Compensating patients in trials: Perspectives from an ethical committee versus sponsor.

BACKGROUND: According to European clinical research legislation, no undue influence, including financial incentives, should be used to encourage participation in clinical trials. Financial compensation should be based on the inconvenience experienced by patients and is determined by the sponsor. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the adequacy of patients' financial compensation by obtaining an external ethical opinion compared to the actual compensation provided. METHODS: We randomly selected and reviewed 50 clinical drug trials, including 25 academic and 25 industry-sponsored studies. An external ethics group consisting of three members from French ethics committees, blinded to the actual compensation and the sponsor, retrospectively reviewed the study characteristics and assessed whether financial compensation was appropriate. Cohen's Kappa test measured agreement between actual compensation and the ethics group's opinion, and the McNemar test measured discrepancies. RESULTS: There was no agreement between the actual financial compensation and the ethics group's opinion (K = -.07; 95% CI = [-.16-.02]). More discrepancies were found in favour of financial compensation according to the ethics group than provided by sponsors (12 vs. 2, p = .016). The ethics group recommended financial compensation in 12 out of 50 studies (24%), which were studies with a higher number of additional visits (p = .004) and were more frequently sponsored by industry (p = .008). Sponsors only provided financial compensation in 2 out of 50 studies (4%). CONCLUSION: Patients are rarely compensated despite the perceived inconvenience. Both sponsors and ethics members struggle to determine the need for financial compensation, indicating a need for more precise recommendations for both parties.

Children's satisfaction with a comprehensive study program-Results from the LIFE Child cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Research participants' satisfaction is a topic of great interest, especially in the context of longitudinal studies. Evaluation also represents an important component of quality management in the health care system. Adult studies found that personal characteristics, e.g., age, sex, ethnicity, and SES, can influence satisfaction with health care or study participation. Studies on paediatric participants are sparse. OBJECTIVES: To examine how children rated the study day of a cohort study and how these ratings were associated with sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics and retention in the context of a large cohort study. METHODS: Analyses were performed on 4- to 17-year-old participants of the German longitudinal cohort study LIFE Child (n = 2033). To assess the associations between overall satisfaction (high versus low/middle) and age, sex, body-mass index, socioecomonic status, and participation in a follow-up visit, we applied logistic mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Participants' overall satisfaction with the LIFE Child study day was high ("very good": 67.8%). Overall satisfaction was higher in 7-9 years olds (odds ratio [OR] 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI 1.51, 2.66) and 10-12 years olds (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.16, 1.98) than in 4-6 years olds and 13-17 years olds. Children with obesity were less likely to participate in a follow-up visit (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39, 0.78). Children reporting high overall satisfaction at the first study visit completed a follow-up visit more frequently (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05,1.67). CONCLUSIONS: A high level of satisfaction increased participants' attendance at a follow-up visit. Our results might be helpful for adapting the study program to the participants' needs in order to maximise retention and minimise attrition rates.

Ethical Imperatives for Working With Diverse Populations in Digital Research.

Digital research methodologies are driving a revolution in health technology but do not yet fully engage diverse and historically underrepresented populations. In this paper, we explore the ethical imperative for such engagement alongside accompanying challenges related to recruitment, appreciation of risk, and confidentiality, among others. We critically analyze existing research ethics frameworks and find that their reliance on individualistic and autonomy-focused models of research ethics does not offer adequate protection in the context of the diversity imperative. To meet the requirements of justice and inclusivity in digital research, methods will benefit from a reorientation toward more participatory practices.

Email-Based Recruitment Into the Health eHeart Study: Cohort Analysis of Invited Eligible Patients.

