The HI V O pen Call on I nformed C onsent and E thics in Research (VOICE) for Adolescents and Young Adults: A Digital Crowdsourcing Open Call in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: Many adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 10-24 years old) are excluded from HIV research because of social, ethical, and legal challenges with informed consent, resulting in limited AYA-focused data. We use a participatory approach to identify strategies for improving AYA consent processes in HIV research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We conducted a digital crowdsourcing open call for ideas to improve AYA consent to HIV research in LMICs. Crowdsourcing involves engaging a group of people in problem-solving, then sharing emergent solutions. Submissions were evaluated by 3 independent judges using predefined criteria, with exceptional strategies receiving prizes. Demographic data were collected, and textual data were qualitatively analyzed for emergent themes in barriers and facilitators for improving AYA consent in HIV research, guided by a socioecological model. RESULTS: We received 110 strategies total; 65 were eligible for evaluation, 25 of which were identified as finalists. Fifty-eight participants from 10 LMICs submitted the 65 eligible submissions, of which 30 (52%) were 18 to 24 years old. Thematic analysis identified 10 barriers to AYA consent, including HIV stigma, limited education, and legal/regulatory barriers. Strategies for improving AYA consent processes revealed 7 potential facilitators: enhancing AYA engagement in research, involving parents/guardians, improving education/awareness, improving institutional practices/policy, making research participation more AYA-friendly, enhancing engagement of other key communities of interest, and empowering AYA. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse communities of interest in LMICs developed compelling strategies to enhance informed consent that may improve AYA inclusion in HIV research. These data will be used to develop practical guidance on improving AYA consent processes.

Ethical and Legal Obligations for Research Involving Pregnant Persons in a Post-Dobbs Context.

In light of a history of categorical exclusion, it is critical that pregnant people are included in research to help improve the knowledge base and interventions needed to address public health. Yet the volatile legal landscape around reproductive rights in the United States threatens to undue recent progress made toward the greater inclusion of pregnant people in research. We offer ethical and practical guidance for researchers, sponsors, and institutional review boards to take specific steps to minimize legal risks and ensure the ethical conduct of research with pregnant people in an evolving legal environment.

'I feel that I should decide on my own .': who should be involved in the decision-making process for adolescent involvement in HIV research?

INTRODUCTION: Efforts to improve health outcomes among adolescents and young adults living with HIV (ALHs) are hampered by limited adolescent engagement in HIV-related research. We sought to understand the views of adolescents, caregivers and healthcare workers (HCWs) about who should make decisions regarding ALHs' research participation. METHODS: We conducted focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with ALHs (aged 14-24 years), caregivers of ALHs and HCWs from six HIV care clinics in Western Kenya. We used semi-structured guides to explore ALHs' involvement in research decisions. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis; perspectives were triangulated between groups. RESULTS: We conducted 24 FGDs and 44 IDIs: 12 FGDs with ALHs, 12 with caregivers, and 44 IDIs with HCWs, involving 216 participants. HCWs often suggested that HIV research decision-making should involve caregivers and ALHs deciding together. In contrast, ALHs and parents generally thought decisions should be made individually, whether by HCWs/research teams (although this is likely ethically problematic), adolescents or caregivers. Caregiver and ALH preferences depended on ALHs' age, with younger ALHs requiring more support. A few caregivers felt that ALHs should consult with the research team/HCWs due to their greater knowledge of clinical care. ALHs emphasised that they should independently decide because they thought they had the right to do so and the capacity to consent. Poor communication and parental non-disclosure of HIV status influenced ALHs' views to exclude caregivers from decision-making. Regarding influences on research decision-making, ALHs were more willing to participate based on perceived contribution to science and less interested in participating in studies with potential risks, including loss of confidentiality. DISCUSSION: While research teams and HCWs felt that adolescents and caregivers should jointly make research decisions, ALHs and caregivers generally felt individuals should make decisions. As ALHs sometimes find caregiver support lacking, improving family dynamics might enhance research engagement.

