uConsent: Addressing the gap in measuring understanding of informed consent in clinical research.

The purpose of this study was to establish the technical merit, feasibility, and generalizability of a new measure of understanding of informed consent for use with clinical research participants. A total of 109 teens/young adults at a large, pediatric medical center completed the consenting process of a hypothetical biobanking study. Data were analyzed using a combination of classical and modern theory analytic methods to produce a final set of 19 items referred to as the uConsent scale. A requirement of the scale was that each item mapped directly onto one or more of the Basic Elements of Informed Consent from the 2018 Final Rule. Descriptive statistics were computed for each item as well as the scale as a whole. Partial credit (Rasch) logistic modeling was then used to generate difficulty/endorsability estimates for each item. The final, 19-item uConsent scale was derived using inferential methods to yield a set of items that ranged across difficulty levels (-3.02 to 3.10 logits) with a range of point-measure correlations (0.12 to 0.50), within-range item- and model-fit statistics, varying item types mapped to both Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning and required regulatory components of the 2018 Final Rule. Median coverage rate for the uConsent scale was 95% for the 25 randomly selected studies from ClinicalTrials.gov. The uConsent scale may be used as an effective measure of informed consent when measuring and documenting participant understanding in clinical research studies today.

How many minors are participating in clinical research today? An estimate and important lessons learned.

Little is known about the number of minors enrolled in clinical research today. IRB administrators at leading pediatric medical centers were surveyed regarding studies with minors. Analyses were descriptive in nature with adaptive Bayesian bootstrap imputation used with missing data. Officials from 17/41 (41.5%) pediatric research centers responded: 74,204 active studies were estimated, 29,078 (39%) included minors, and 6574 (23%) were "more than minimal risk." Minors accounted for 0.7-2.87M research subjects. Pediatric medicine desperately needs a more accurate and reliable reporting system for tracking the recruitment, retention, and involvement of minors in clinical research.

The Genomics Research and Innovation Network: creating an interoperable, federated, genomics learning system.

PURPOSE: Clinicians and researchers must contextualize a patient's genetic variants against population-based references with detailed phenotyping. We sought to establish globally scalable technology, policy, and procedures for sharing biosamples and associated genomic and phenotypic data on broadly consented cohorts, across sites of care. METHODS: Three of the nation's leading children's hospitals launched the Genomic Research and Innovation Network (GRIN), with federated information technology infrastructure, harmonized biobanking protocols, and material transfer agreements. Pilot studies in epilepsy and short stature were completed to design and test the collaboration model. RESULTS: Harmonized, broadly consented institutional review board (IRB) protocols were approved and used for biobank enrollment, creating ever-expanding, compatible biobanks. An open source federated query infrastructure was established over genotype-phenotype databases at the three hospitals. Investigators securely access the GRIN platform for prep to research queries, receiving aggregate counts of patients with particular phenotypes or genotypes in each biobank. With proper approvals, de-identified data is exported to a shared analytic workspace. Investigators at all sites enthusiastically collaborated on the pilot studies, resulting in multiple publications. Investigators have also begun to successfully utilize the infrastructure for grant applications. CONCLUSIONS: The GRIN collaboration establishes the technology, policy, and procedures for a scalable genomic research network.

Correction: The Genomics Research and Innovation Network: creating an interoperable, federated, genomics learning system.

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

"You Really Do Have to Know the Local Context": IRB Administrators and Researchers on the Implications of the NIH Single IRB Mandate for Multisite Genomic Studies.

In 2016, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a new policy requiring single institutional review board (sIRB) review for multisite studies. However, adherence to the new policy requires the separation of regulatory institutional review board (IRB) work per Federal guidance from site-specific local compliance concerns. In particular, genomic research is subject to a wide range of state laws, institutional requirements, and local population preferences. In this qualitative study, we explored the anticipated needs of genomics researchers and IRB administrators around implementing the policy. We observed multiple uncertainties, particularly about intersite communication processes, sIRB selection processes, and roles of the reviewing IRB and local sites regarding local context information relevant to genomics. Optimal implementation of the NIH policy may require additional guidance for researchers and IRB administrators.

Older Teens' Understanding and Perceptions of Risks in Studies With Genetic Testing: A Pilot Study.

Background: The consent process used in clinical research today falls markedly short of the ideal process envisioned nearly 30 years ago. Critics have suggested that the informed consent process has become challenging, formalistic, and incompletely understood by researchers and participants alike. Hence, the purpose of this pilot study was to identify and characterize important aspects of the informed consent process that teens believe impact their understanding of risks of participation in studies with genetic testing. Methods: The personal research experiences of 15 teens regarding consent/assent and research participation in studies with genetic testing were solicited through focus-group interviews. All participants had enrolled in at least one research study involving genetic testing in the prior 2 years. All groups were facilitated by the same experienced focus-group moderator. Themes and subthemes were identified, summarized, and interpreted using conventional qualitative content analysis. Results: Three overarching themes emerged from the interviews: fear of what could happen, need for additional information regarding risks, and need for autonomy and decision-making control throughout the consent process. Conclusion: Results of this pilot study provide preliminary evidence that teens can identify and characterize key issues in the informed consent/assent process when it comes to the risks of research participation. These findings are consistent with other research regarding teens' perceptions and recommendations for genetic testing research.