BACKGROUND: Web- or app-based digital health studies allow for more efficient collection of health data for research. However, remote recruitment into digital health studies can enroll nonrepresentative study samples, hindering the robustness and generalizability of findings. Through the comprehensive evaluation of an email-based campaign on recruitment into the Health eHeart Study, we aim to uncover key sociodemographic and clinical factors that contribute to enrollment. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to understand the factors related to participation, specifically regarding enrollment, in the Health eHeart Study as a result of a large-scale remote email recruitment campaign. METHODS: We conducted a cohort analysis on all invited University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) patients to identify sociodemographic and clinical predictors of enrollment into the Health eHeart Study. The primary outcome was enrollment, defined by account registration and consent into the Health eHeart Study. The email recruitment campaign was carried out from August 2015 to February 2016, with electronic health record data extracted between September 2019 and December 2019. RESULTS: The email recruitment campaign delivered at least 1 email invitation to 93.5% (193,606/206,983) of all invited patients and yielded a 3.6% (7012/193,606) registration rate among contacted patients and an 84.1% (5899/7012) consent rate among registered patients. Adjusted multivariate logistic regression models analyzed independent sociodemographic and clinical predictors of (1) registration among contacted participants and (2) consent among registered participants. Odds of registration were higher among patients who are older, women, non-Hispanic White, active patients with commercial insurance or Medicare, with a higher comorbidity burden, with congestive heart failure, and randomized to receive up to 2 recruitment emails. The odds of registration were lower among those with medical conditions such as dementia, chronic pulmonary disease, moderate or severe liver disease, paraplegia or hemiplegia, renal disease, or cancer. Odds of subsequent consent after initial registration were different, with an inverse trend of being lower among patients who are older and women. The odds of consent were also lower among those with peripheral vascular disease. However, the odds of consent remained higher among patients who were non-Hispanic White and those with commercial insurance. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important insights into the potential returns on participant enrollment when digital health study teams invest resources in using email for recruitment. The findings show that participant enrollment was driven more strongly by sociodemographic factors than clinical factors. Overall, email is an extremely efficient means of recruiting participants from a large list into the Health eHeart Study. Despite some improvements in representation, the formulation of truly diverse studies will require additional resources and strategies to overcome persistent participation barriers.

Use of Community Listening Sessions to Disseminate Research Findings to Past Participants and Communities.

The purpose of this sequential, explanatory mixed methods study is to determine changes in attitudes towards research, trust in medical researchers and the process, and willingness to participate in research among African Americans immediately after receiving past study findings in a community listening session (CLS). We developed and implemented four CLSs with a total of 57 African Americans who were either past research participants or members of the community-at-large. In the quantitative (dominant) phase, 32 participants completed pre-post surveys and 10 of those participants completed the follow-up semi-structured interviews. Paired samples t-tests and McNemar's test determined bivariate differences between pre- and post-surveys. Thematic analyses determined emerging themes to further understand these differences. There was a significant increase in: (1) perceived advantages of clinical trials pretest (M = 26.63, SD = 5.43) and post-test (M = 28.53, SD = 4.24, p < .01); and (2) in trust in medical researchers from pre to post (M = 36.16, SD = 10.40 vs. M = 27.53, SD = 9.37, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in pre- and post-tests as it relates to perceived disadvantages of clinical trials and willingness to participate. Qualitative analysis yielded the following themes: (1) sharing research results and the impact on attitudes towards research; (2) community listening sessions: a trust building strategy; and (3) satisfaction with the community listening session. Community listening sessions hold promise as a method that researchers can use to simultaneously disseminate research findings and positively impact research perceptions and potentially participation among racial and ethnic minorities.

Social Media Use for Research Participant Recruitment: Integrative Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Social media tools have provided health researchers with the opportunity to engage with communities and groups in a nonconventional manner to recruit participants for health research. Using social media to advertise research opportunities and recruit participants facilitates accessibility to participants from broad geographical areas and diverse populations. However, little guidance is provided by ethics review boards for researchers to effectively use this recruitment method in their research. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to explore the literature on the use of social media for participant recruitment for research studies and identify the best practices for recruiting participants using this method. METHODS: An integrative review approach was used to synthesize the literature. A total of 5 health sciences databases, namely, EMBASE (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid and EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus (Elsevier), and CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), were searched using predefined keywords and inclusion and exclusion criteria. The initial search was conducted in October 2020 and was updated in February 2022. Descriptive and content analyses were applied to synthesize the results, and the findings are presented in a narrative and tabular format. RESULTS: A total of 96 records were included in this review, 83 (86%) from the initial search and 13 (14%) from the updated search. The publication year ranged between 2011 and 2022, with most publications (63/96, 66%) being from the United States. Regarding recruitment strategy, 45% (43/96) of the studies exclusively used social media, whereas 51% (49/96) used social media in conjunction with other strategies. The remaining 4% (4/96) provided guidelines and recommendations for social media recruitment. Notably, 38% (36/96) of these studies involved hard-to-reach populations. The findings also revealed that the use of social media is a cost-effective and efficient strategy for recruiting research participants. Despite the expanded use across different populations, there is limited participation of older adults in social media recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides important insights into the current use of social media for health research participant recruitment. Ethics boards and research support services in academic institutions are encouraged to explicitly provide researchers with guidelines on the use of social media for health research participant recruitment. A preliminary guideline prepared based on the findings of this review is proposed to spark further development in this area.

