The lived experience by patients and family members of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the lived experience of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) by patients and their families, and their relationship with intensive care clinicians. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six patients who had received ECMO and with four of their family members. The data were analysed narratively using a constant comparative method. SETTING: Patients were treated at a major acute care hospital in British Columbia between 2014 and 2021. ECMO was used either as a bridge to recovery or to organ transplant. Four had family members bedside throughout, while two had virtual visits due to COVID-19 infection control measures. FINDINGS: ECMO was experienced through a triad of relationships between the patient, key family members and key clinicians. The strength, directionality and focus of these relationships shifted during therapy and realigned once ECMO was removed. The largest shift involved family members. Post-ECMO, patients relied almost entirely on spouses, adult children and clinical team members to reconstruct their experience. The connection between families and clinical team members was limited and changed little. CONCLUSIONS: The lived experience of ECMO was complex in ways yet to be comprehensively reported in the literature. This technology had particular impact on family members when ECMO was used as a bridge to transplant and where run times extended to multiple weeks. COVID-19 infection control restrictions further complicated how this technology was experienced. Findings from this study highlight the importance of intensive care nurses recognising the critical role family members play as witnesses whose experiences later allow patients to make sense of their journey post-discharge.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

What does engagement mean to participants in longitudinal cohort studies? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Engagement is important within cohort studies for a number of reasons. It is argued that engaging participants within the studies they are involved in may promote their recruitment and retention within the studies. Participant input can also improve study designs, make them more acceptable for uptake by participants and aid in contextualising research communication to participants. Ultimately it is also argued that engagement needs to provide an avenue for participants to feedback to the cohort study and that this is an ethical imperative. This study sought to explore the participants' experiences and thoughts of their engagement with their birth cohort study. METHODS: Participants were recruited from the Children of the 90s (CO90s) study. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 participants. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, and uploaded onto Nvivo software. They were then analysed via thematic analysis with a constant comparison technique. RESULTS: Participants' experiences of their engagement with CO90s were broadly based on three aspects: communication they received from CO90s, experiences of ethical conduct from CO90s and receiving rewards from CO90s. The communication received from CO90s, ranged from newsletters explaining study findings and future studies, to more personal forms like annual greeting cards posted to each participant. Ethical conduct from CO90s mainly involved participants understanding that CO90s would keep their information confidential, that it was only involved in 'good' ethical research and their expectation that CO90s would always prioritise participant welfare. Some of the gifts participants said they received at CO90s included toys, shopping vouchers, results from clinical tests, and time off from school to attend data collection (Focus) days. Participants also described a temporality in their engagement with CO90s and the subsequent trust they had developed for the cohort study. CONCLUSION: The experiences of engagement described by participants were theorized as being based on reciprocity which was sometimes overt and other times more nuanced. We further provide empirical evidence of participants' expectation for a reciprocal interaction with their cohort study while highlighting the trust that such an interaction fosters. Our study therefore provides key insights for other cohort studies on what participants value in their interactions with their cohort studies.

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.

Engaged genomic science produces better and fairer outcomes: an engagement framework for engaging and involving participants, patients and publics in genomics research and healthcare implementation.

Genomic science is increasingly central to the provision of health care. Producing and applying robust genomics knowledge is a complex endeavour in which no single individual, profession, discipline or community holds all the answers.  Engagement and involvement of diverse stakeholders can support alignment of societal and scientific interests, understandings and perspectives and promises better science and fairer outcomes. In this context we argue for F.A.I.R.E.R. data and data use that is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reproducible, Equitable and Responsible. Yet there is a paucity of international guidance on how to engage publics, patients and participants in genomics. To support meaningful and effective engagement and involvement we developed an Engagement Framework for involving and engaging participants, patients and publics in genomics research and health implementation. The Engagement Framework is intended to support all those working in genomics research, medicine, and healthcare to deliberatively consider approaches to participant, patient and public engagement and involvement in their work. Through a series of questions, the Engagement Framework prompts new ways of thinking about the aims and purposes of engagement, and support reflection on the strengths, limitations, likely outcomes and impacts of choosing different approaches to engagement. To guide genomics activities, we describe four themes and associated questions for deliberative reflection: (i) fairness; (ii) context; (iii) heterogeneity, and (iv) recognising tensions and conflict. The four key components in the Engagement provide a framework to assist those involved in genomics to reflect on decisions they make for their initiatives, including the strategies selected, the participant, patient and public stakeholders engaged, and the anticipated goals. The Engagement Framework is one step in an actively evolving process of building genomics research and implementation cultures which foster responsible leadership and are attentive to objectives which increase equality, diversity and inclusion in participation and outcomes.

Transnational access to large prospective cohorts in Europe: Current trends and unmet needs.

