Evaluating ApoL1 Genetic Testing Policy Options for Transplant Centers: A Delphi Consensus Panel Project with Stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) variants G1 and G2 are associated with a higher risk of kidney disease. ApoL1 risk variants are predominantly seen in individuals with sub-Saharan African ancestry. In most transplant centers, potential organ donors are being selectively genetically tested for ApoL1 risk variants. Transplant programs have highly variable ApoL1 testing practices and need guidance on essential ApoL1 clinical policy questions. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi consensus panel focused on ApoL1 clinical policy questions, including who gets tested, who decides whether testing occurs, how test results are shared, who receives test results, and how test results are used. A total of 27 panelists across seven stakeholder groups participated: living kidney donors ( n =4), deceased donor family members ( n =3), recipients of a deceased donor kidney ( n =4), recipients of a living donor kidney ( n =4), nephrologists ( n =4), transplant surgeons ( n =4), and genetic counselors ( n =4). Nineteen panelists (70%) identified as Black. The Delphi panel process involved two rounds of educational webinars and three rounds of surveys administered to panelists, who were asked to indicate whether they support, could live with, or oppose each policy option. RESULTS: The panel reached consensus on one or more acceptable policy options for each clinical policy question; panelists supported 18 policy options and opposed 15. Key elements of consensus include the following: ask potential donors about African ancestry rather than race; make testing decisions only after discussion with donors; encourage disclosure of test results to blood relatives and organ recipients but do not require it; use test results to inform decision making, but never for unilateral decisions by transplant programs. CONCLUSIONS: The panel generally supported policy options involving discussion and shared decision making among patients, donors, and family stakeholders. There was general opposition to unilateral decision making and prohibiting donation altogether.

Exchanging words: Engaging the challenges of sharing qualitative research data.

In January 2023, a new NIH policy on data sharing went into effect. The policy applies to both quantitative and qualitative research (QR) data such as data from interviews or focus groups. QR data are often sensitive and difficult to deidentify, and thus have rarely been shared in the United States. Over the past 5 y, our research team has engaged stakeholders on QR data sharing, developed software to support data deidentification, produced guidance, and collaborated with the ICPSR data repository to pilot the deposit of 30 QR datasets. In this perspective article, we share important lessons learned by addressing eight clusters of questions on issues such as where, when, and what to share; how to deidentify data and support high-quality secondary use; budgeting for data sharing; and the permissions needed to share data. We also offer a brief assessment of the state of preparedness of data repositories, QR journals, and QR textbooks to support data sharing. While QR data sharing could yield important benefits to the research community, we quickly need to develop enforceable standards, expertise, and resources to support responsible QR data sharing. Absent these resources, we risk violating participant confidentiality and wasting a significant amount of time and funding on data that are not useful for either secondary use or data transparency and verification.

Newborn Male Circumcision.

This symposium includes twelve personal narratives from parents about making the decision whether to circumcise their infant male children. The authors of the narratives include five fathers and seven mothers. Nine of the 12 parent authors opted to circumcise their infant sons, though the reasons they stated for doing so varied. Most of the parent authors relied on cultural or social beliefs, religious guidance, or a desire for sameness with the infant's father. Parents who didn't circumcise their male infants discuss their convictions about autonomy, bodily rights, and the medical benefits of circumcision versus the harm or pain caused by the procedure. The symposium includes four expert commentaries on the narratives that are informed and enriched by the commentators' expertise in pediatric bioethics, healthcare ethics, gender studies, Jewish law and tradition, and the medical and surgical techniques of circumcision.

What Can State Medical Boards Do to Effectively Address Serious Ethical Violations?

State Medical Boards (SMBs) can take severe disciplinary actions (e.g., license revocation or suspension) against physicians who commit egregious wrongdoing in order to protect the public. However, there is noteworthy variability in the extent to which SMBs impose severe disciplinary action. In this manuscript, we present and synthesize a subset of 11 recommendations based on findings from our team's larger consensus-building project that identified a list of 56 policies and legal provisions SMBs can use to better protect patients from egregious wrongdoing by physicians.

Responding to Sexual Abuse in Health Care: Development of a Guide for Patients.