Patient priorities for fulfilling the principle of respect in research: findings from a modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Standard interpretations of the ethical principle of respect for persons have not incorporated the views and values of patients, especially patients from groups underrepresented in research. This limits the ability of research ethics scholarship, guidance, and oversight to support inclusive, patient-centered research. This study aimed to identify the practical approaches that patients in community-based settings value most for conveying respect in genomics research. METHODS: We conducted a 3-round, web-based survey using the modified Delphi technique to identify areas of agreement among English-speaking patients at primary care clinics in Washington State and Idaho who had a personal or family history of cancer. In Round 1, respondents rated the importance of 17 items, identified in prior qualitative work, for feeling respected. In Round 2, respondents re-rated each item after reviewing overall group ratings. In Round 3, respondents ranked a subset of the 8 most highly rated items. We calculated each item's mean and median rankings in Round 3 to identify which approaches were most important for feeling respected in research. RESULTS: Forty-one patients consented to the survey, 21 (51%) completed Round 1, and 18 (86% of Round 1) completed each of Rounds 2 and 3. Two sets of rankings were excluded from analysis as speed of response suggested they had not completed the Round 3 ranking task. Respondents prioritized provision of study information to support decision-making (mean ranking 2.6 out of 8; median ranking 1.5) and interactions with research staff characterized by kindness, patience, and a lack of judgment (mean ranking 2.8; median ranking 2) as the most important approaches for conveying respect. CONCLUSIONS: Informed consent and interpersonal interactions are key ways that research participants experience respect. These can be supported by other approaches to respecting participants, especially when consent and/or direct interactions are infeasible. Future work should continue to engage with patients in community-based settings to identify best practices for research without consent and examine unique perspectives across clinical and demographic groups in different types of research.

How penalizing substance use in pregnancy affects treatment and research: a qualitative examination of researchers' perspectives.

Introduction: Laws regulating substance use in pregnancy are changing and may have unintended consequences on scientific efforts to address the opioid epidemic. Yet, how these laws affect care and research is poorly understood. Methods: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews using purposive and snowball sampling of researchers who have engaged pregnant people experiencing substance use. We explored views on laws governing substance use in pregnancy and legal reform possibilities. Interviews were double coded. Data were examined using thematic analysis. Results: We interviewed 22 researchers (response rate: 71 per cent) and identified four themes: (i) harms of punitive laws, (ii) negative legal impacts on research, (iii) proposals for legal reform, and (iv) activism over time. Discussion: Researchers view laws penalizing substance use during pregnancy as failing to treat addiction as a disease and harming pregnant people and families. Respondents routinely made scientific compromises to protect participants. While some have successfully advocated for legal reform, ongoing advocacy is needed. Conclusion: Adverse impacts from criminalizing substance use during pregnancy extend to research on this common and stigmatized problem. Rather than penalizing substance use in pregnancy, laws should approach addiction as a medical issue and support scientific efforts to improve outcomes for affected families.

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.

"[T]he laws need to change to reflect current society": Insights from stakeholders involved in development, review or implementation of policies about adolescent consent for HIV testing, care and research in Kenya.

INTRODUCTION: Engaging adolescents in HIV care and research promotes the development of interventions tailored to their unique needs. Guidelines generally require parental permission for adolescents to receive HIV care/testing or participate in research, with exceptions. Nevertheless, parental permission requirements can restrict adolescent involvement in care and research. To better appreciate prospects for policy reform, we sought to understand the perspectives of stakeholders involved in the development, review and implementation of policies related to adolescents living with HIV. METHODS: Semi-structured individual interviews (IDIs) were conducted from October 2019 to March 2020 with 18 stakeholders with expertise in the (1) development of policy through membership in the Law Society of Kenya or work as a health policy official; (2) review of policy through ethics review committee service; or (3) implementation of policy through involvement in adolescent education. IDIs were conducted in English by Kenyan social scientists, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used thematic analysis to identify themes around how policies can be reformed to improve adolescent engagement in HIV care and research. RESULTS: Our analysis identified three major themes. First, policies should be flexible rather than setting an age of consent. Stakeholders noted that adolescents' capacity for engagement in HIV care and research depended on context, perceived risks and benefits, and "maturity"-and that age was a poor proxy for the ability to understand. Second, policies should evolve with changing societal views about adolescent autonomy. Participants recognized a generational shift in how adolescents learn and mature, suggesting the need for a more frequent review of HIV care and research guidelines. Third, adults should empower adolescent decision-making. Stakeholders felt that caregivers can gradually involve adolescents in decision-making to equip them to gain ownership over their health and lives, improving their confidence and capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Revising relevant laws to consider context, alternative measures of maturity, and evolving societal views about adolescence, along with supporting caregivers to assist in developing adolescent autonomy may promote more equitable and representative participation of adolescents in HIV care and research. Additional research should explore how to support caregivers and other adults to empower adolescents and improve stakeholder engagement in a more routine process of policy reform.