Biobank samples and data from studies of large prospective cohorts (LPC) represent an invaluable resource for health research. Efficient sharing and pooling of samples and data is a central pre-requisite for new advances in biomedical science. This requirement, however, is not compatible with the present scattered and traditional access governance structures, where legal and ethical frameworks often form an obstacle for effective sharing. Moreover, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is demanding increasingly rigorous administration from all those organisations processing personal data. The BBMRI-LPC project (Biobanking and Biomolecular Research Infrastructure - Large Prospective Cohorts) assembled 21 LPCs from 10 countries and two EU-wide multinational cohort networks with a key objective to promote collaborative innovative transnational research proposed by external researchers on the broad field of common chronic diseases, and analyze the gaps and needs involved. BBMRI-LPC organized three scientific calls to offer European investigators an opportunity to gain free of charge transnational access to research material available in the participating cohorts. A total of 11 high-quality research proposals involving multiple prospective cohorts were granted, and the access process in the individual projects carefully monitored. Divergent access governance structures, complex legal and ethical frameworks and heterogeneous procedures were identified as currently constituting substantial obstacles for sample and data transfer in Europe. To optimize the scientific value and use of these research resources, practical solutions for more streamlined access governance in collaborative projects are urgently needed. A number of infrastructure developments could be made to improve time-efficiency in access provision.

The ethics conundrum in Recall by Genotype (RbG) research: Perspectives from birth cohort participants.

PURPOSE: Recall by genotype (RbG) research recruits on the basis of genetic variation. Increased use of this approach presents an ethical conundrum for cohort studies/biobanks: whether to inform individuals of their genetic information and deviate from standard practice of non-disclosure of results, or mask this information at the level of the individual participant. This paper examines the perspectives of research study participants on RbG research. METHODS: Fifty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with young adult participants of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Topics included understandings of RbG research, expectations around recruitment and communication of research findings. RESULTS: Participants uniformly expressed a deep trust and faith in ALSPAC and considered themselves part of the ALSPAC team. Such perspectives, alongside a limited knowledge of genetics and modest interest in reported research outcomes, meant few participants reported immediate concerns about being recruited by genotype. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the responsibility and duty of care on RbG researchers, and longitudinal studies more generally, and the importance of solidarity, reciprocity and co-production in study-participant relations. As such, we consider existing recommendations for conducting RbG research in longitudinal studies in light of our results and speak to recent changes in the approach used by ALSPAC.

Better governance, better access: practising responsible data sharing in the METADAC governance infrastructure.

BACKGROUND: Genomic and biosocial research data about individuals is rapidly proliferating, bringing the potential for novel opportunities for data integration and use. The scale, pace and novelty of these applications raise a number of urgent sociotechnical, ethical and legal questions, including optimal methods of data storage, management and access. Although the open science movement advocates unfettered access to research data, many of the UK's longitudinal cohort studies operate systems of managed data access, in which access is governed by legal and ethical agreements between stewards of research datasets and researchers wishing to make use of them. Amongst other things, these agreements aim to respect the reasonable expectations of the research participants who provided data and samples, as expressed in the consent process. Arguably, responsible data management and governance of data and sample use are foundational to the consent process in longitudinal studies and are an important source of trustworthiness in the eyes of those who contribute data to genomic and biosocial research. METHODS: This paper presents an ethnographic case study exploring the foundational principles of a governance infrastructure for Managing Ethico-social, Technical and Administrative issues in Data ACcess (METADAC), which are operationalised through a committee known as the METADAC Access Committee. METADAC governs access to phenotype, genotype and 'omic' data and samples from five UK longitudinal studies. FINDINGS: Using the example of METADAC, we argue that three key structural features are foundational for practising responsible data sharing: independence and transparency; interdisciplinarity; and participant-centric decision-making. We observe that the international research community is proactively working towards optimising the use of research data, integrating/linking these data with routine data generated by health and social care services and other administrative data services to improve the analysis, interpretation and utility of these data. The governance of these new complex data assemblages will require a range of expertise from across a number of domains and disciplines, including that of study participants. Human-mediated decision-making bodies will be central to ensuring achievable, reasoned and responsible decisions about the use of these data; the METADAC model described in this paper provides an example of how this could be realised.

Including all voices in international data-sharing governance.

BACKGROUND: Governments, funding bodies, institutions, and publishers have developed a number of strategies to encourage researchers to facilitate access to datasets. The rationale behind this approach is that this will bring a number of benefits and enable advances in healthcare and medicine by allowing the maximum returns from the investment in research, as well as reducing waste and promoting transparency. As this approach gains momentum, these data-sharing practices have implications for many kinds of research as they become standard practice across the world. MAIN TEXT: The governance frameworks that have been developed to support biomedical research are not well equipped to deal with the complexities of international data sharing. This system is nationally based and is dependent upon expert committees for oversight and compliance, which has often led to piece-meal decision-making. This system tends to perpetuate inequalities by obscuring the contributions and the important role of different data providers along the data stream, whether they be low- or middle-income country researchers, patients, research participants, groups, or communities. As research and data-sharing activities are largely publicly funded, there is a strong moral argument for including the people who provide the data in decision-making and to develop governance systems for their continued participation. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that governance of science becomes more transparent, representative, and responsive to the voices of many constituencies by conducting public consultations about data-sharing addressing issues of access and use; including all data providers in decision-making about the use and sharing of data along the whole of the data stream; and using digital technologies to encourage accessibility, transparency, and accountability. We anticipate that this approach could enhance the legitimacy of the research process, generate insights that may otherwise be overlooked or ignored, and help to bring valuable perspectives into the decision-making around international data sharing.

