With the growth of precision medicine research on health data and biospecimens, research institutions will need to build and maintain long-term, trusting relationships with patient-participants. While trust is important for all research relationships, the longitudinal nature of precision medicine research raises particular challenges for facilitating trust when the specifics of future studies are unknown. Based on focus groups with racially and ethnically diverse patients, we describe several factors that influence patient trust and potential institutional approaches to building trustworthiness. Drawing on these findings, we suggest several considerations for research institutions seeking to cultivate long-term, trusting relationships with patients: (1) Address the role of history and experience on trust, (2) engage concerns about potential group harm, (3) address cultural values and communication barriers, and (4) integrate patient values and expectations into oversight and governance structures.

Carrier screening allows individuals to learn their chance of passing on an autosomal or X-linked condition to their offspring. Initially introduced as single-disease, ancestry-based screening, technological advances now allow for the possibility of multi-disease, pan-ethnic carrier screening, which we refer to as “expanded carrier screening.” There are numerous potential benefits to expanded carrier screening, including maximizing the opportunity for couples to make autonomous reproductive decisions, and efficiency and marginal additional costs of including more conditions if the test is already being offered. While numerous laboratories currently offer expanded carrier screening services, it is not yet commonly used in clinical practice, and there is a lack of consensus among experts about the service, including whether this should be offered to individuals and couples, whether this should be offered preconception or prenatally, and what conditions to include in screening programs. Challenges for expanded carrier screening programs include a lack of demand from the public, low prioritization by health systems, the potential for pressure to undergo screening, the possibility of disability-based discrimination, needed adaptations to pre- and post-test counseling, technical limitations, and the evolving technological and socio-political landscape.

We conducted focus groups to assess patient attitudes towards research on medical practices in the context of usual care. We found that patients focus on the implications of this research for their relationship with and trust in their physicians. Patients view research on medical practices as separate from usual care, demanding dissemination of information and in most cases, individual consent. Patients expect information about this research to come through their physician, whom they rely on to identify and filter associated risks. In general, patients support this research, but worry that participation in research involving randomization may undermine individualized care that acknowledges their unique medical histories. These findings suggest the need for public education on variation in practice among physicians and the need for a collaborative approach to the governance of research on medical practices that addresses core values of trust, transparency and partnership.

PurposeTo determine whether patients distinguish between biospecimens and electronic health records (EHRs) when considering research participation to inform research protections.MethodsWe conducted 20 focus groups with individuals who identified as African American, Hispanic, Chinese, South Asian and non-Hispanic White on the collection of biospecimens and EHR data for research.ResultsOur study found that many participants did not distinguish between biospecimens and EHR data. However, some participants identified specific concerns about biospecimens. These included the need for special care and respect for biospecimens due to enduring connections between the body and identity; the potential for unacceptable future research, specifically the prospect of human cloning; heightened privacy risks; and the potential for unjust corporate profiteering. Among those who distinguished biospecimens from EHR data, many supported separate consent processes and would limit their own participation to EHR data.ConclusionConsidering that the potential misuse of EHR data is as great, if not greater than for biospecimens, more research is needed to understand how attitudes differ between biospecimens and EHR data across diverse populations. Such research should explore mechanisms beyond consent that can address diverse values, perspectives and misconceptions about sources of patient information to build trust in research relationships.

With the expansion of carrier screening to general preconception and prenatal patient populations, most patients will receive negative results, which we define as indicating <25% risk of having a child with a genetic condition. Because there is limited experience with expanded carrier screening, it is important to understand how receiving negative results affects patients, especially as providers, payers, and policymakers consider whether to offer it. In this mixed-methods study, we asked preconception patients enrolled in the NextGen study about their expectations and experiences receiving negative expanded carrier screening results. Participants completed surveys at study enrollment (n=110 women, 51 male partners), after receiving carrier results (n=100 women, 38 male partners), after receiving secondary findings (n=98 women, 36 male partners), and 6 months after receiving results (n=95 women, 28 male partners). We also interviewed a subset of participants 12–24 months after receiving results (n=24 women, 12 male partners). We found minimal negative emotional impact and privacy concerns, increased confidence in reproductive plans, and few changes to health behaviors, although some patients made health decisions based on misunderstandings of their results. These findings suggest that expanded carrier screening causes minimal psychosocial harms, but systems are needed to reduce the risk of misinterpreting results.

Controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) studies deliberately infect healthy participants with malaria to test interventions faster and more efficiently. Some argue the study design and high payments offered raise ethical concerns about participants' understanding of risks and undue inducement. We conducted baseline and exit interviews with 16 CHMI study participants to explore these concerns. Participants described themes including decision-making tension with friends and family, mixed motivations for participating, low study risks but high burdens, fair compensation, sacrificing values, deceiving researchers, and perceived benefits. Our findings do not support concerns that high payments limit understanding of study risks, but suggest participants may lack appreciation of study burdens, withhold information or engage in deception, and experience conflict with others regarding study participation.

No abstract

Background Human subjects protection in healthcare contexts rests on the premise that a principled boundary distinguishes clinical research and clinical practice. However, growing use of evidence-based clinical practices by health systems makes it increasingly difficult to disentangle research from a wide range of clinical activities that are sometimes called “research on medical practice” (ROMP), including quality improvement activities and comparative effectiveness research. The recent growth of ROMP activities has created an ethical and regulatory gray zone with significant implications for the oversight of human subjects research. Methods We conducted six semi-structured, open-ended focus group discussions with IRB members to understand their experiences and perspectives on ethical oversight of ROMP, including randomization of patients to standard treatments. Results Our study revealed that IRB members are unclear or divided on the central questions at stake in the current policy debate over ethical oversight of ROMP: IRB members struggle to make a clear distinction between clinical research and medical practice improvement, lack consensus on when ROMP requires IRB review and oversight, and are uncertain about what constitutes incremental risk when patients are randomized to different treatments, any of which may be offered in usual care. They characterized the central challenge as a balancing act, between, on the one hand, making information fully transparent to patients and providing adequate oversight, and on the other hand, avoiding a chilling effect on the research process or harming the physician-patient relationship. Conclusions Evidence-based guidance that supports IRB members in providing adequate and effective oversight of ROMP without impeding the research process or harming the physician-patient relationship is necessary to realize the full benefits of the learning health system.