Anticipated Ethics and Regulatory Challenges in PCORnet: The National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network

PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, seeks to establish a robust national health data network for patient-centered comparative effectiveness research. This article reports the results of a PCORnet survey designed to identify the ethics and regulatory challenges anticipated in network implementation. A 12-item online survey was developed by leadership of the PCORnet Ethics and Regulatory Task Force; responses were collected from the 29 PCORnet networks. The most pressing ethics issues identified related to informed consent, patient engagement, privacy and confidentiality, and data sharing. High priority regulatory issues included IRB coordination, privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, and data sharing. Over 150 IRBs and five different approaches to managing multisite IRB review were identified within PCORnet. Further empirical and scholarly work, as well as practical and policy guidance, is essential if important initiatives that rely on comparative effectiveness research are to move forward.

A comparison of institutional review board professionals' and patients' views on consent for research on medical practices

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In the context of research on medical practices, which includes comparative effectiveness research and pragmatic clinical trials, empirical studies have begun to raise questions about the extent to which institutional review boards' interpretations and applications of research regulations align with patients' values. To better understand the similarities and differences between these stakeholder groups, we compare and contrast two surveys: one of institutional review board professionals and one of patients, which examine views on consent for research on medical practices.

METHODS

We conducted online surveys of two target populations between July 2014 and March 2015. We surveyed 601 human subjects research professionals out of 1500 randomly selected from the Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research membership list (40.1% response rate), limiting analysis to 537 respondents who reported having had institutional review board experience. We also surveyed 120 adult patients out of 225 approached at subspecialty clinics in Spokane, Washington (53.3% response rate). Our survey questions probed attitudes about consent in the context of research on medical practices using medical record review and randomization. The patient survey included three embedded animated videos to explain these concepts.

RESULTS

A majority of institutional review board professionals distinguished between consent preferences for medical record review and randomization, ranked clinicians as the least preferred person to obtain participant consent (54.6%), and viewed written or verbal permission as the minimum acceptable consent approach for research on medical practices using randomization (87.3%). In contrast, most patients had similar consent preferences for research on medical practices using randomization and medical record review, most preferred to have consent conversations with their doctors rather than with researchers for studies using randomization (72.6%) and medical record review (67.0%), and only a few preferred to see research involving randomization (16.8%) or medical record review (13.8%) not take place if obtaining written or verbal permission would make the research too difficult to conduct. Limitations of our post hoc analysis include differences in framing, structure, and language between the two surveys and possible response bias.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight a need to identify appropriate ways to integrate patient preferences into prevailing regulatory interpretations as institutional review boards increasingly apply research regulations in the context of research on medical practices. Dialogue between institutional review boards and research participants will be an important part of this process and should inform future regulatory guidance.

Ethics Issues Arising in the Transition to Learning Health Care Systems: Results from Interviews with Leaders from 25 Health Systems

INTRODUCTION

There is increased interest in transitioning to a "learning health care system" (LHCS). While this transition brings the potential for significant benefits, it also presents several ethical considerations. Identifying the ethical issues faced by institutions in this transition is critical for realizing the goals of learning health care so that these issues can be anticipated and, where possible, resolved.

METHODS

29 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with leaders within 25 health care institutions. Respondents were recruiting using purposive sampling, targeting institutions considered as LHCS leaders. All interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed. NVIVO10 software was used to support qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Respondents described seven ethical challenges: (1) ethical oversight of learning activities; (2) transparency of learning activities to patients; (3) potential tensions between improving quality and reducing costs; (4) data sharing and data management; (5) lag time between discovery and implementation; (6) transparency to patients about quality; and (7) randomization for quality improvement initiatives.

DISCUSSION

To move towards LHCS, several ethical considerations require further attention, including: the continued appropriateness of the research-treatment distinction; policy frameworks for privacy and data sharing; informing patients about learning activities; obligations to share data on quality; and the potential for trade-offs between quality improvement and cost control.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first project to ask leaders from health care systems committed to ongoing learning about the ethical issues they have faced in this effort. Their experiences can provide guidance on relevant ethical issues, and what might be done to resolve them.

Attitudes Toward Risk and Informed Consent for Research on Medical Practices: A Cross-sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Office for Human Research Protections has proposed that end points of randomized trials comparing the effectiveness of standard medical practices are risks of research that would require disclosure and written informed consent, but data are lacking on the views of potential participants.