Validation of a Process for Shared Decision-Making in Pediatrics.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to confirm, refute, or modify a 4-step process for implementing shared decision-making (SDM) in pediatrics that involves determining 1) if the decision includes >1 medically reasonable option; 2) if one option has a favorable medical benefit-burden ratio compared to other options; and 3) parents' preferences regarding the options; then 4) calibrating the SDM approach based on other relevant decision characteristics. METHODS: We videotaped a purposive sample of pediatric inpatient and outpatient encounters at a single US children's hospital. Clinicians from 7 clinical services (craniofacial, neonatology, oncology, pulmonary, pediatric intensive care, hospital medicine, and sports medicine) were eligible. English-speaking parents of children who participated in inpatient family care conferences or outpatient problem-oriented encounters with participating clinicians were eligible. We conducted individual postencounter interviews with clinician and parent participants utilizing video-stimulated recall to facilitate reflection of decision-making that occurred during the encounter. We utilized direct content analysis with open coding of interview transcripts to determine the salience of the 4-step SDM process and identify themes that confirmed, refuted, or modified this process. RESULTS: We videotaped 30 encounters and conducted 53 interviews. We found that clinicians' and parents' experiences of decision-making confirmed each SDM step. However, there was variation in the interpretation of each step and a need for flexibility in implementing the process depending on specific decisional contexts. CONCLUSIONS: The 4-step SDM process for pediatrics appears to be salient and may benefit from further guidance about the interpretation of each step and contextual factors that support a modified approach.

Sociodemographic Comparison of Children With High-risk Medical Conditions Referred vs Identified Through Screening Plus Outreach for COVID-19 Therapeutics.

Importance: Minoritized groups are less likely to receive COVID-19 therapeutics, but few studies have identified potential methods to reduce disparities. Objective: To determine whether screening plus outreach, when compared with referral alone, increases identification of vulnerable pediatric patients at high risk for severe disease eligible for COVID-19 therapeutics from low-resourced communities. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 medication allocation between January 1, 2022, and February 15, 2022, at Lurie Children's Hospital, a quaternary care children's hospital, in Chicago, Illinois. The cohorts were pediatric patients referred for COVID-19 therapeutics or with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction within the hospital system followed by outreach. Screening involved daily review of positive cases of SARS-CoV-2, followed by medical record review for high-risk conditions, and communication with clinicians and/or patients and families to offer therapy. Exposures: Diagnosis of COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary measure was difference in child opportunity index (COI) scores between the 2 cohorts. Secondary measures included presence and duration of symptoms at diagnosis, medication uptake, race and ethnicity, insurance type, qualifying medical condition, sex, primary language, and age. Results: Of 145 total patients, the median (IQR) age was 15 (13-17) years, and most were male (87 participants [60.0%]), enrolled in public insurance (83 participants [57.2%]), and members of minoritized racial and ethnic groups (103 participants [71.0%]). The most common qualifying conditions were asthma and/or obesity (71 participants [49.0%]). From 9869 SARS-CoV-2 tests performed, 94 eligible patients were identified via screening for COVID-19 therapeutics. Fifty-one patients were identified via referral. Thirty-two patients received medication, of whom 8 (25%) were identified by screening plus outreach alone. Compared with referred patients, patients in the screening plus outreach group were more likely to have moderate, low, or very low COI composite scores (70 patients [74.5%] vs 27 patients [52.9%]); public insurance (65 patients [69.1%] vs 18 patients [35.3%]); and asthma or obesity (60 patients [63.8%] vs 11 patients [21.6%]). Patients in the referral group were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (23 patients [45.1%] vs 19 patients [20.2%]) and receive medication (24 patients [47.1%] vs 8 patients [8.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with referral patients, screening plus outreach patients for COVID-19 medications were more socially vulnerable, with lower COI scores, and more likely to have asthma or obesity. Future studies should investigate communication strategies to improve uptake of these medications after outreach.