Avoiding Under- and Overrecruitment in Behavioral Intervention Trials Using Bayesian Sequential Designs: Tutorial.

Reducing research waste and protecting research participants from unnecessary harm should be top priorities for researchers studying interventions. However, the traditional use of fixed sample sizes exposes trials to risks of under- and overrecruitment by requiring that effect sizes be determined a priori. One mitigating approach is to adopt a Bayesian sequential design, which enables evaluation of the available evidence continuously over the trial period to decide when to stop recruitment. Target criteria are defined, which encode researchers' intentions for what is considered findings of interest, and the trial is stopped once the scientific question is sufficiently addressed. In this tutorial, we revisit a trial of a digital alcohol intervention that used a fixed sample size of 2129 participants. We show that had a Bayesian sequential design been used, the trial could have ended after collecting data from approximately 300 participants. This would have meant exposing far fewer individuals to trial procedures, including being allocated to the waiting list control condition, and the evidence from the trial could have been made public sooner.

Training needs of health researchers in research ethics in Cameroon: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Researchers are responsible for the protection of health research participants. The purpose of this study was to identify and prioritize the training needs of researchers involved in human health research in Cameroon. METHODS: It was a cross-sectional study conducted in all the Cameroon regions in the last quarter of 2020. It targeted researchers involved in human health research selected by systematic stratified sampling from health and training institutions, and health facilities. Data were collected using a face-to-face administered questionnaire deployed in Smartphones via the ODK-collect. The distribution of participants' exposure to research ethics training was described as well as their knowledge on the related regulatory texts. A score was used to rank the training needs identified by the participants. RESULTS: Of 168 reached participants, 134 (79.76%) participated in the study. A total of 103 (76.87%) researchers reported having received training in human health research ethics and 98 (73.13%) perceived need of training in research ethics. Of those involved in clinical, vaccine, and field trials, 63.64, 33.33, 52.53% have been exposed respectively to related training regarding participants' protection. Having received at least one training in research ethics significantly increase the proportion of researchers systematically submitting application for ethical evaluation prior to implementation (OR = 3.20 (1.31-7.78)). Training priorities identified by researchers include: guidelines and regulations on health research ethics and research participant's protection in Cameroon, procedures for evaluating research protocols, protection of research participants in clinical trials, and fundamental ethics principles. CONCLUSION: The coverage of researchers in training regarding research participant protection remains limited in a number of areas including those related to clinical trial participant protection and research participant protection in Cameroon. Improving this coverage and addressing perceived needs of researchers are expected to contribute in improving their ability in playing their role in research participant protection.

The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants.

In contrast to most publications on the ethics of paying research subjects, which start by identifying and analyzing major ethical concerns raised by the practice (in particular, risks of undue inducement and exploitation) and end with a set of-more or less well-justified-ethical recommendations for using payment schemes immune to these problems, this paper offers a systematic, principle-based ethical analysis of the practice. It argues that researchers have a prima facie moral obligation to offer payment to research subjects, which stems from the principle of social beneficence. This principle constitutes an ethical "spine" of the practice. Other ethical principles of research ethics (respect for autonomy, individual beneficence, and justice/fairness) make up an ethical "skeleton" of morally sound payment schemes by providing additional moral reasons for offering participants (1) recompense for reasonable expenses; and (2a) remuneration conceptualized as a reward for their valuable contribution, provided (i) it meets standards of equality, adequacy and non-exploitation, and (ii) it is not overly attractive (i.e., it does not constitute undue inducement for participation or retention, and does not encourage deceptive behaviors); or (2b) remuneration conceptualized as a market-driven price, provided (i) it is necessary and designed to help the study achieve its social and scientific goals, (ii) it does not reinforce wider social injustices and inequalities; (iii) it meets the requirement of non-exploitation; and (iv) it is not overly attractive. The principle of justice provides a strong ethical reason for not offering recompenses for lost wages (or loss of other reasonably expected profits).

Research participants' preferences for receiving genetic risk information: a discrete choice experiment.