The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research.

BACKGROUND: Because no single person or group holds knowledge about all aspects of research, mechanisms are needed to support knowledge exchange and engagement. Expertise in the research setting necessarily includes scientific and methodological expertise, but also expertise gained through the experience of participating in research and/or being a recipient of research outcomes (as a patient or member of the public). Engagement is, by its nature, reciprocal and relational: the process of engaging research participants, patients, citizens and others (the many 'publics' of engagement) brings them closer to the research but also brings the research closer to them. When translating research into practice, engaging the public and other stakeholders is explicitly intended to make the outcomes of translation relevant to its constituency of users. METHODS: In practice, engagement faces numerous challenges and is often time-consuming, expensive and 'thorny' work. We explore the epistemic and ontological considerations and implications of four common critiques of engagement methodologies that contest: representativeness, communication and articulation, impacts and outcome, and democracy. The ECOUTER (Employing COnceptUal schema for policy and Translation Engagement in Research) methodology addresses problems of representation and epistemic foundationalism using a methodology that asks, "How could it be otherwise?" ECOUTER affords the possibility of engagement where spatial and temporal constraints are present, relying on saturation as a method of 'keeping open' the possible considerations that might emerge and including reflexive use of qualitative analytic methods. RESULTS: This paper describes the ECOUTER process, focusing on one worked example and detailing lessons learned from four other pilots. ECOUTER uses mind-mapping techniques to 'open up' engagement, iteratively and organically. ECOUTER aims to balance the breadth, accessibility and user-determination of the scope of engagement. An ECOUTER exercise comprises four stages: (1) engagement and knowledge exchange; (2) analysis of mindmap contributions; (3) development of a conceptual schema (i.e. a map of concepts and their relationship); and (4) feedback, refinement and development of recommendations. CONCLUSION: ECOUTER refuses fixed truths but also refuses a fixed nature. Its promise lies in its flexibility, adaptability and openness. ECOUTER will be formed and re-formed by the needs and creativity of those who use it.

International Data Sharing in Practice: New Technologies Meet Old Governance.

The social structures that govern data/sample release aim to safeguard the confidentiality and privacy of cohort research participants (without whom there would be no data or samples) and enable the realization of societal benefit through optimizing the scientific use of those cohorts. Within collaborations involving multiple cohorts and biobanks, however, the local, national, and supranational institutional and legal guidelines for research (which produce a multiplicity of data access governance structures and guidelines) risk impeding the very science that is the raison d'etre of these consortia. We present an ethnographic study, which examined the epistemic and nonepistemic values driving decisions about data access and their consequences in the context of the pilot of an integrated approach to co-analysis of data. We demonstrate how the potential analytic flexibility offered by this approach was lost under contemporary data access governance. We identify three dominant values: protecting the research participant, protecting the study, and protecting the researcher. These values were both supported by and juxtaposed against a "public good" argument, and each was used as a rationale to both promote and inhibit sharing of data. While protection of the research participants was central to access permissions, decisions were also attentive to the desire of researchers to see their efforts in building population biobanks and cohorts realized in the form of scientific outputs. We conclude that systems for governing and enabling data access in large consortia need to (1) protect disclosure of research participant information or identity, (2) ensure the specific expectations of research participants are met, (3) embody systems of review that are transparent and not compromised by the specific interests of one particular group of stakeholders, and (4) facilitate data access procedures that are timely and efficient. Practical solutions are urgently needed. New approaches to data access governance should be trialed (and formally evaluated) with input from and discussion with stakeholders.

The friends and family test: a qualitative study of concerns that influence the willingness of English National Health Service staff to recommend their organisation.

OBJECTIVES: The views of practitioners at the 'sharp end' of care provision are increasingly recognised as important indicators of quality of care. The National Health Service (NHS) Staff Survey in England has quantified employees' views on how far they would be happy with the standard of care provided by their organisation if a friend or family member needed treatment. We aimed to characterise the concerns that might affect the willingness of staff to recommend their own organisations. DESIGN: Qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews. Data analysis based on the constant comparative method. PARTICIPANTS: Members of clinical and managerial staff in four NHS organisations (n = 70), and senior stakeholders across the NHS including clinicians, managers and others with a strategic or senior-level perspective (n = 98). SETTING: One hundred and sixty-eight interviews were conducted: 70 in four case study organisations and 98 across the wider English NHS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable. RESULTS: Asking study participants the 'if a friend…' question offered insider views on the quality of care. Some staff had no concerns, but others, identified significant problems with consistency, reliability and behaviour of staff. Participants identified reasons for poor care that included inadequate organisational systems; structural problems of understaffing and under-resourcing; weaknesses in professional cultures and professional competence and failure to deal with problems such as unacceptable conduct. Participants emphasised that staff were not always able to deliver high-quality care because they worked in difficult conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Asking staff to give accounts of their willingness to recommend their organisation to family and friends elicits important insights into quality and safety of care. Such accounts might be able to provide warning signs that could signal organisational decline and avert healthcare scandals, but use outside a research context requires further evaluation.