Should Researchers Destroy Audio or Video Recordings?

It is a common practice in qualitative research to transcribe audio or video files from interviews or focus groups and then destroy the files at some future time, usually after validating the transcript or concluding the research. We argue that it is time to rethink this practice and that retention of original qualitative data-including audio and video recordings-should be the default stance in most cases.

A training protocol compliance of 13% was observed in a research study of clinical research professionals.

OBJECTIVE: We attempted to conduct a randomized controlled trial of three different informed consent training formats to evaluate their effectiveness. We recruited 503 clinical research professionals, who received $50 for participation. Incidental findings showed unexpectedly low rates of compliance with completing the study training protocols, resulting in insufficient statistical power to test our original hypotheses. In this report, we conducted a secondary analysis of the data in which we characterize and evaluate the observed low compliance. This involved using literature on average reading times, speed-reading times, and video play speeds to calculate the timeframes required to complete the three training formats. RESULTS: Only 13% of participants completed the training in a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, only 46% of participants completed the training in the minimum possible timeframe. These findings lead us to ask whether online research training is effective, since no training can be effective if participants do not actually complete the training. Given extensive requirements for educational training among clinical research professionals, we feel the burden of proof is on training programs to demonstrate that they have positive effects.

Assessing the clinical meaningfulness of slowing CDR-SB progression with disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer disease.

INTRODUCTION: For many patients and caregivers, a major goal of disease-modifying treatments (DMT) for Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia is to extend independence in instrumental and basic activities of daily living (IADLs and BADLs). The goal of this study was to estimate the effect of treatments on the time remaining independent in IADLs and BADLs. METHODS: Participants at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center were selected who were potentially eligible for recent DMT trials: age ≥ 60 years at baseline, clinical diagnosis of very mild or mild AD dementia (global Clinical Dementia Rating® (CDR®) score 0.5 or 1), biomarker confirmation of amyloid pathology, and at least one follow-up CDR assessment within 5 years. For IADLs, a subset of the Functional Assessment Questionnaire (FAQ) was examined that rated the degree of independence in the following: paying bills, driving, remembering medications and appointments, and preparing meals. For BADLs, the Personal Care domain of the CDR was used. Mixed-effects logistic and ordinal regression models were used to examine the relationship between CDR Sum Boxes (CDR-SB) and the individual functional outcomes and their components. The change in CDR-SB over time was estimated with linear mixed effects models. RESULTS: 282 participants were followed for an average of 2.9 years (SD 1.3 years). For 50% of individuals, loss of independence in IADLs occurred at CDR-SB>4.5 and in BADLs at CDR-SB>11.5. For individuals with a baseline CDR-SB=2, treatment with lecanemab would extend independence in IADLs for 10 months (95% CI 4-18 months) and treatment with donanemab in the low/medium tau group would extend independence in IADLs by 13 months (95% CI 6-24 months). DISCUSSION: Independence in ADLs can be related to CDR-SB and used to demonstrate the effect of AD treatments in extending the time of independent function, a meaningful outcome for patients and their families.

A Content Analysis of 100 Qualitative Health Research Articles to Examine Researcher-Participant Relationships and Implications for Data Sharing.

We conducted a qualitative content analysis of health science literature (N = 100) involving qualitative interviews or focus groups. Given recent data sharing mandates, our goal was to characterize the nature of relationships between the researchers and participants to inform ethical deliberations regarding qualitative data sharing and secondary analyses. Specifically, some researchers worry that data sharing might harm relationships, while others claim that data cannot be analyzed absent meaningful relationships with participants. We found little evidence of relationship building with participants. The majority of studies involve single encounters (95%), lasting less than 60 min (59%), with less than half of authors involved in primary data collection. Our findings suggest that relationships with participants might not pose a barrier to sharing some qualitative data collected in the health sciences and speak to the feasibility in principle of secondary analyses of these data.