PURPOSE: This study aims to determine research participants' preferences for receiving genetic risk information when participating in a scientific study that uses genome sequencing. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was sent to 650 research participants (response rate 60.5%). Four attributes were selected for the questionnaire: type of disease, disease penetrance probability, preventive opportunity, and effectiveness of the preventive measure. Panel mixed logit models were used to determine attribute level estimates and the heterogeneity in preferences. Relative importance of the attribute and the predicted uptake for different information scenarios were calculated from the estimates. In addition, this study estimates predicted uptake for receiving genetic risk information in different scenarios. RESULTS: All characteristics influenced research participants' willingness to receive genetic risk information. The most important characteristic was the effectiveness of the preventive opportunity. Predicted uptake ranged between 28% and 98% depending on what preventive opportunities and levels of effectiveness were presented. CONCLUSION: Information about an effective preventive measure was most important for participants. They valued that attribute twice as much as the other attributes. Therefore, when there is an effective preventive measure, risk communication can be less concerned with the magnitude of the probability of developing disease.

Discontinuing Psychotropic Drugs from Participants in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Methods and justifications for discontinuing psychotropic drugs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and RCTs' acknowledgement of possible withdrawal symptoms following discontinuation, have not been examined systematically, which this review aims to do. Study Eligibility, Data Extraction, and Synthesis: Publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO (2000-2017) randomly assigning participants diagnosed with mental disorders to discontinue antipsychotic, antidepressant, anticonvulsant, antimanic, mood-stabilizing, benzodiazepine, or stimulant drugs. Authors independently extracted data, devised a typology of trials, and assessed trials' recognition of with-drawal symptoms. RESULTS: Eighty RCTs (70% with industry participation) discontinued drugs from 5,757 participants to investigate relapse prevention (44%), successful dis-continuation (26%), architecture of withdrawal (14%), and practicality of discontinuation (10%). RCTs of stimulants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics mostly aimed to reach conclusions about relapse prevention by testing abrupt or rapid discontinuations; RCTs of benzodiazepines mostly aimed to reduce drug use by testing longer-lasting, supportive discontinuations. In 67% of RCTs, no justification was given for the specific discontinuation strategy, which lasted under 2 weeks in 60% of RCTs. Possible withdrawal confounding of trial outcomes was addressed in 14% of eligible RCTs. LIMITATIONS: Only the published literature was searched. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: RCTs use drug discontinuation to study several key issues in psychopharmacology but infrequently justify how they implement it or acknowledge that possible withdrawal symptoms may threaten internal validity. Reappraising the use of drug discontinuation and the recognition of withdrawal symptoms in RCTs is required.

Paying patient and caregiver research participants: putting theory into practice.

AIM: To review and discuss the ethical and practical considerations about paying patient and caregiver participants in nursing research and, based on this review, to develop a set of guiding principles about payment of participants. BACKGROUND: To increase recruitment and retention, it is becoming increasingly common in nursing research to provide some form of payment to participants. The risk is that the promise of a payment may influence a patient or caregiver's decision to participate in research. However, research ethics protocols seldom provide explicit guidance about paying participants. Even where formal policies or fee schedules exist, there is little consistency in determining how payments should be calculated or administered. This has resulted in highly variable payment practices between locations, disciplines and institutions. DESIGN: Discussion paper. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, MEDLINE with Full Text, CINAHL and Health Source (Nursing/Academic Edition) were searched for terms related to paying research participants published between 2000 - August 2016. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nurse researchers must comply with international, national and institutional ethical standards. Important ethical and practical considerations should guide the decision-making process about whether to pay research participants and how to determine the nature or value of the payment. Guiding principles can support researchers by highlighting key factors that may direct their decision-making in this regard. CONCLUSION: A deeper understanding of the fundamental ethical and practical considerations is needed to support researchers in their deliberations about paying participants in nursing research.

Rationale and Study Checklist for Ethical Rejection of Participants on Crowdsourcing Research Platforms.

Online participant recruitment ("crowdsourcing") platforms are increasingly being used for research studies. While such platforms can rapidly provide access to large samples, there are concomitant concerns around data quality. Researchers have studied and demonstrated means to reduce the prevalence of low-quality data from crowdsourcing platforms, but approaches to doing so often involve rejecting work and/or denying payment to participants, which can pose ethical dilemmas. We write this essay as an associate professor and two institutional review board (IRB) directors to provide a perspective on the competing interests of participants/workers and researchers and to propose a checklist of steps that we believe may support workers' agency on the platform and lessen instances of unfair consequences to them while enabling researchers to definitively reject lower-quality work that might otherwise reduce the likelihood of their studies producing true results. We encourage further, explicit discussion of these issues among academics and among IRBs.

Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme.