Identifying barriers and facilitators of the inclusion of pregnant individuals in hepatitis C treatment programs in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and the availability of direct acting antivirals for HCV treatment has prompted a public health goal of HCV eradication. Despite the availability of treatment for HCV, treatment programs have generally excluded pregnant individuals. Our objective was to query patients and clinicians to identify barriers to including pregnant individuals in HCV treatment programs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This qualitative investigation included obstetricians and previously/currently pregnant individuals with HCV. Participants completed interviews regarding knowledge of and attitudes towards HCV treatment and perceived barriers to treatment during pregnancy. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Obstetricians (N = 18) and patients (N = 21) described concerns about equity, access, and cost. Both expressed uncertainty about safety and confirmed a need for clinician education. Obstetricians emphasized the lack of professional guidelines. Although some clinicians expressed concern about patient adherence and engagement, patients were largely desirous of treatment; both groups identified potential benefits of antenatal treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Both patients and obstetricians were generally receptive to HCV treatment in pregnancy and recognized pregnancy as an important window of opportunity for treatment. Our findings suggest the need for further research on maternal-fetal safety of HCV treatment as well as on interventions to ensure fair and appropriate access to HCV treatment for pregnant individuals.

Characterizing altruistic motivation in potential volunteers for SARS-CoV-2 challenge trials.

In human challenge trials (HCTs), volunteers are deliberately infected with an infectious agent. Such trials can be used to accelerate vaccine development and answer important scientific questions. Starting early in the COVID-19 pandemic, ethical concerns were raised about using HCTs to accelerate development and approval of a vaccine. Some of those concerns pertained to potential exploitation of and/or lack of truly informed consent from volunteers. Specific areas of concern arose around individuals who may be unusually risk-seeking or too economically vulnerable to refuse the payments these trials provide, as opposed to being motivated primarily by altruistic goals. This pre-registered study is the first large-scale survey to characterize people who, early in the pandemic, expressed interest and intention to volunteer to participate in COVID-19 HCTs. We found that individuals expressing interest in SARS-CoV-2 HCTs exhibit consistently altruistic motivations without any special indication of poor risk perception or economic vulnerability. In finding that, early in the pandemic, COVID-19 HCTs were able to attract volunteers whose values align with the nature of these trials, and who are not unusually vulnerable to exploitation, this study may allay some ethical concerns about the volunteers interested in participating in such trials.

Data-informed stepped care to improve youth engagement in HIV care in Kenya: a protocol for a cluster randomised trial of a health service intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescents and youth living with HIV (AYLHIV) have lower retention in care, adherence to treatment, and viral suppression compared with adults. Stepped care is a process by which clients are assigned to increasingly intensive services or 'steps' according to level of need. Differentiated care, in which stable clients access less frequent services, can be combined with stepped care to align needs and preferences of youth to promote optimal engagement in care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This hybrid type I effectiveness implementation cluster randomised trial aims to evaluate a data-informed stepped care (DiSC) intervention for AYLHIV. AYLHIV ages 10-24 receiving care at 24 HIV treatment facilities in Kisumu, Homabay and Migori counties in Kenya will be enrolled. Twelve facilities will be randomised to the DiSC intervention, and 12 will provide standard care. A clinical assignment tool developed by the study team will be used at intervention sites to assign AYLHIV to one of four steps based on risk for loss to follow-up: differentiated care, standard care, counselling services or intensive support services. The primary clinical outcome is retention in care, specifically missed visits (failure to return within 30 days for any visit) and 12-month loss to follow-up. Implementation outcomes are based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework. Proportions of missed visits will be compared using mixed effect models clustered by facility and participant. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (STUDY00011096), Maseno University Ethical Review Committee (MUERC/00917/20) and the Kenya National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (444824). AYLHIV provide written informed consent when legally permitted, or assent with caregiver permission for minors. Study staff will work with a Community Advisory Board, including youth members, to disseminate results via discussions, presentations, journal publications and local or international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05007717.

Optimizing Ethics Engagement in Research: Learning from the Ethical Complexities of Studying Opioid Use in Pregnancy.

Research on opioid use in pregnancy is critically important to understand how the opioid epidemic has affected a generation of children, but also raises significant ethical and legal challenges. Embedded ethicists can help to fill the gaps in ethics oversight for such research, but further guidance is needed to help strike the balance between integration and independence.

