Institutional Review Board Preparedness for Disaster Research: a Practical Approach.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Disasters are becoming more common and challenge national and global resiliency and response efforts. As a result, government agencies have increased interest in disaster research to understand their environmental impact and health-related consequences. With the research field greatly expanding, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are being asked to review research protocols aimed at assessing health risks, exposures, and outcomes from disaster survivors. Few IRBs have experience reviewing disaster research protocols. This article describes approaches for IRB preparedness in reviewing disaster research. RECENT FINDINGS: From a human research protections perspective, primary attention has focused on vulnerability of individuals and/or populations affected by a disaster who may serve as research participants [3, 4]. From our review of the current literature, there is a lack of best practices and/or guidance for IRBs in the review of disaster research protocols. The growth of the disaster research field has brought more attention to potential ethical concerns of disaster research studies. Disaster survivors, responders, and those that assist in cleanup and remedial efforts may be left with significant unmet needs and long-term physical and emotional challenges as a result of their experiences. It is important for IRBs and investigators to collaboratively address how best to protect the welfare of individuals and communities affected by a disaster. A new approach is needed to systematically consider the various factors relevant to an assessment of human research protection issues following disasters.

Conducting Science in Disasters: Recommendations from the NIEHS Working Group for Special IRB Considerations in the Review of Disaster Related Research.

SUMMARY: Research involving human subjects after public health emergencies and disasters may pose ethical challenges. These challenges may include concerns about the vulnerability of prospective disaster research participants, increased research burden among disaster survivors approached by multiple research teams, and potentially reduced standards in the ethical review of research by institutional review boards (IRBs) due to the rush to enter the disaster field. The NIEHS Best Practices Working Group for Special IRB Considerations in the Review of Disaster Related Research was formed to identify and address ethical and regulatory challenges associated with the review of disaster research. The working group consists of a diverse collection of disaster research stakeholders across a broad spectrum of disciplines. The working group convened in July 2016 to identify recommendations that are instrumental in preparing IRBs to review protocols related to public health emergencies and disasters. The meeting included formative didactic presentations and facilitated breakout discussions using disaster-related case studies. Major thematic elements from these discussions were collected and documented into 15 working group recommendations, summarized in this article, that address topics such as IRB disaster preparedness activities, informed consent, vulnerable populations, confidentiality, participant burden, disaster research response integration and training, IRB roles/responsibilities, community engagement, and dissemination of disaster research results. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP2378.

Success rates for consent and collection of prenatal biological specimens in an epidemiologic survey of child health.

BACKGROUND: The National Children's Study (NCS) Vanguard Study began enrollment in January 2009 as an initial pilot study for a planned large-scale, longitudinal U.S. cohort study of the effect of environmental influences on child health and development, with biological and environmental sample collection conducted in seven locations from April 2009 to October 2010. We sought to determine rates of consent for, and success of collection of, maternal and paternal biospecimens before and during pregnancy in the NCS Vanguard Study. METHODS: Samples of blood, saliva, vaginal swabs, urine, hair, and nails were collected before and during pregnancy. All specimens were sent to a central repository for processing, storage, and quality assessment. RESULTS: Of 780 pregnant women asked to consent to sample collection, 773 (>99%) agreed, and of 295 nonpregnant women, 292 (99%) agreed. Of 440 fathers asked to consent to sample collection, 435 (99%) agreed. Frequency of successful collection of biospecimens varied depending on sample and visit type. In descending order, the ranges over all visit types of the proportion of expected samples successfully collected from women were: urine, 92.5 to 95.7%; hair, 89.6 to 92.5%; vaginal swab, 84.2 to 88.5%; blood, 74.9 to 78.5%; 2-day saliva, 65.8 to 81.6%; and nails, 76.4 to 76.7%. For fathers, rates were highest for urine (94.9%) and lowest for hair (63.0%). CONCLUSION: High rates of consent for and collection of a wide variety of biospecimens can be achieved in prospective epidemiologic cohort studies of pregnant women. Ease of sample collection may be a primary factor influencing successful biospecimen collection.

Health information, the HIPAA privacy rule, and health care: what do physicians think?

This study examines physicians' attitudes toward key Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule requirements and assesses the effects of their implementation. We found that despite physicians' generally negative views toward the Privacy Rule, they rated organizations implementing more rule requirements better at protecting the privacy of patient records than organizations that have not implemented the requirements. The policy implications of the findings are discussed.

Medical privacy and the disclosure of personal medical information: the beliefs and experiences of those with genetic and other clinical conditions.

There has been heightened legislative attention to medical privacy and to protections from genetic discrimination, without large-scale studies to document privacy concerns or analysis of whether experiences differ by whether the condition is genetic (defined here as a single-gene disorder) or non-genetic. To determine whether experiences regarding privacy, disclosure, and consequences of disclosure differ by whether one's medical condition is genetic, we conducted a descriptive study with one-time, structured quantitative and qualitative interviews. We interviewed approximately 100 adults or parents of children with each of the following medical conditions: sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, and HIV, and 200 adults with or at risk for breast cancer or colon cancer. The percentages of the total 597 respondents experiencing positive or negative consequences of disclosure and the degree to which experiences differed by whether the condition was genetic were the outcomes of interest. Seventy-four percent were glad and 13% regretted others knew about their condition; these findings did not differ significantly by genetic vs. non-genetic condition. Reports of job and health insurance discrimination were not uncommon for the overall study population (19 and 27%, respectively) but were more likely among those with genetic conditions (30 and 37%, respectively). Legislation and other policy-making should target the needs of persons with all conditions and not focus exclusively on genetic discrimination, given that experiences and concerns generally do not differ based on the genetic etiology of the condition.

Managing end-of-life care: comparing the experiences of terminally Ill patients in managed care and fee for service.

There have been no published empirical studies comparing the experiences of terminally ill patients in managed care organizations (MCOs) and those in fee for service (FFS). This investigation represents the first empirical study to systematically compare substantive outcomes between populations of terminally ill patients enrolled in MCO and FFS healthcare delivery systems. The investigators interviewed 988 patients whose physicians judged them to be terminally ill and 893 of their caregivers. Outcomes assessments were made in six domains: patient-physician relationship; access to care and use of health care; prevalence of symptoms; and planning for end-of-life care, care needs, and economic burdens. Overall, the two populations of terminally ill patients were found to have comparable outcomes, but several significant differences were present. MCO patients were more likely than their FFS counterparts to use an inconvenient hospital (P =.02), spend more than 10% of their income on medical care (P =.02), and have been bedridden more than 50% of the time during the last 4 weeks of life (P =.03). Caregivers of MCO patients were as likely as the caregivers of FFS patients to report a substantial caregiving burden (P =.59). Despite concerns about the threats of MCOs to the physician-patient relationship, few differences in the quality of the relationship between the two cohorts were found. Finally, terminally ill patients in MCOs did not show better experiences than those in FFS on any outcome measure. Additional research is required to explore how MCOs may improve upon the care available to dying patients.