Research data repositories (RDRs) are data storage entities where data can be submitted, stored, and subsequently accessed for purposes beyond the original intent. There is little information relating to non-biological RDRs, nor considerations regarding pediatric data storage and re-use. We examined parent perspectives on pediatric, non-biological RDRs. Qualitative, descriptive methods including both interviews and focus groups were used. Purposive sampling of adult participants in two provincial birth cohorts yielded 19 interviewees and 18 focus group participants (4 groups). Transcripts were analyzed by thematic content analysis. Parent research participants strongly supported the sharing of their own, and their child's, non-biological research data. Four themes emerged: that altruism has limits, that participants have ongoing privacy concerns, that some participants need the assurance of congruent values between themselves and researchers/research questions, and that opinions diverge for some governance issues. The establishment of RDRs is important and maximizes participants', researchers', and funders' investments. Participants as data donors have concerns relating to privacy, relationships, and governance that must be considered in RDR development.

BackgroundPersonal health information and biospecimens are valuable research resources essential for the advancement of medicine and protected by national standards and provincial statutes. Research ethics and privacy standards attempt to balance individual interests with societal interests. However these standards may not reflect public opinion or preferences. The purpose of this study was to assess the opinions and preferences of patients with kidney disease about the use of their health information and biospecimens for medical research.MethodsA 45-item survey was distributed to a convenience sample of patients at an outpatient clinic in a large urban centre. The survey briefly addressed sociodemographic and illness characteristics. Opinions were sought on the research use of health information and biospecimens including consent preferences.ResultsTwo hundred eleven of 400 distributed surveys were completed (response rate 52.8 %). Respondents were generally supportive of medical research and trusting of researchers. Many respondents supported the use of their information and biospecimens for health research and also preferred consent be sought for use of health information and biospecimens. Some supported the use of their information and biospecimens for research without consent. There were significant differences in the opinions people offered regarding the research use of biospecimens compared to health information. Some respondent perspectives about consent were at odds with current regulatory and legal standards.ConclusionsClinical health data and biospecimens are valuable research resources, critical to the advancement of medicine. Use of these data for research requires balancing respect for individual autonomy, privacy and the societal interest in the greater good. Incongruence between some respondent perspectives and the regulatory standards suggest both a need for public education and review of legislation to increase understanding and ensure the public’s trust is maintained.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0130-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundData sharing presents several challenges to the informed consent process. Unique challenges emerge when sharing pediatric or pregnancy-related data. Here, parent preferences for sharing non-biological data are examined.MethodsGroups (n = 4 groups, 18 participants) and individual interviews (n = 19 participants) were conducted with participants from two provincial, longitudinal pregnancy cohorts (AOB and APrON). Qualitative content analysis was applied to transcripts of semi-structured interviews.ResultsParticipants were supportive of a broad, one-time consent model or a tiered consent model. These preferences were grounded in the perceived obligations for reciprocity and accuracy. Parents want reciprocity among participants, repositories and researchers regarding respect and trust. Furthermore, parents’ worry about the interrelationships between the validity of the consent processes and secondary data use.ConclusionsThough parent participants agree that their research data should be made available for secondary use, they believe their consent is still required. Given their understanding that obtaining and informed consent can be challenging in the case of secondary use, parents agreed that a broad, one-time consent model was acceptable, reducing the logistical burden while maintaining respect for their contribution. This broad model also maintained participant trust in the research and secondary use of their data. The broad, one-time model also reflected parents’ perspectives surrounding child involvement in the consent process. The majority of parents felt decision made during childhood were the parents responsibility and should remain in parental purview until the child reaches the age of majority.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40504-016-0034-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The availability of complex, pediatric home care (CPHC) allows ventilator-dependent children to live at home not hospital. The process of transition from hospital to home encompasses the morphing of responsibilities from uniquely hospital based to CPHC based. This study promoted contextualized understanding of transition using in-depth case-study methodology. A total of 26 adults were interviewed for their roles and responsibilities in transition; they represented members of the family, hospital team, home team, and government programs. Interview analyses revealed four major facets of transition, each accompanied by a significant challenge. Transition (a) was a continuous shift in responsibility challenged by precarious human resources, (b) was peppered with losses producing uncertainty and grief, (c) was focused on crossing jurisdictions in the face of polarization around knowledge, and (d) was heavily reliant on mothers leading to expectations of maternal extraordinariness. The overarching conceptualization emerged that transition entailed extremes and uncertainty in the bridging of boundaries.

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected healthcare systems and healthcare delivery worldwide. Policy makers are utilizing social distancing and isolation policies to reduce the risk of transmission and spread of COVID-19, while the research, development, and testing of antiviral treatments and vaccines are ongoing. As part of these isolation policies, in-person healthcare delivery has been reduced, or eliminated, to avoid the risk of COVID-19 infection in high-risk and vulnerable populations, particularly those with comorbidities. Clinicians, occupational therapists, and physiotherapists have traditionally relied on in-person diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) and neurological conditions and illnesses. The assessment and rehabilitation of persons with acute and chronic conditions has, therefore, been particularly impacted during the pandemic. This article presents a perspective on how Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML) technologies, such as Natural Language Processing (NLP), can be used to assist with assessment and rehabilitation for acute and chronic conditions.