Contrasting Comprehension of HIV Research by Adolescents, Young Adults, and Caregivers in Western Kenya: A Cross-sectional Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Adolescent participation in research is critical to inform interventions that improve outcomes for this group. Adolescents and young adults living with HIV often present to care without caregivers, yet caregiver permission is typically required for those younger than 18 years. We evaluated whether understanding of key consent information differed between adolescents ( n = 1,393) and caregiver adults ( n = 169). Compared with caregivers, adolescents aged 10-14 years showed significantly lower understanding, whereas understanding for older adults living with HIV did not differ significantly from caregivers. Risks were the least understood consent information for all age groups. Our findings suggest that for low-risk research, waiving caregiver permission requirements will not compromise the ethical need to ensure understanding of research before enrollment and may allow adolescents greater access to potential research benefits.

Fair Allocation of Scarce Therapies for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for nonhospitalized patients with mild or moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease and for individuals exposed to COVID-19 as postexposure prophylaxis. EUAs for oral antiviral drugs have also been issued. Due to increased demand because of the Delta variant, the federal government resumed control over the supply and asked states to ration doses. As future variants (eg, the Omicron variant) emerge, further rationing may be required. We identify relevant ethical principles (ie, benefiting people and preventing harm, equal concern, and mitigating health inequities) and priority groups for access to therapies based on an integrated approach to population health and medical factors (eg, urgently scarce healthcare workers, persons in disadvantaged communities hard hit by COVID-19). Using priority categories to allocate scarce therapies effectively operationalizes important ethical values. This strategy is preferable to the current approach of categorical exclusion or inclusion rules based on vaccination, immunocompromise status, or older age, or the ad hoc consideration of clinical risk factors.

Ethically designing research to inform multidimensional, rapidly evolving policy decisions: Lessons learned from the PROMISE HIV Perinatal Prevention Trial.

Research in rapidly evolving policy contexts can lead to the following ethical challenges for sponsors and researchers: the study's standard of care can become different than what patients outside the study receive, there may be political or other pressure to move ahead with unproven interventions, and new findings or revised policies may decrease the relevance of ongoing studies. These ethical challenges are considerable, but not unprecedented. In this article, we review the case of a multinational, randomized, controlled perinatal HIV prevention trial, the "PROMISE" (Promoting Maternal Infant Survival Everywhere) study. PROMISE compared the relative efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent mother to child transmission of HIV. The sponsor engaged an independent international ethics panel to address controversy about the study's standard of care and relevance as national and international guidelines changed. This ethics panel concluded that continuing the PROMISE trial as designed was ethically permissible because: (1) participants in all arms received interventions that were effective, and there was insufficient evidence about whether one intervention was more effective or safer than the other, and (2) data from PROMISE could be useful for a diverse range of stakeholders. In general, trials designed to inform rapidly evolving policy issues should develop mechanisms to revisit social value while recognizing that the value of research varies for diverse stakeholders with legitimate reasons to weigh evidence differently. We conclude by providing four reasons that trials may depart from the standard of care after a change in policy, while remaining ethically justifiable, and by suggesting how to improve existing trial oversight mechanisms to address evolving social value.

Parental Enrollment Decision-Making for a Neonatal Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the parental experience of recruitment and assess differences between parents who participated and those who declined to enroll in a neonatal clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN: This was a survey conducted at 12 US neonatal intensive care units of parents of infants who enrolled in the High-dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and encephaLopathy (HEAL) trial or who were eligible but declined enrollment. Questions assessed 6 factors of the parental experience of recruitment: (1) interactions with research staff; (2) the consent experience; (3) perceptions of the study; (4) decisional conflict; (5) reasons for/against participation; and (6) timing of making the enrollment decision. RESULTS: In total, 269 of 387 eligible parents, including 183 of 242 (75.6%) of those who enrolled their children in HEAL and 86 of 145 (59.3%) parents who declined to enroll their children in HEAL, were included in analysis. Parents who declined to enroll more preferred to be approached by clinical team members rather than by research team members (72.9% vs 49.2%, P = .005). Enrolled parents more frequently reported positive initial impressions (54.9% vs 10.5%, P < .001). Many parents in both groups made their decision early in the recruitment process. Considerations of reasons for/against participation differed by enrollment status. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how parents experience recruitment, and how this differs by enrollment status, may help researchers improve recruitment processes for families and increase enrollment. The parental experience of recruitment varied by enrollment status. These findings can guide future work aiming to inform optimal recruitment strategies for neonatal clinical trials.