Mobile devices with health apps, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, crowd-sourced information, and other data sources have enabled research by new classes of researchers. Independent researchers, citizen scientists, patient-directed researchers, self-experimenters, and others are not covered by federal research regulations because they are not recipients of federal financial assistance or conducting research in anticipation of a submission to the FDA for approval of a new drug or medical device. This article addresses the difficult policy challenge of promoting the welfare and interests of research participants, as well as the public, in the absence of regulatory requirements and without discouraging independent, innovative scientific inquiry. The article recommends a series of measures, including education, consultation, transparency, self-governance, and regulation to strike the appropriate balance.

Background: The increased use of electronic health records (EHRs) has resulted in new opportunities for research, but also raises concerns regarding privacy, confidentiality, and patient awareness. Because public trust is essential to the success of the research enterprise, patient perspectives are essential to the development and implementation of ethical approaches to the research use of EHRs. Yet, little is known about patients' views and expectations regarding various approaches to seeking permission for research use of their EHR data. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 120 patients in four counties in diverse regions of the southeastern United States: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Piedmont area of North Carolina. We asked participants to consider, from multiple stakeholder perspectives, the advantages and disadvantages of three approaches to notifying patients of, or obtaining permission for, research use of their EHR data; whether they believed it would be acceptable if their healthcare organization used each approach; and which approach would be most appropriate. Results: Nearly all participants said General Notification, Broad Permission, and Categorical Permission would each be acceptable approaches to notification of, or permission for, EHR research. Over half identified Broad Permission as the most appropriate approach. Across all of these discussions, major themes included the importance of clarity, simplicity, and usability of patient-facing materials, as well as the level of transparency, trustworthiness, and respect for patients the approach conveys. Conclusions: Our findings help to inform the development and implementation of ethical approaches to the research use of EHRs by identifying key patient considerations regarding various approaches to permission and suggesting potential actions for healthcare organizations and researchers.

No abstract

To assist in resolving ethical questions surrounding unregulated mHealth research, we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with experts from four key stakeholder groups: patient/research advocates, researchers, regulatory professionals, and mobile app/device developers. They discussed challenges and potential solutions in the context of two hypothetical scenarios involving unregulated mHealth research, including notifications/permissions for research use of mHealth data, data access procedures, new primary data collection, offering individual research results, and data sharing and dissemination.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is marketed as a tool to uncover ancestry and kin. Recent studies of actual and potential users have demonstrated that individuals’ responses to the use of these tests for these purposes are complex, with privacy, disruptive consequences, potential for misuse, and secondary use by law enforcement cited as potential concerns. We conducted six focus groups with a diverse sample of participants (n = 62) who were aware of but had not used direct-to-consumer genetic tests, in an effort to understand more about what people considering these tests think about the potential value, risks, and benefits of such testing, taking into account use by third parties, such as potential kin and law enforcement. Participants differed widely in the perceived value of direct-to-consumer genetic tests for ancestry and kinship information for their own lives, including the desirability of contact with previously unknown relatives. Some perceived ancestry testing as mere curiosity or entertainment, while others, particularly those who had gaps in their family history, few living relatives, or who were adopted, saw greater value. Concerns about intrusion into one’s life by purported kin and control of data were widespread, with many participants expressing concern about secondary uses of data that could harm users or their families. The use of direct-to-consumer genetic tests data for forensic genealogy elicited a particularly wide array of reactions, both spontaneously and in response to specific discussion prompts, mirroring the current public debate about law enforcement access to such data. The themes uncovered through our investigation warrant specific attention in the continued development of the science, policy, and practice of commercial direct-to-consumer genetic testing.