Readability and Understanding of Informed Consent Among Participants With Low Incomes: A Preliminary Report.

With passage and implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act, more vulnerable segments of the U.S. population will now have access to regular health care and increased opportunities to participate in biomedical research. Yet, access to new groups brings with it new responsibilities for investigators, most importantly, reducing burdens for participants. Data collected through this small pilot study suggest several preliminary but potentially important findings when working with adults from low-income populations: First, while all participants read some parts of the consent forms (55%), only a minority reported reading the entire form (45%); second, 73% of participants reported understanding the study very well whereas only 27% reported understanding the study "a little"; third, there was a slight reported advantage of the simplified form over the regular form; however, this difference varied by section. Relatedly, other research has shown a high incidence of persons reading none of the consent form, but signing a statement that they have read and understood the study. Why does this occur? What are we teaching people when we request that they sign a consent form they have chosen not to read? What are the ethical and regulatory implications? Embedded ethics studies such as this one, although pilot and preliminary in nature, offer a number of advantages, such as stimulating additional scientific inquiry as well as challenging established institutional practices.

Harmonization and streamlining of research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials.

The oversight of research involving human participants is a complex process that requires institutional review board review as well as multiple non-institutional review board institutional reviews. This multifaceted process is particularly challenging for multisite research when each site independently completes all required local reviews. The lack of inter-institutional standardization can result in different review outcomes for the same protocol, which can delay study operations from start-up to study completion. Hence, there have been strong calls to harmonize and thus streamline the research oversight process. Although the institutional review board is only one of the required reviews, it is often identified as the target for harmonization and streamlining. Data regarding variability in decision-making and interpretation of the regulations across institutional review boards have led to a perception that variability among institutional review boards is a primary contributor to the problems with review of multisite research. In response, many researchers and policymakers have proposed the use of a single institutional review board of record, also called a central institutional review board, as an important remedy. While this proposal has merit, the use of a central institutional review board for multisite research does not address the larger problem of completing non-institutional review board institutional review in addition to institutional review board review­and coordinating the interdependence of these reviews. In this article, we describe the overall research oversight process, distinguish between institutional review board and institutional responsibilities, and identify challenges and opportunities for harmonization and streamlining. We focus on procedural and organizational issues and presume that the protection of human subjects remains the paramount concern. Suggested modifications of institutional review board processes that focus on time, efficiency, and consistency of review must also address what effect such changes have on the quality of review. We acknowledge that assessment of quality is difficult in that quality metrics for institutional review board review remain elusive. At best, we may be able to assess the time it takes to review protocols and the consistency across institutions.

A tiered quality assurance review process for clinical data management standard operating procedures in an academic health center.

PROBLEM: Standard operating procedures (SOPs) were once considered the province of the pharmaceutical industry but are now viewed as a key component of quality assurance programs. To address variability and increase the rigor of clinical data management (CDM) operations, the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) decided to create CDM SOPs. APPROACH: In response to this challenge, and as part of a broader institutional initiative, the CCHMC leadership established an executive steering committee to oversee the development and implementation of CDM SOPs. This resulted in the creation of a quality assurance review process with three review panels: an SOP development team (16 clinical data managers and technical staff members), a faculty review panel (8 senior faculty and administrators), and an expert advisory panel (3 national CDM experts). This innovative, tiered review process helped ensure that the new SOPs would be created and implemented in accord with good CDM practices and standards. OUTCOMES: Twelve fully vetted, institutionally endorsed SOPs and one CDM template resulted from the intensive, iterative 10-month process (December 2011 to early October 2012). Phased implementation, which incoporated the CDM SOPs into the existing audit process for certain types of clinical research studies, was on schedule at the time of this writing. NEXT STEPS: Once CCHMC researchers have had the opportunity to use the SOPs over time and across a broad range of research settings and conditions, the SOPs will be revisited and revalidated.

Challenges in creating an opt-in biobank with a registrar-based consent process and a commercial EHR.

Residual clinical samples represent a very appealing source of biomaterial for translational and clinical research. We describe the implementation of an opt-in biobank, with consent being obtained at the time of registration and the decision stored in our electronic health record, Epic. Information on that decision, along with laboratory data, is transferred to an application that signals to biobank staff whether a given sample can be kept for research. Investigators can search for samples using our i2b2 data warehouse. Patient participation has been overwhelmingly positive and much higher than anticipated. Over 86% of patients provided consent and almost 83% requested to be notified of any incidental research findings. In 6 months, we obtained decisions from over 18 000 patients and processed 8000 blood samples for storage in our research biobank. However, commercial electronic health records like Epic lack key functionality required by a registrar-based consent process, although workarounds exist.