualitative analysis examined facilitators and barriers to recruiting and retaining substance-using pregnant persons through a socioecological lens at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy levels. RESULTS: Stakeholders (N = 19) prioritized stigma, loss of confidentiality, legal consequences, and instability (e.g., homelessness and poverty) as important barriers that prevent substance-using persons from enrolling in research studies. Of 70 survey respondents, most self-identified as researchers (n = 37), followed by clinicians (n = 19), and 'others' (n = 14). Survey respondents focused on retention strategies that build trusting relationships with participants, including incentives (e.g., transportation and childcare support), participant-friendly study design, and team-related factors, (e.g., attitudes and practices). CONCLUSION: The stakeholder input and survey data offer key insights strengthening our understanding of facilitators and barriers to research participation, and ways to overcome barriers among substance-using pregnant persons. A socioecological framework can be used to identify and address these factors to increase recruitment and long-term retention of high-risk populations.

Integrating Rules for Genomic Research, Clinical Care, Public Health Screening and DTC Testing: Creating Translational Law for Translational Genomics.

Human genomics is a translational field spanning research, clinical care, public health, and direct-to-consumer testing. However, law differs across these domains on issues including liability, consent, promoting quality of analysis and interpretation, and safeguarding privacy. Genomic activities crossing domains can thus encounter confusion and conflicts among these approaches. This paper suggests how to resolve these conflicts while protecting the rights and interests of individuals sequenced. Translational genomics requires this more translational approach to law.

Author Correction: Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care.

Interest in machine-learning applications within medicine has been growing, but few studies have progressed to deployment in patient care. We present a framework, context and ultimately guidelines for accelerating the translation of machine-learning-based interventions in health care. To be successful, translation will require a team of engaged stakeholders and a systematic process from beginning (problem formulation) to end (widespread deployment).

FMT and Microbial Medical Products: Generating High-Quality Evidence through Good Governance.

This article argues that current data for the safety and efficacy of fecal microbiota transplants as a treatment for any indication, including recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, is low-quality. It develops a governance proposal that encourages production of high-quality evidence by incentivizing well-designed RCTs of stool and stoolderived microbial products. The proposal would require that FDA change its current enforcement approach, but it would not require any change in statutes or regulations.

Regulating stool for microbiota transplantation.

In 2017 Gut Microbes published "A proposed definition of microbiota transplantation for regulatory purposes," in which the authors suggest that regulators should draw a line between microbiota transplants and biologic drugs composed of microbial communities (or other products derived from the human microbiome). They develop a definition of microbiota transplantation (MT) to help regulators draw such a line, and suggest that MT need not be, and cannot be, regulated as a biologic drug (a live biotherapeutic product). However, an agency's regulatory scrutiny of a medical product should be commensurate with that product's degree of risk to patients. Products for MT, such as stool, are likely to be as or more dangerous than more highly manipulated microbial products that scientists and regulators agree should be regulated as biologic drugs. Therefore, we argue that MT, as defined by the authors, should receive the same regulatory oversight as any other biologic product intended to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease. We also suggest that regulators might not be able to operationalize the proposed definition of MT.

The ethics of translating high-throughput science into clinical practice.

Biomedical research is increasingly data intensive and computational, and "big data science" is migrating into the clinical arena. Unfortunately, ethicists, regulators, and policy-makers have barely begun to explore the ethical, legal, and social issues raised by the variety of analytical and computational approaches in use and under development in biology and medicine. Most scholarship concerning big data bioscience has focused on privacy, a vitally important consideration but not the only one. Among the issues raised by new computational technologies are questions about safety and safety assessment, justice, and how to obtain proper informed consent. These technologies also raise a myriad of regulatory issues that could influence the probability of translating new assays or computational tools to the clinical or public health spheres.

Why we should not use the Affordable Care Act to encourage widespread whole genome sequencing.

Perry Payne argues that the health care system should encourage provision of whole genome sequencing (WGS) for most people in the near future. Payne's essay contains two distinct claims. One claim is that near-universal access to WGS would be beneficial both to individuals and to populations who, without it, could be on the losing end of widening health disparities. The second claim is that the preventive services provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) should be invoked to establish legal entitlements to WGS, without any patient cost sharing. We believe there are strong reasons to reject both of these claims. Indeed, the reasons that count against providing wide access to WGS are the very same reasons that undermine Payne's argument for providing WGS under the preventive services provisions of the ACA.

The human genome as common heritage: common sense or legal nonsense?

This essay identifies two legal lineages underlying the common heritage concept, and applies each to the human genome. The essay notes some advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and argues that patenting of human genes would be allowable under either approach.