Should Researchers Destroy Audio or Video Recordings?

It is a common practice in qualitative research to transcribe audio or video files from interviews or focus groups and then destroy the files at some future time, usually after validating the transcript or concluding the research. We argue that it is time to rethink this practice and that retention of original qualitative data-including audio and video recordings-should be the default stance in most cases.

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.

Barriers to Using Legally Authorized Representatives in Clinical Research with Older Adults.

Background: Older adults are at increased risk of cognitive impairments including Alzheimer's disease dementia. Legally authorized representatives (LARs) can provide informed consent when a participant is no longer able to, but little is known about barriers to incorporating them in research. Objective: Explore reasons for not asking and documenting participant decisions to appoint LARs among researchers conducting clinical intervention trials studying older adults or individuals with cognitive impairments. Methods: Mixed method design consisting of a survey (N = 1,284) and qualitative interviews (N = 40) regarding barriers to incorporating LARs. Participants were principal investigators and clinical research coordinators. Results: 37% (N = 469) had not asked and documented participant decisions about appointing LARs in the prior year. They had significantly lower confidence in resources available to incorporate LARs and lower positive attitudes compared to their counterparts who had done so. The majority (83%) had no trials studying individuals with cognitive impairments and reported LARs were not applicable. A minority (17%) had at least one trial studying individuals with cognitive impairments and reported being unaware of LARs. Qualitative findings indicate discomfort broaching a sensitive topic especially with individuals who are not yet impaired. Conclusion: Resources and education to increase awareness and knowledge of LARs are needed. Researchers studying older adults should, at minimum, have the knowledge and resources to incorporate LARs when necessary. Stigma and discomfort discussing LARs will need to be overcome, as early proactive discussions before a participant loses decisional capacity could enhance participant autonomy and facilitate recruitment and retention of older adults to research.

A randomized implementation trial to increase adoption of evidence-informed consent practices.

Introduction: Several evidence-informed consent practices (ECPs) have been shown to improve informed consent in clinical trials but are not routinely used. These include optimizing consent formatting, using plain language, using validated instruments to assess understanding, and involving legally authorized representatives when appropriate. We hypothesized that participants receiving an implementation science toolkit and a social media push would have increased adoption of ECPs and other outcomes. Methods: We conducted a 1-year trial with clinical research professionals in the USA (n = 1284) who have trials open to older adults or focus on Alzheimer's disease. We randomized participants to receive information on ECPs via receiving a toolkit with a social media push (intervention) or receiving an online learning module (active control). Participants completed a baseline survey and a follow-up survey after 1 year. A subset of participants was interviewed (n = 43). Results: Participants who engaged more with the toolkit were more likely to have tried to implement an ECP during the trial than participants less engaged with the toolkit or the active control group. However, there were no significant differences in the adoption of ECPs, intention to adopt, or positive attitudes. Participants reported the toolkit and social media push were satisfactory, and participating increased their awareness of ECPs. However, they reported lacking the time needed to engage with the toolkit more fully. Conclusions: Using an implementation science approach to increase the use of ECPs was only modestly successful. Data suggest that having institutional review boards recommend or require ECPs may be an effective way to increase their use.

Ethical Aspects of Prodromal Synucleinopathy Prognostic Counseling.

Alpha-synucleinopathies can be identified in their prodromal phase, raising several ethical issues. In this review, we first provide definitions of prodromal α-synucleinopathies and discuss the importance of distinguishing between prodromes and risk factors. Next, we discuss the implications of a diagnosis of prodromal α-synucleinopathy and considerations regarding prognostic counseling in both clinical and research settings. We review available data on patient preferences regarding disclosure as well as providers' perspectives. We examine the pros and cons of disclosing a diagnosis of prodromal α-synucleinopathy, taking into consideration the differences between clinical and research settings. Asking about willingness to know in clinical and research settings and the shared decision-making process applied to prognostic counseling is discussed. Concerning research settings, ethical aspects regarding clinical trials are addressed. Availability of direct-to-consumer technologies will likely lead to novel contexts requiring prognostic counseling, and future neuroprotective or neuromodulating treatments may require further considerations on the timing, role, and importance of prognostic counseling. Recommendations on how to address ethical gaps should be a priority for patients, medical professional societies, and research workgroups. Ethical issues must be considered as an integral part of the overall clinical and research approach to prodromal synucleinopathies.