Background: Randomised controlled trials ('trials') are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted. Objectives: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial. Design: A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Setting: Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible. Participants: Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom. Interventions: Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial. Main outcome measures: Number of host trials funded. Results: Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials. Limitations: The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed (n = 2) or prematurely terminated (n = 3). Conclusions: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial. Future work: Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice. Study registration: All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

A Study Within A Trial is a research study nested inside a larger 'host trial', promoting the use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to do Study Within A Trial routine practice in clinical trial units by funding and supporting at least 25 Studies Within A Trial. The best way to test health and social care treatments is to do a randomised controlled trial ('trial'), where some patients get the treatment being tested and some do not. The results of different groups are compared to see if the treatment improves care. Recruiting patients and keeping them involved in trials is often very difficult. Research teams often do not know how best to recruit and keep patients engaged as the methods have not been tested to see if they work. The best way to test these methods is by doing a Study Within A Trial. We test a programme of Studies Within A Trial for recruiting and keeping patients engaged in trials. Trial teams were able to apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from Promoting the use of Study Within A Trial team to do Studies Within A Trial. We used our experience of doing Studies Within A Trial to outline lessons learnt for doing Studies Within A Trial. We funded 42 Studies Within A Trial and gave teams necessary advice to do them. We significantly increased the knowledge for both recruitment and retention strategies, and found 'pre-notifying' before sending questionnaires, sending pens and personalised text messages were all effective for increasing responses by participants. We tested Studies Within A Trial across several different trials at the same time to find out more quickly whether their methods worked. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others doing Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient partners; picking the right strategy to test; getting ethical approvals; how to do and report Studies Within A Trial. Promoting the use of studies within a trial was successful and supported more Studies Within A Trial than planned. We hope our experience will support those doing Studies Within A Trial in the future.

Research Ethics during Pandemics: How IRBs Can Prepare.

The Covid-19 pandemic has raised a range of complex challenges for the research community in the United States. This essay uses Covid-19 as a model pandemic illness to consider two such issues that have yet to be fully explored in the ethics literature: first, whether the informed consent process should include a discussion of pandemic risks and, if so, how precisely these risks should be conveyed to potential research participants and, second, whether and under what circumstances vaccination status should be taken into consideration when enrolling subjects in non-pandemic-related studies during a pandemic.

Understanding of Critical Elements of Informed Consent in Genomic Research: A Case of a Paediatric HIV-TB Research Project in Uganda.

Several studies have reported inadequate comprehension of informed consent for genomic research. This study aimed to assess research participants' understanding of critical elements of informed consent for genomic research. A cross-sectional survey involving 123 parents/caregivers of children participating in a paediatric genomic TB/HIV study was conducted. Only 47.2% of the participants had adequate understanding of consent information. The mean objective (actual) and subjective (perceived) understanding scores were 78.7% and 91.7% respectively. Participants adequately understood most elements of consent however, some elements were poorly understood including foreseeable risks, protection of confidentiality and compensation for research related injury. Overall there was inadequate comprehension of critical elements of informed consent and there was dissonance between actual and perceived comprehension of informed consent.

Including General Audiences in a Virtual Scientific Dementia Conference: Will They Get Anything From It?

BACKGROUND: Study participants, patients, and care partners are key stakeholders in research and have asked for greater inclusion in the dissemination of scientific learning. However, the participation of general audiences in scientific conferences dedicated to Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD) is not widely supported or studied. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to evaluate the interest, level of engagement, and impact of including general audiences in a virtual dementia conference. METHODS: A diverse group of lay participants, identified via community-based health advocacy groups and research centers, were invited to attend the 2021 Alzheimer's Association International Conference (AAIC), with optional small-group discussions. Participants received complimentary access to all scientific sessions and were supported via navigation tips, recommended sessions, and a glossary of frequently used terms and acronyms. RESULTS: Lay participants demonstrated a high level of engagement, even among those that were research-naïve, attending virtual sessions for an average of 11.7 hours across the five days and recommending a variety of sessions to each other on topics extending from prevention of dementia to new therapies and care. Most participants said they would attend the conference again and rated the quality of interaction as high, while requesting more opportunities to engage directly with researchers. CONCLUSION: General audiences, in particular research participants, are advocating for greater participation in scientific conferences. This program can serve as a model to accomplish inclusion; thereby acknowledging their invaluable contribution to science.

A Review of Race and Ethnicity in Hospice and Palliative Medicine Research: Representation Matters.

