RESUMEN
This paper analyses the activities of five organizations shaping the debate over the global governance of genome editing in order to assess current approaches to public engagement (PE). We compare the recommendations of each group with its own practices. All recommend broad engagement with the general public, but their practices vary from expert-driven models dominated by scientists, experts, and civil society groups to citizen deliberation-driven models that feature bidirectional consultation with local citizens, as well as hybrid models that combine elements of both approaches. Only one group practices PE that seeks community perspectives to advance equity. In most cases, PE does little more than record already well-known views held by the most vocal groups, and thus is unlikely to produce more just or equitable processes or policy outcomes. Our exploration of the strengths, weaknesses, and possibilities of current forms of PE suggests a need to rethink both "public" and "engagement."
Asunto(s)
Participación de la Comunidad , Edición Génica , Humanos , Toma de Decisiones , Política de Salud , OrganizacionesRESUMEN
AIMS: Children with disabilities and rare or undiagnosed conditions and their families have faced numerous hardships of living during the COVID-19 pandemic. For those with undiagnosed conditions, the diagnostic odyssey can be long, expensive, and marked by uncertainty. We, therefore, sought to understand whether and how COVID-19 impacted the trajectory of children's care. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 caregivers who, prior to the pandemic, were on a diagnostic odyssey for their children. RESULTS: Most caregivers did not report any interruptions to their child's diagnostic odyssey. The greatest impact was access to therapy services, including the suspension or loss of their child's in-person therapeutic care and difficulties with virtual therapies. This therapy gap caused caregivers to fear that their children were not making progress. CONCLUSION: Although much has been written about the challenges of diagnostic odysseys for children and their families, this study illustrates the importance of expanding the focus of these studies to include therapeutic odysseys. Because therapeutic odysseys continue regardless of whether diagnoses are made, future research should investigate how to support caregivers through children's therapies within and outside of the COVID-19 context.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Cuidadores , Humanos , Niño , Pandemias , MiedoRESUMEN
HIV remission trials often require temporary stopping of antiretroviral therapy (ART)-an approach called analytic treatment interruption (ATI). Trial designs resulting in viremia raise risks for participants and sexual partners. We conducted a survey on attitudes about remission trials, comparing ART resumption criteria (lower-risk "time to rebound" and higher-risk "sustained viremia") among participants from an acute HIV cohort in Thailand. Analyses included Wilcoxon-Ranks and multivariate logistic analysis. Most of 408 respondents supported ATI trials, with slightly higher approval of, and willingness to participate in, trials using time to rebound versus sustained viremia criteria. Less than half of respondents anticipated disclosing trial participation to partners and over half indicated uncertainty or unwillingness about whether partners would be willing to use PrEP. Willingness to participate was higher among those who rated higher trial approval, lower anticipated burden, and those expecting to make the decision independently. Our findings support acceptability of ATI trials among most respondents. Participant attitudes and anticipated behaviors, especially related to transmission risk, have implications for future trial design and informed consent.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por VIH , Viremia , Antirretrovirales/uso terapéutico , Actitud , Causalidad , Infecciones por VIH/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Carga Viral , Viremia/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals have developed visitor restriction policies in order to mitigate spread of infection. We reviewed hospital visitor restriction policies for consistency and to develop recommendations to highlight fair and transparent restrictions, exceptions, and appeals in policy development and implementation. DESIGN: Collection and analysis of public-facing visitor restriction policies during the first 3 months of the pandemic. SETTING: General acute care hospitals representing 23 states across all 4 major regions of the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of the 70 largest hospitals by total bed capacity. MEASUREMENTS: Characteristics of visitor restriction policies including general visitor restriction statement, changes/updates to policies over time, exceptions to policies, and restrictions specific to COVID-19-positive patients. RESULTS: Sixty-five of the 70 hospitals reviewed had public-facing visitor restriction policies. Forty-nine of these 65 policies had general "no-visitor" statements, whereas 16 allowed at least 1 visitor to accompany all patients. Sixty-three of 65 hospitals included exceptions to their visitor restriction policies. Setting-specific exceptions included pediatrics, obstetrics/gynecology, emergency department, behavioral health, inpatient rehabilitation, surgery, and outpatient clinics. Exceptions that applied across settings included patients at end of life and patients with disabilities. CONCLUSION: Visitor restriction policies varied significantly among hospitals in this review. These variances create challenges in that their fair application may be problematic and ethical issues related to allocation may arise. Five recommendations are offered for hospitals revising or creating such policies, including that offering transparent, accessible, public-facing policies can minimize ethical dilemmas. In addition, hospitals would benefit from communicating with each other in the development of visitor policies to ensure uniformity and support patients and family members as they navigate hospital visitation.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemias , Niño , Femenino , Hospitales , Humanos , Políticas , Embarazo , SARS-CoV-2 , Estados Unidos , Visitas a PacientesRESUMEN
PURPOSE: In genomics, the return of negative screening results for rare, medically actionable conditions in large unselected populations with low prior risk of disease is novel and may involve important and nuanced concerns for communicating their meaning. Recruitment may result in self-selection because of participants' personal or family history, changing the characteristics of the screened population and interpretation of both positive and negative findings; prior motivations may also affect responses to results. METHODS: Using data from GeneScreen, an exploratory adult screening project that targets 17 genes related to 11 medically actionable conditions, we address four questions: (1) Do participants self-select based on actual or perceived risk for one of the conditions? (2) Do participants understand negative results? (3) What are their psychosocial responses? (4) Are negative results related to changes in reported health-related behaviors? RESULTS: We found disproportionate enrollment of individuals at elevated prior risk for conditions being screened, and a need to improve communication about the nature of screening and meaning of negative screening results. Participants expressed no decision regret and did not report intention to change health-related behaviors. CONCLUSION: This study illuminates critical challenges to overcome if genomic screening is to benefit the general population.