This report details the development of a stakeholder- and evidence-informed online resource guide for patients that provides information to raise awareness about sexual abuse in health care, the value of chaperones, and options for responding to sexual abuse. The guide was developed to reflect lessons learned from 10 years of researching physician wrongdoing (ie, sexual violations, improper prescribing, and unnecessary invasive procedures), a 5-year National Institutes of Health-funded mixed-methods study of 280 cases of egregious wrongdoing in medicine, and an expert working group. Focus groups were conducted with 22 patients from diverse backgrounds to obtain feedback on the acceptability of the guide. Thematic analysis of the focus groups yielded 6 key themes: 1) empowering patients, 2) recognizing and responding to sexual abuse, 3) educating patients about reporting options, 4) educating patients on availability of chaperones, 5) balancing trust and mistrust, and 6) using simple language. Qualitative data from the focus groups (ie, audio files and detailed notes taken by the research team) suggested that the guide effectively informed and empowered patients to recognize and effectively respond to sexual misconduct in health care. The guide is publicly available and has been disseminated nationally to patient health advocates and public health agencies.

Corrigendum to: Enabling qualitative research data sharing using a natural language processing pipeline for deidentification: moving beyond HIPAA Safe Harbor identifiers.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab069.].

Impact of education on APOL1 testing attitudes among prospective living kidney donors.

It is unknown how providing prospective living donors with information about APOL1, including the benefits and drawbacks of testing, influences their desire for testing. In this study, we surveyed 102 participants with self-reported African ancestry and positive family history of kidney disease, recruited from our nephrology waiting room. We assessed views on APOL1 testing before and after presentation of a set of potential benefits and drawbacks of testing and quantified the self-reported level of influence individual benefits and drawbacks had on participants' desire for testing in the proposed context of living donation. The majority of participants (92%) were aware of organ donation and more than half (56%) had considered living donation. And though we found no significant change in response following presentation of the potential benefits and the drawbacks of APOL1 testing by study end significance, across all participants, "becoming aware of the potential risk of kidney disease among your immediate family" was the benefit with the highest mean influence (3.3±1.4), while the drawback with the highest mean influence (2.9±1.5) was "some transplant centers may not allow you to donate to a loved one". This study provides insights into the priorities of prospective living donors and suggests concern for how the information affects family members may strongly influence desires for testing. It also highlights the need for greater community engagement to gain a deeper understanding of the priorities that influence decision making on APOL1 testing.

Barriers and facilitators to qualitative data sharing in the United States: A survey of qualitative researchers.

Qualitative health data are rarely shared in the United States (U.S.). This is unfortunate because gathering qualitative data is labor and time-intensive, and data sharing enables secondary research, training, and transparency. A new U.S. federal policy mandates data sharing by 2023, and is agnostic to data type. We surveyed U.S. qualitative researchers (N = 425) on the barriers and facilitators of sharing qualitative health or sensitive research data. Most researchers (96%) have never shared qualitative data in a repository. Primary concerns were lack of participant permission to share data, data sensitivity, and breaching trust. Researcher willingness to share would increase if participants agreed and if sharing increased the societal impact of their research. Key resources to increase willingness to share were funding, guidance, and de-identification assistance. Public health and biomedical researchers were most willing to share. Qualitative researchers need to prepare for this new reality as sharing qualitative data requires unique considerations.

Living with Mental Health Challenges: Personal Stories of Recovery from Across the Globe.

This symposium includes twelve personal narratives from individuals who live with serious mental health challenges that are sometimes diagnosed as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, or other conditions. Such challenges are often persistent, lead to stigma and discrimination, and can deeply affect quality of life. Serious mental health challenges are frequently approached as life-long medical conditions, given a diagnosis and treated with medications. However, some pursue non-medical treatments, peer support, use diet and exercise to promote wellness, embrace models of recovery, and function well even when symptoms persist. Approaches often differ across nations, depending upon their resources and philosophy of mental health challenges. Three commentaries on these narratives are also included, authored by experts and scholars in the fields of cultural psychiatry, refugee mental health, human rights advocacy, child's health, and global mental health. We intend this collection of stories to broaden the range of acceptable responses to mental health challenges, raise awareness of stigma and bias in mental health care, and share the wisdom and preferences of those living with mental health challenges.