OBJECTIVE

To assess attitudes of U.S. adults about risks and preferences for notification and consent for research on medical practices.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey conducted in August 2014.

SETTING

Web-based questionnaire.

PATIENTS

1095 U.S. adults sampled from an online panel (n = 805) and an online convenience river sample (n = 290).

MEASUREMENTS

Attitudes toward risk, informed consent, and willingness to participate in 3 research scenarios involving medical record review and randomization of usual medical practices.

RESULTS

97% of respondents agreed that health systems should evaluate standard treatments. Most wanted to be asked for permission to participate in each of 3 scenarios (range, 75.2% to 80.4%), even if it involved only medical record review, but most would accept nonwritten (oral) permission or general notification if obtaining written permission would make the research too difficult to conduct (range, 70.2% to 82.7%). Most perceived additional risk from each scenario (range, 64.0% to 81.6%).

LIMITATION

Use of hypothetical scenarios and a nonprobability sample that was not fully representative of the U.S. population.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents preferred to be asked for permission to participate in observational and randomized research evaluating usual medical practices, but they are willing to accept less elaborate approaches than written consent if research would otherwise be impracticable. These attitudes are not aligned with proposed regulatory guidance.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.

Measurement in comparative effectiveness research

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) on preventive services can shape policy and help patients, their providers, and public health practitioners select regimens and programs for disease prevention. Patients and providers need information about the relative effectiveness of various regimens they may choose. Decision makers need information about the relative effectiveness of various programs to offer or recommend. The goal of this paper is to define and differentiate measures of relative effectiveness of regimens and programs for disease prevention. Cancer screening is used to demonstrate how these measures differ in an example of two hypothetical screening regimens and programs. Conceptually and algebraically defined measures of relative regimen and program effectiveness also are presented. The measures evaluate preventive services that range from individual tests through organized, population-wide prevention programs. Examples illustrate how effective screening regimens may not result in effective screening programs and how measures can vary across subgroups and settings. Both regimen and program relative effectiveness measures assess benefits of prevention services in real-world settings, but each addresses different scientific and policy questions. As the body of CER grows, a common lexicon for various measures of relative effectiveness becomes increasingly important to facilitate communication and shared understanding among researchers, healthcare providers, patients, and policymakers.

Practice based research networks impacting periodontal care: PEARL Initiative

In 2005, the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research /National Institutes of Health funded the largest initiative to date to affect change in the delivery of oral care. This commentary provides the background for the first study related to periodontics in a Practice Based Research Network (PBRN). It was conducted in the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research & Learning (PEARL) Network. The PEARL Network is headquartered at New York University College of Dentistry. The basic tenet of the PBRN initiative is to engage clinicians to participate in clinical studies, where they will be more likely to accept the results and to incorporate the findings into their practices. This process may reduce the translational gap that exists between new findings and the time it takes for them to be incorporated into clinical practice. The cornerstone of the PBRN studies is to conduct comparative effectiveness research studies to disseminate findings to the profession and improve care. This is particularly important because the majority of dentists practice independently. Having practitioners generate clinical data allows them to contribute in the process of knowledge development and incorporate the results in their practice to assist in closing the translational gap. With the advent of electronic health systems on the horizon, dentistry may be brought into the mainstream health care paradigm and the PBRN concept can serve as the skeletal framework for advancing the profession provided there is consensus on the terminology used.

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy

BACKGROUND

The goal of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to explain the differential benefits and harms of alternate methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. To inform decision making, information from the patient's perspective that reflects outcomes that patients care about are needed and can be collected rigorously using appropriate patient-reported outcomes (PRO). It can be challenging to select the most appropriate PRO measure given the proliferation of such questionnaires over the past 20 years.

OBJECTIVE

In this paper, we discuss the value of PROs within CER, types of measures that are likely to be useful in the CER context, PRO instrument selection, and key challenges associated with using PROs in CER.

METHODS

We delineate important considerations for defining the CER context, selecting the appropriate measures, and for the analysis and interpretation of PRO data. Emerging changes that may facilitate CER using PROs as an outcome are also reviewed including implementation of electronic and personal health records, hospital and population-based registries, and the use of PROs in national monitoring initiatives. The potential benefits of linking the information derived from PRO endpoints in CER to decision making is also reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations presented for incorporating PROs in CER are intended to provide a guide to researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to ensure that information derived from PROs is applicable and interpretable for a given CER context. In turn, CER will provide information that is necessary for clinicians, patients, and families to make informed care decisions.