Precision medicine research is rapidly taking a lead role in the pursuit of new ways to improve health and prevent disease, but also presents new challenges for protecting human subjects. The extent to which the current “web” of legal protections, including technical data security measures, as well as measures to restrict access or prevent misuse of research data, will protect participants in this context remains largely unknown. Understanding the strength, usefulness, and limitations of this constellation of laws, regulations, and procedures is critical to ensuring not only that participants are protected, but also that their participation decisions are accurately informed. To address these gaps, we conducted in-depth interviews with a diverse group of 60 thought-leaders to explore their perspectives on the protections associated with precision medicine research.

Precision medicine research is underway to identify targeted approaches to improving health and preventing disease. However, such endeavors raise significant privacy and confidentiality concerns. The objective of this study was to elucidate the potential benefits and harms associated with precision medicine research through in-depth interviews with a diverse group of thought leaders, including primarily U.S.-based experts and scholars in the areas of ethics, genome research, health law, historically-disadvantaged populations, informatics, and participant-centric perspectives, as well as government officials and human subjects protections leaders. The results suggest the prospect of an array of individual and societal benefits, as well as physical, dignitary, group, economic, psychological, and legal harms. Relative to the way risks and harms are commonly described in consent forms for precision medicine research, the thought leaders we interviewed arguably emphasized a somewhat different set of issues. The return of individual research results, harm to socially-identifiable groups, the value-dependent nature of many benefits and harms, and the risks to the research enterprise itself emerged as important cross-cutting themes. Our findings highlight specific challenges that warrant concentrated care during the design, conduct, dissemination, and translation of precision medicine research and in the development of consent materials and processes.

Background: EHR phenotyping offers the ability to rapidly assemble a precisely defined cohort of patients prescreened for eligibility to participate in health-related research. Even so, stakeholders in the process must still contend with the practical and ethical challenges associated with research recruitment. Patient perspectives on these matters are particularly important given that the success of research recruitment depends on patients' willingness to participate. Methods: We conducted 15 focus groups (n = 110 participants) in four counties in diverse regions of the southeastern US: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Piedmont area of North Carolina. Based on a hypothetical study of a behavioral intervention for type 2 diabetes, we asked about the acceptability and appropriateness of direct investigator versus physician-mediated contact with patients for research recruitment, and whether patients should be asked to opt in or opt out of further contact in response to recruitment letters. Results: For initial contact, nearly all participants said it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients directly and three-fourths said that it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients through their physicians. When we asked which would be most appropriate, a substantial majority chose direct contact. Themes that arose in the discussion included trust and transparency, decision-making power, the effect on research, and the effect on patient care. For response expectations, the vast majority of participants said both opt-in and opt-out would be acceptable-typically finding neither especially problematic and noting that both afford patients the opportunity to make their own decisions. Conclusions: External validity relies heavily on researchers' success enrolling eligible patients and failure to reach accrual targets is a costly and common barrier to advancing scientific knowledge. Our results suggest that patients recognize multiple advantages and disadvantages of different research recruitment strategies and place value on the implications not just for themselves, but also for researchers and healthcare providers. Our findings, including rich qualitative detail, contribute to the body of empirical and ethical literature on improving research recruitment and suggest specific ways forward as well as important areas for future research.

No abstract

Background Trauma surgeons face a challenge when deciding whether to resuscitate lethally injured patients whose organ donor status is unknown. Data suggests practice pattern variability in this setting, but little is known about why. Materials and Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with trauma surgeons practicing in Level 1 or 2 trauma centers in Tennessee. Interviews focused on ethical dilemmas and resource constraints. Analysis was performed using inductive thematic analysis. Results Response rate was 73% (11/15). Four key themes emerged. All described resuscitating patients to buy time to collect more definitive clinical information and to identify family. Some acknowledged this served the secondary purpose of organ preservation. 11/11 participants felt a primacy of obligation to the patient in front of them even after it became apparent, they could not personally benefit. For 9/11 (82%), the moral obligation to consider organ preservation was secondary/balancing; 2/11 (18%) felt it was irrelevant/immoral. Resource allocation was commonly considered. All participants expressed some limitation to resources they would allocate. All participants conveyed clear moral agency in determining resuscitation extent when the goal was to save the patient’s life, however this was less clear when resuscitating for organ preservation. Across themes, perceptions of a “standard practice” existed but the described practices were not consistent across interviewees. Discussion Widely ranging perceptions regarding ethical and resource considerations underlie practices resuscitating toward organ preservation. Common themes suggest a lack of consensus. Despite expressed beliefs, there is no identifiable standard of practice amongst trauma surgeons resuscitating in this setting.