Development of a Resource Guide to Help Patients Receive Appropriate Care.

After 10 years researching physician wrongdoing (i.e., sexual violations, improper prescribing, and unnecessary procedures), we developed a resource guide to help patients receive appropriate care and respond to inappropriate care. We gathered evaluative patient feedback, engaged physicians, and disseminated the guide. It is available at beforeyourvisit.org.

Enabling qualitative research data sharing using a natural language processing pipeline for deidentification: moving beyond HIPAA Safe Harbor identifiers.

OBJECTIVE: Sharing health research data is essential for accelerating the translation of research into actionable knowledge that can impact health care services and outcomes. Qualitative health research data are rarely shared due to the challenge of deidentifying text and the potential risks of participant reidentification. Here, we establish and evaluate a framework for deidentifying qualitative research data using automated computational techniques including removal of identifiers that are not considered HIPAA Safe Harbor (HSH) identifiers but are likely to be found in unstructured qualitative data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed and validated a pipeline for deidentifying qualitative research data using automated computational techniques. An in-depth analysis and qualitative review of different types of qualitative health research data were conducted to inform and evaluate the development of a natural language processing (NLP) pipeline using named-entity recognition, pattern matching, dictionary, and regular expression methods to deidentify qualitative texts. RESULTS: We collected 2 datasets with 1.2 million words derived from over 400 qualitative research data documents. We created a gold-standard dataset with 280K words (70 files) to evaluate our deidentification pipeline. The majority of identifiers in qualitative data are non-HSH and not captured by existing systems. Our NLP deidentification pipeline had a consistent F1-score of ∼0.90 for both datasets. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that NLP methods can be used to identify both HSH identifiers and non-HSH identifiers. Automated tools to assist researchers with the deidentification of qualitative data will be increasingly important given the new National Institutes of Health (NIH) data-sharing mandate.

Research Participant Views regarding Qualitative Data Sharing.

We found no studies in the United States that explored research participants' perspectives about sharing their qualitative data. We present findings from interviews with 30 individuals who participated in sensitive qualitative studies to explore their understanding and concerns regarding qualitative data sharing. The vast majority supported sharing qualitative data so long as their data were deidentified and shared only among researchers. However, they raised concerns about confidentiality if the data were not adequately deidentified and about misuse by secondary users if data were shared beyond the research community. These concerns, though, did not deter them from participating in research. Notably, participants hoped their data would be shared and may have expected or assumed this was already happening. While many could not recollect details about data-sharing plans for studies in which they participated, they trusted researchers and institutions to appropriately handle data sharing. If individuals view data sharing as an extension or integral part of their participation in qualitative research, then researchers may have a stronger obligation to share qualitative data than previously thought. Guidelines and tools to assist researchers and institutional review board members in ethical and responsible qualitative data sharing are urgently needed.

Are we ready to share qualitative research data? Knowledge and preparedness among qualitative researchers, IRB Members, and data repository curators.

Data sharing maximizes the value of data, which is time and resource intensive to collect. Major funding bodies in the United States (US), like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), require data sharing and researchers frequently share de-identified quantitative data. In contrast, qualitative data are rarely shared in the US but the increasing trend towards data sharing and open science suggest this may be required in future. Qualitative methods are often used to explore sensitive health topics raising unique ethical challenges regarding protecting confidentiality while maintaining enough contextual detail for secondary analyses. Here, we report findings from semi-structured in-depth interviews with 30 data repository curators, 30 qualitative researchers, and 30 IRB staff members to explore their experience and knowledge of QDS. Our findings indicate that all stakeholder groups lack preparedness for QDS. Researchers are the least knowledgeable and are often unfamiliar with the concept of sharing qualitative data in a repository. Curators are highly supportive of QDS, but not all have experienced curating qualitative data sets and indicated they would like guidance and standards specific to QDS. IRB members lack familiarity with QDS although they support it as long as proper legal and regulatory procedures are followed. IRB members and data curators are not prepared to advise researchers on legal and regulatory matters, potentially leaving researchers who have the least knowledge with no guidance. Ethical and productive QDS will require overcoming barriers, creating standards, and changing long held practices among all stakeholder groups.