No abstract

For more than one hundred years, students of creativity, including seminal efforts published in the Journal of Creative Behavior, have sought to identify the key processes people must execute to produce creative problem solutions. In recent years, we have seen a consensual model of key creative thinking processes being accepted by the field. In the present effort, we review the evidence bearing on the eight core processes proposed in this consensual model. Subsequently, directions for future research on creative thinking processes are discussed.

No abstract

We found no studies in the United States that explored research participants' perspectives about sharing their qualitative data. We present findings from interviews with 30 individuals who participated in sensitive qualitative studies to explore their understanding and concerns regarding qualitative data sharing. The vast majority supported sharing qualitative data so long as their data were deidentified and shared only among researchers. However, they raised concerns about confidentiality if the data were not adequately deidentified and about misuse by secondary users if data were shared beyond the research community. These concerns, though, did not deter them from participating in research. Notably, participants hoped their data would be shared and may have expected or assumed this was already happening. While many could not recollect details about data‐sharing plans for studies in which they participated, they trusted researchers and institutions to appropriately handle data sharing. If individuals view data sharing as an extension or integral part of their participation in qualitative research, then researchers may have a stronger obligation to share qualitative data than previously thought. Guidelines and tools to assist researchers and institutional review board members in ethical and responsible qualitative data sharing are urgently needed.

Data sharing maximizes the value of data, which is time and resource intensive to collect. Major funding bodies in the United States (US), like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), require data sharing and researchers frequently share de-identified quantitative data. In contrast, qualitative data are rarely shared in the US but the increasing trend towards data sharing and open science suggest this may be required in future. Qualitative methods are often used to explore sensitive health topics raising unique ethical challenges regarding protecting confidentiality while maintaining enough contextual detail for secondary analyses. Here, we report findings from semi-structured in-depth interviews with 30 data repository curators, 30 qualitative researchers, and 30 IRB staff members to explore their experience and knowledge of QDS. Our findings indicate that all stakeholder groups lack preparedness for QDS. Researchers are the least knowledgeable and are often unfamiliar with the concept of sharing qualitative data in a repository. Curators are highly supportive of QDS, but not all have experienced curating qualitative data sets and indicated they would like guidance and standards specific to QDS. IRB members lack familiarity with QDS although they support it as long as proper legal and regulatory procedures are followed. IRB members and data curators are not prepared to advise researchers on legal and regulatory matters, potentially leaving researchers who have the least knowledge with no guidance. Ethical and productive QDS will require overcoming barriers, creating standards, and changing long held practices among all stakeholder groups.

Introduction: Tests exist for ApoL1 genetic variants to determine whether a potential donor’s kidneys are at increased risk of kidney failure. Variants of the ApoL1 gene associated with increased risk are primarily found in people with West African ancestry. Given uncertainty about clinical implications of ApoL1 test results for living kidney donors and recipients and the lack of uniform guidelines for ApoL1 testing, transplant centers across the United States vary in ApoL1 testing practices. Research Questions: (1) What approach do transplant centers take to determine whether prospective donors are of West African ancestry? (2)How do transplant centers engage potential donors during the ApoL1 testing process? (3) What do transplant centers identify as concerns and barriers to ApoL1 testing? and (4) What actions do transplant centers take when a potential donor has 2 ApoL1 risk variants? Design: We explored the current practices of transplant centers by surveying nephrologists and transplant surgeons at transplant centers evaluating the majority of black living donors in the United States. Results: About half of these transplant centers offered ApoL1 testing. Of those who offered ApoL1 testing, only half involved the donor in decision-making about donation when the donor has 2 risk variants. Discussion: Unaddressed differences in the priorities of transplant centers and black living donors may stigmatize black donors and undermine trust in the health-care and organ donation systems. Variation in transplant center testing practices points to the critical need for further research and community engagement to inform the development of guidelines for ApoL1 testing.

No abstract

A great need for systematic evaluation of ethics training programs exists. Those tasked with developing an ethics training program may be quick to dismiss the value of training evaluation in continuous process improvement. In the present effort, we use a case study approach to delineate how to leverage formative and summative evaluation measures to create a high-quality ethics education program. With regard to formative evaluation, information bearing on trainee reactions, qualitative data from the comments of trainees, in addition to empirical findings, can ensure that the training program operates smoothly. Regarding summative evaluation, measures examining trainee cognition, behavior, and organization-level results provide information about how much trainees have changed as a result of taking the ethics training. The implications of effective training program evaluation are discussed.