Asunto(s)
Pruebas Genéticas , Resultados Negativos , Relaciones Médico-Paciente , Adolescente , Adulto , Revelación , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Tamizaje Masivo , Persona de Mediana Edad , Enfermedades Raras/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Raras/genética , Enfermedades Raras/psicología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Today's medical training environment exposes medical trainees to many aspects of what has been called "the hidden curriculum." In this article, we examine the relationship between two aspects of the hidden curriculum, the performance of emotional labor and the characterization of patients and proxies as "bad," by analyzing clinical ethics discussions with resident trainees at an academic medical center. We argue that clinicians' characterization of certain patients and proxies as "bad," when they are not, can take an unnecessary toll on trainees' emotions. We conclude with a discussion of how training in ethics may help uncover and examine these aspects of the hidden curriculum.
Asunto(s)
Curriculum , Emociones , Pediatría , Apoderado , Niño , Ética Médica , Humanos , Pediatría/éticaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: As genome sequencing moves from research to clinical practice, sequencing technologies focused on "medically actionable" targets are being promoted for preventive screening despite the dearth of systematic evidence of risks and benefits and of criteria for selection of screening subjects. This study investigates researchers' and research participants' perceptions of these issues within the context of a preventive genomic screening study, GeneScreen. METHODS: We recorded researcher deliberations regarding age eligibility criteria and the risks and benefits of screening, and conducted interviews with 50 GeneScreen participants about their motivations for joining and their perceptions of risks and benefits. RESULTS: Researchers made assumptions about who would want and benefit from screening based on age. After discussion, researchers opted not to have an upper age limit for enrollment. Participants of all ages perceived similar benefits, including prevention, treatment, and cascade testing, and similar risks, such as insurance discrimination and worry. CONCLUSION: While clinical benefits of preventive genomic screening for older adults are debatable, our respondents perceived a range of benefits of screening in both clinical and research settings. Researchers and clinicians should carefully consider decisions about whether to exclude older adults and whether to provide information about benefits and risks across age groups.
Asunto(s)
Pruebas Genéticas/ética , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Secuenciación Completa del Genoma/ética , Adolescente , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Toma de Decisiones , Femenino , Pruebas Genéticas/economía , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Factores de Riesgo , Secuenciación Completa del Genoma/economíaAsunto(s)
Suicidio Asistido , Humanos , Suicidio Asistido/ética , Principios Morales , Factores SociológicosAsunto(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemias , Bancos de Muestras Biológicas , Humanos , Principios Morales , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study examines experiences of depressive symptoms among a group of 32 low-income, African-American and White mothers of young children who resided in rural Eastern North Carolina, USA. DESIGN: Women's experiences of depressive symptoms were elicited through a series of longitudinal ethnographic interviews, including an explanatory models interview specifically designed to elicit their beliefs about the causes, symptomatology and help-seeking behavior and management of depressive symptoms. RESULTS: A content analysis of interview data indicated that most women (11 African-Americans and 15 Whites) reported having depressive symptoms currently or in the past. Both African-American and White women perceived the main causes of these symptoms as being relationship problems with a spouse, a partner, or a family member; lack of finances; and parenting stresses. There were no differences in the depressive symptoms African-American and White women reported, but there were differences in how they managed these symptoms and where they sought help. Most of the African-American women sought no formal treatment (i.e., pharmacotherapy and/or psychotherapy), but instead turned to their religious faith to deal with their feelings. White women were more likely to seek formal treatment. CONCLUSION: These findings provide insights into the ways in which women in one nonurban area in the USA explained and experienced depressive symptoms and demonstrate differences in help-seeking behaviors that can be linked to beliefs about depression and perceptions of societal responses to those who have it, as well as to perceptions of and experiences with the health-care system. Results have implications for the implementation of education, intervention, and treatment programs in more culturally sensitive ways.