A flexible modeling approach for biomarker-based computation of absolute risk of Alzheimer's disease dementia.

INTRODUCTION: As Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers rapidly develop, tools are needed that accurately and effectively communicate risk of AD dementia. METHODS: We analyzed longitudinal data from >10,000 cognitively unimpaired older adults. Five-year risk of AD dementia was modeled using survival analysis. RESULTS: A demographic model was developed and validated on independent data with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 5-year prediction of AD dementia of 0.79. Clinical and cognitive variables (AUC = 0.79), and apolipoprotein E genotype (AUC = 0.76) were added to the demographic model. We then incorporated the risk computed from the demographic model with hazard ratios computed from independent data for amyloid positron emission tomography status and magnetic resonance imaging hippocampal volume (AUC = 0.84), and for plasma amyloid beta (Aß)42/Aß40 (AUC = 0.82). DISCUSSION: An adaptive tool was developed and validated to compute absolute risks of AD dementia. This approach allows for improved accuracy and communication of AD risk among cognitively unimpaired older adults.

Challenges and Possible Solutions to Adapting to Virtual Recruitment: Lessons Learned from a Survey Study during the Covid-19 Pandemic.

The Covid-19 pandemic required rapid changes to research protocols, including immediate transitions to recruiting research participants and conducting the informed consent process virtually. This case study details the challenges our research team faced adapting an in-person, behavioral-intervention and survey study to virtual recruitment. We reflect on the impact of these rapid changes on recruitment and retention, discuss protocol changes we made to address these challenges and the needs of potential and enrolled participants, and propose recommendations for future work. Using computer technology to display professional return phone numbers, being flexible by contacting potential participants through various means, minimizing email communication due to added regulatory requirements, and partnering with the institutional review board to shorten and improve the consent document and process were critical to study success. This case study can offer insight to other researchers as they navigate similar processes. Virtual recruitment is likely to continue; it is important to ensure that it facilitates, rather than hinders, equitable and just recruitment practices.

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.

Spillover: The Approval of New Medications for Alzheimer's Disease Dementia Will Impact Biomarker Disclosure Among Asymptomatic Research Participants.

In this article we address how the recent, and anticipated upcoming, FDA approvals of novel anti-amyloid medications to treat individuals with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia could impact disclosure of biomarker results among asymptomatic research participants. Currently, research is typically the context where an asymptomatic individual may have the option to learn their amyloid biomarker status. Asymptomatic research participants who learn their amyloid status may have questions regarding the meaning of this result and the implications for accessing a potential intervention. After outlining our rationale, we provide examples of how current educational materials used in research convey messages regarding amyloid positivity and the availability of treatments, or lack thereof. We suggest language to improve messaging, as well as strengths of current materials, in addressing these issues for research participants. Although novel medications are currently only approved for use among symptomatic individuals, their availability may have implications for disclosure among asymptomatic research participants with evidence of amyloid deposition, who may be especially interested in information on these interventions for potential prevention, or future treatment, of mild cognitive impairment or dementia due to AD.

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.].

Understanding the Use of Optimal Formatting and Plain Language When Presenting Key Information in Clinical Trials.

Recent revisions to the Common Rule require that consent documents begin with a focused presentation of the study's key information that is organized to facilitate understanding. We surveyed 1,284 researchers working with older adults or individuals with Alzheimer's disease, supplemented with 60 qualitative interviews, to understand current use and barriers to using evidence-based formatting and plain language in key information. Researchers reported using formatting in 42% of their key information sections, and plain language in 63% of their key information sections. Perceived barriers included lack of knowledge, Institutional Review Board, other members of their team, and the burden associated with implementation. Education and training are required to increase adoption of the practices.

A Content Analysis of 100 Qualitative Health Research Articles to Examine Researcher-Participant Relationships and Implications for Data Sharing.

We conducted a qualitative content analysis of health science literature (N = 100) involving qualitative interviews or focus groups. Given recent data sharing mandates, our goal was to characterize the nature of relationships between the researchers and participants to inform ethical deliberations regarding qualitative data sharing and secondary analyses. Specifically, some researchers worry that data sharing might harm relationships, while others claim that data cannot be analyzed absent meaningful relationships with participants. We found little evidence of relationship building with participants. The majority of studies involve single encounters (95%), lasting less than 60 min (59%), with less than half of authors involved in primary data collection. Our findings suggest that relationships with participants might not pose a barrier to sharing some qualitative data collected in the health sciences and speak to the feasibility in principle of secondary analyses of these data.