CONTEXT: Despite documented racial and ethnic disparities in care, there is significant variability in representation, reporting, and analysis of race and ethnic groups in the hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) literature. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the race and ethnic diversity of study participants and the reporting of race and ethnicity data in HPM research. METHODS: Adult patient and/or caregiver-centered research conducted in the U.S. and published as JPSM Original Articles from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019, were identified. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize the frequency of variables related to reporting of race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Of 1253 studies screened, 218 were eligible and reviewed. There were 78 unique race and ethnic group labels. Over 85% of studies included ≥ one non-standard label based on Office of Management and Budget designations. One-quarter of studies lacked an explanation of how race and ethnicity data were collected, and 83% lacked a rationale. Over half did not include race and/or ethnicity in the analysis, and only 14 studies focused on race and/or ethnic health or health disparities. White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander persons were included in 95%, 71%, 43% 37%,10%, and 4% of studies. In 92% of studies the proportion of White individuals exceeded 57.8%, which is their proportion in the U.S. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest there are important opportunities to standardize reporting of race and ethnicity, strive for diversity, equity, and inclusion among research participants, and prioritize the study of racial and ethnic disparities in HPM research.

Ethics and regulatory complexities posed by a pragmatic clinical trial: a case study from Lilongwe, Malawi.

Background: Pragmatic clinical trials generally rely on real world data and have the potential to generate real world evidence. This approach arose from concerns that many trial results did not adequately inform real world practice. However, maintaining the real world setting during the conduct of a trial and ensuring adequate protection for research participants can be challenging. Best practices in research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials are nascent and underdeveloped, especially in developing countries. Methods: We use the PRECIS-2 tool to present a case study from Lilongwe in Malawi to describe ethical and regulatory challenges encountered during the conduct of a pragmatic trial and suggest possible solutions. Results: In this article, we highlight the following six issues: (1) one public facility hosting several pragmatic trials within the same period; (2) research participants refusing financial incentives; (3) inadequate infrastructure and high workload to conduct research; (4) silos among partner organisations involved in delivery of health care; (5) individuals influencing the implementation of revised national guidelines; (6) difficulties with access to electronic medical records. Conclusion: Multiple stakeholder engagement is critical to the conduct of pragmatic trials, and even with careful stakeholder engagement, continuous monitoring by gatekeepers is essential. In the Malawian context, active engagement of the district research committees can complement the work of the research ethics committees (RECs).

Patients' and Publics' Preferences for Data-Intensive Health Research Governance: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients and publics are generally positive about data-intensive health research. However, conditions need to be fulfilled for their support. Ensuring confidentiality, security, and privacy of patients' health data is pivotal. Patients and publics have concerns about secondary use of data by commercial parties and the risk of data misuse, reasons for which they favor personal control of their data. Yet, the potential of public benefit highlights the potential of building trust to attenuate these perceptions of harm and risk. Nevertheless, empirical evidence on how conditions for support of data-intensive health research can be operationalized to that end remains scant. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to inform efforts to design governance frameworks for data-intensive health research, by gaining insight into the preferences of patients and publics for governance policies and measures. METHODS: We distributed a digital questionnaire among a purposive sample of patients and publics. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and nonparametric inferential statistics to compare group differences and explore associations between policy preferences. RESULTS: Study participants (N=987) strongly favored sharing their health data for scientific health research. Personal decision-making about which research projects health data are shared with (346/980, 35.3%), which researchers/organizations can have access (380/978, 38.9%), and the provision of information (458/981, 46.7%) were found highly important. Health data-sharing policies strengthening direct personal control, like being able to decide under which conditions health data are shared (538/969, 55.5%), were found highly important. Policies strengthening collective governance, like reliability checks (805/967, 83.2%) and security safeguards (787/976, 80.6%), were also found highly important. Further analysis revealed that participants willing to share health data, to a lesser extent, demanded policies strengthening direct personal control than participants who were reluctant to share health data. This was the case for the option to have health data deleted at any time (P<.001) and the ability to decide the conditions under which health data can be shared (P<.001). Overall, policies and measures enforcing conditions for support at the collective level of governance, like having an independent committee to evaluate requests for access to health data (P=.02), were most strongly favored. This also applied to participants who explicitly stressed that it was important to be able to decide the conditions under which health data can be shared, for instance, whether sanctions on data misuse are in place (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that both a positive attitude toward health data sharing and demand for personal decision-making abilities were associated with policies and measures strengthening control at the collective level of governance. We recommend pursuing the development of this type of governance policy. More importantly, further study is required to understand how governance policies and measures can contribute to the trustworthiness of data-intensive health research.