Asunto(s)
Negro o Afroamericano/psicología , Depresión/epidemiología , Madres/psicología , Población Blanca/psicología , Adolescente , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Entrevistas como Asunto , Estudios Longitudinales , North Carolina/epidemiología , Pennsylvania/epidemiología , Áreas de Pobreza , EmbarazoRESUMEN
Within the numerous policy and governance recommendations for human genome editing research, anticipatory public engagement seems universally agreed upon as a vital endeavor. Yet it is unclear whether and how scientists whose research involves genome editing see value in engaging the public in discussions of genome editing research governance. To address this question, we interviewed 81 international scientists who use genome editing in their research. The views of our scientist interviewees about public engagement occupied a broad spectrum from enthusiastic support to strong skepticism. But most scientists' views landed somewhere in the middle, seeing public engagement as merely informing the public about the science of genome editing. We argue that such a stance reflects the traditional "knowledge-deficit model." Beyond addressing the operational difficulties of public engagement, many scientists' adherence to the deficit model is a deeper barrier that needs to be addressed if public engagement is to occur and be successful.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: A central goal of patient-centered care is to establish a therapeutic relationship. While remaining in tune with patient emotions, genetics providers must ask questions to understand medical histories that will inform the differential diagnosis, evaluation plan, and potential treatments. METHODS: 195 audio-recorded conversations between providers and caregivers of pediatric patients with suspected genetic conditions were coded and analyzed. Coders identified sensitive history-taking questions asked by providers related to exposures and complications during pregnancy; ancestry and consanguinity; educational attainment of the caregiver; and family structure. RESULTS: We highlight examples of providers: using stigmatizing language about conception or consanguinity; not clarifying the intent behind questions related to caregivers' educational attainment and work history; and making presumptions or assumptions about caregivers' race and ethnicity, family structure, and exposures during pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Some questions and phrasing considered routine by genetics providers may interfere with patient-centered care by straining attempts to establish a therapeutic, trusting relationship. Additional research is needed to assess how question asking and phrasing impact rapport building and patient experience during genetics encounters. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Review of the purpose and need for medical history questions common to genetics practice could serve to improve patient-centered care.
Asunto(s)
Cuidadores , Comunicación , Humanos , Niño , Cuidadores/psicología , Atención Dirigida al Paciente , Lenguaje , Relaciones InterpersonalesRESUMEN
Traditional distinctions between treatment and enhancement goals for human genome editing (HGE) have animated oversight considerations, yet these categories have been complicated by the addition of prevention as a possible target for HGE applications. To assess the role these three categories might play in continued HGE governance efforts, we report on interviews with genome editing scientists and governance group members. While some accepted traditional distinctions between treatment and enhancement and rejected the latter as unacceptable, others argued that the concept of enhancement is largely irrelevant or not as morally problematic as suggested. Others described how preventive goals for HGE create gray zones where prevention and enhancement may be difficult to distinguish, which may stymie uses of HGE. We conclude by discussing the governance implications of these various understandings of treatment, prevention, and enhancement as HGE research moves beyond the treatment of serious disease to embrace longer range preventive goals.
Asunto(s)
Edición Génica , Genoma Humano , Humanos , Edición Génica/métodos , Edición Génica/ética , Sistemas CRISPR-Cas , Terapia Genética/métodos , Terapia Genética/éticaRESUMEN
Translational research has tended to ignore the question of whether receiving a genomic diagnosis provides utility in community care contexts outside of doctors' offices and hospitals. However, empirical research with parents has highlighted numerous ways that a genomic diagnosis might be of practical value in the care provided by teachers, physical or occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, behavior analysts, and nonphysician mental health providers. In this essay, we propose a new conceptual model of genomic utility that offers the opportunity to better capture a broad range of potential implications of genomic technologies for families in various social and organizational systems. We explore crucial research directions to better understand how redefined utility might affect families and nonphysician professionals.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos de la Comunicación , Salud Mental , Humanos , Padres , GenómicaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Increasing the engagement of racial and ethnic minorities in genomic research may help alleviate health disparities. This paper examines community perceptions of the relationships between race, genes, environment, and health disparities, and it discusses how such perceptions may influence participation in genomic research. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 91 African American, Latino, and white lay community members and community leaders in North Carolina. Using constant comparison methods, we identified, compared, and developed linkages between conceptual categories and respondent groups. RESULTS: Participants described gene-environment interactions as contributing to group differences in health outcomes, expressed the belief that genetic predisposition to disease differs across groups, and said that social conditions trigger group-level genetic differences and create poorer health outcomes among African Americans. LIMITATIONS: Given the regional presence of major research institutions and the relatively high education level of many participants, this sample may not reflect the perspectives of those most disparately affected by health disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Members from multiple community sectors share perceptions and may respond to similar approaches when attempts are made to increase participation in genomic research. Researchers may inadvertently fuel the perception that health disparities experienced by minorities are rooted in the shared genomes of a particular group as distinct from those of other groups. The way researchers use race and ethnicity in recruitment, analysis, and communication of research findings inaccurately implies that there are genetic differences between races, when categories of social experience or ancestry may more accurately characterize health differences. Understanding these issues is crucial to designing effective community engagement strategies, recruitment plans, and messages about genomic research, which could ultimately help to lessen health disparities.