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.

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.

Perceived barriers to assessing understanding and appreciation of informed consent in clinical trials: A mixed-method study.

INTRODUCTION: Participants and research professionals often overestimate how well participants understand and appreciate consent information for clinical trials, and experts often vary in their determinations of participant's capacity to consent to research. Past research has developed and validated instruments designed to assess participant understanding and appreciation, but the frequency with which they are utilized is unknown. METHODS: We administered a survey to clinical researchers working with older adults or those at risk of cognitive impairment (N = 1284), supplemented by qualitative interviews (N = 60). RESULTS: We found that using a validated assessment of consent is relatively uncommon, being used by only 44% of researchers who had an opportunity. Factors that predicted adoption of validated assessments included not seeing the study sponsor as a barrier, positive attitudes toward assessments, and being confident that they had the resources needed to implement an assessment. The perceived barriers to adopting validated assessments of consent included lack of awareness, lack of knowledge, being unsure of how to administer such an assessment, and the burden associated with implementing this practice. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the use of validated assessments of consent will require educating researchers on the practice and emphasizing very practical assessments, and may require Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or study sponsors to champion the use of assessments.

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.

Attitudes toward genomics and precision medicine.

PURPOSE: This paper reports on a novel measure, attitudes toward genomics and precision medicine (AGPM), which evaluates attitudes toward activities such as genetic testing, collecting information on lifestyle, and genome editing - activities necessary to achieve the goals of precision medicine. DISCUSSION: The AGPM will be useful for researchers who want to explore attitudes toward genomics and precision medicine. The association of concerns about precision medicine activities with demographic variables such as religion and politics, as well as higher levels of education, suggests that further education on genomic and precision activities alone is unlikely to shift AGPM scores significantly. METHODS: We wrote items to represent psychological and health benefits of precision medicine activities, and concerns about privacy, social justice, harm to embryos, and interfering with nature. We validated the measure through factor analysis of its structure, and testing associations with trust in the health information system and demographic variables such as age, sex, education, and religion. RESULTS: The AGPM had excellent alpha reliability (.92) and demonstrated good convergent validity with existing measures. Variables most strongly associated with higher levels of concern with precision medicine activities included: regular religious practice, republican political leanings, and higher levels of education.

Communicating 5-Year Risk of Alzheimer's Disease Dementia: Development and Evaluation of Materials that Incorporate Multiple Genetic and Biomarker Research Results.

BACKGROUND: Cognitively normal (CN) older adults participating in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research increasingly ask for their research results-including genetic and neuroimaging findings-to understand their risk of developing AD dementia. AD research results are typically not returned for multiple reasons, including possible psychosocial harms of knowing one is at risk of a highly feared and untreatable disease. OBJECTIVE: We developed materials that convey information about 5-year absolute risk of developing AD dementia based on research results. METHODS: 20 CN older adults who received a research brain MRI result were interviewed regarding their wishes for research results to inform material development (Pilot 1). Following material development, 17 CN older adults evaluated the materials for clarity and acceptability (Pilot 2). All participants were community-dwelling older adults participating in longitudinal studies of aging at a single site. RESULTS: Participants want information on their risk of developing AD dementia to better understand their own health, satisfy curiosity, inform family, and future planning. Some articulated concerns, but the majority wanted to know their risk despite the limitations of information. Participants found the educational materials and results report clear and acceptable, and the majority would want to know their research results after reviewing them. CONCLUSION: These materials will be used in a clinical study examining the psychosocial and cognitive effects of offering research results to a cohort of CN older adults. Future AD research may incorporate the return of complex risk information to CN older adults, and materials are needed to communicate this information.

How are US institutions implementing the new key information requirement?

Recent revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protections of Human Subjects require that informed consent documents begin with a "concise and focused presentation" of the key information a participant requires. Key information "must be organized and presented in a way that facilitates comprehension." The regulations do not specify what information be included, nor how it must be presented to facilitate comprehension. It is unknown how institutions and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are interpreting the current regulations. We conducted a review of randomly sampled available key information templates at 46 US medical institutions to determine how they are implementing the new regulations.