Asunto(s)
Negro o Afroamericano/psicología , Investigación Genética , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud/etnología , Disparidades en el Estado de Salud , Hispánicos o Latinos/psicología , Población Blanca/psicología , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Participación de la Comunidad/psicología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , North Carolina , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2022.101054.].
RESUMEN
Clinical research regularly includes required, nontherapeutic procedures to answer research questions. Optional procedures usually offer minimal or no personal benefit and may involve harms and burdens. Members from the Bangkok SEARCH010/RV254 HIV research cohort of individuals acutely HIV-infected are recruited to six optional procedures varying in invasiveness: leukapheresis, genital secretions collection, lumbar puncture, brain MRI/MRS/DTI, colon biopsy, and lymph node biopsy. We surveyed cohort members about their first recruitment for each procedure to examine factors associated with decision making and attitudes about compensation. 406 members (68%) completed the survey. Reported procedure participation ranged from 71% (MRI) to 27% (lymph node biopsy). Respondents underwent 0-6 procedure types (median 3). Ordinal regression indicated that lower perceived HIV impact and HIV remission trial participation were associated with more procedures completed. Reports of decision difficulty varied, and feeling pressured by research staff was low overall. Notably, those who declined procedures and those who underwent more invasive procedures reported greater decision difficulty and perceived pressure. Most respondents felt compensation amounts were appropriate, although opinions differed by procedure, and for some procedures, between people who agreed and declined. There is limited literature regarding consent to and attitudes about optional research procedures. Researchers must consider how to best support voluntary decisions for procedures with little personal benefit, particularly in lower-income or marginalized populations. In this longitudinal research cohort, perceived pressure to participate may be a concern, although our finding of variation in participation rates corresponding to invasiveness is reassuring. Data from different research contexts would provide important comparators.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Question prompt lists (QPLs) have been effective at increasing patient involvement and question asking in medical appointments, which is critical for shared decision making. We investigated whether pre-visit preparation (PVP), including a QPL, would increase question asking among caregivers of pediatric patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions. METHODS: Caregivers were randomized to receive the PVP before their appointment (n = 59) or not (control, n = 53). Appointments were audio-recorded. Transcripts were analyzed to determine questions asked. RESULTS: Caregivers in the PVP group asked more questions (MeanPVP = 4.36, SDPVP = 4.66 vs. Meancontrol = 2.83, SDcontrol = 3.03, p = 0.045), including QPL questions (MeanPVP = 1.05, SDPVP = 1.39 vs. Meancontrol = 0.36, SDcontrol = 0.81, p = 0.002). Caregivers whose child had insurance other than Medicaid in the PVP group asked more total and QPL questions than their counterparts in the control group (ps = 0.005 and 0.002); there was no intervention effect among caregivers of children with Medicaid or no insurance (ps = 0.775 and 0.166). CONCLUSION: The PVP increased question asking but worked less effectively among traditionally underserved groups. Additional interventions, including provider-focused efforts, may be needed to promote engagement of underserved patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patient/family-focused interventions may not be beneficial for all populations. Providers should be aware of potential implicit and explicit biases and encourage question asking to promote patient/family engagement.
Asunto(s)
Cuidadores , Comunicación , Humanos , Niño , Relaciones Médico-Paciente , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Participación del PacienteRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Genotype-driven research recruitment complicates traditional study roles and may leave those recruited worried about unwelcome surprises from their DNA. This study investigated the ways that individuals experience genotype-driven recruitment, and conceptualize their roles as research participants. METHODS: Individual interviews were conducted with the participants of a genotype-driven study on cystic fibrosis. The eligibility criteria included the presence of one of two genetic variants. We interviewed 24 of these participants: 9 had cystic fibrosis and 15 had been selected from a biobank as "healthy volunteers." RESULTS: Participants with cystic fibrosis expressed no concerns about the eligibility criteria and saw themselves as part of a close-knit research community. However, biobank participants were unsure about why they had been selected and how they should think about themselves relative to the study. They sometimes reacted with anxiety to genetic information that they perceived to connect them with cystic fibrosis. CONCLUSION: Being recruited for a study on the basis of one's genotype may raise uncertainties about the meaning and implications of the genotypic information. People without the disease under study may require especially clear and detailed explanations of what researchers already know about their genetic makeup, in terms of future risk for themselves or their children.