Cultivating inclusivity in precision medicine research: disability, diversity, and cultural competence

'Being disabled' as an exclusion criterion for clinical trials: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

People with disabilities (PWDs) are often excluded from biomedical research, but comprehensive data regarding their participation in clinical trials are not available. The objective of this study was to assess the rates of exclusion of PWDs from recent medical scientific research.

METHODS

The protocol of the study was designed according to PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. All completed interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2010 and 2020 regarding the 10 leading causes of global disability-adjusted life-years according to the Global Burden of Disease Study were analysed. An exclusion criterion from the study was considered explicit if it could be associated with one of the following seven categories: disability, physical impairment, cognitive impairment, behavioural or psychiatric disorders, language and communication impairment, sensory impairment. Comorbidities not more clearly defined and researcher discretion regarding exclusion of study participants were considered to be 'implicit exclusion criteria'. We assessed the appropriateness of explicit exclusion criteria in relation to the primary objectives of the trials and labelled them as 'absolute', 'relative' or 'questionable'.

RESULTS

The total number of trials analysed was 2710; 170 were paediatric trials (6.3%), 2374 were adult trials (87.6%) and 166 were trials including subjects of all ages (6.1%). Explicit exclusion criteria were found in 958 trials (35.3%). The disability category most frequently excluded was behavioural or psychiatric disorders, present in 588 trials (61.4%). In only 3% and 1% of the trials, the exclusion criteria were considered either 'absolute' or 'questionable', while in 96% the exclusion criteria were judged as 'relative'. Implicit exclusion criteria were present in 1205 trials (44.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the high rate of exclusion of PWDs from biomedical research and the widespread use of ill-defined exclusion criteria in clinical trials. It underscores the importance of more inclusive study designs so that PWDs can become active participants in research.

'Autistic person' or 'person with autism'? Person-first language preference in Dutch adults with autism and parents

LAY ABSTRACT

There are different words to describe people with an autism diagnosis. For instance, we can put the person before autism (e.g. 'person with autism'), or we can put autism before the person (e.g. 'autistic person'). Previous research showed that autistic adults in English-speaking countries generally liked it better when autism is placed before the person. Yet, people also greatly differ in the words they like and dislike. In this study, we examined word preference in Dutch autistic adults (n = 1026; 16-84 years; 57% women) and parents of autistic children (n = 286). Via an online questionnaire, we asked our participants to select one term for autistic people that they liked best. The results showed that most adults with autism (68.3%) and parents (82.5%) preferred to put the person before autism. Younger adults, with a higher intelligence, and with more autistic traits, were a bit more likely to put autism before the person. We conclude that there are large differences in the words that people prefer. Because we found different results in our Dutch participants compared to participants in English-speaking countries, we think that the Dutch language or culture may also play a role in word preference. For now, we advise autism researchers to use both person-first and autism-first language.

Project Inclusive Genetics: Exploring the impact of patient-centered counseling training on physical disability bias in the prenatal setting

PURPOSE

There is robust research examining the negative impact of racial and socioeconomic implicit bias on healthcare provider clinical decision-making. However, other under-studied important biases are likely to impact clinical care as well. The goal of this study was to explore the presence of bias against people with physical disability among a heterogeneous group of healthcare workers and trainees and to evaluate the effect of implicit association testing and an educational module on this bias.

METHOD

The study was composed of a one-hour web-based survey and educational module. The survey included an explicit disability bias assessment, disability Implicit Association Tests (IATs), demographic collection, and pre- and post- module clinical vignettes of prenatal patient scenarios. In addition to providing counseling to hypothetical patients, participants also indicated their personal preferences on genetic testing and termination. The educational module focused on the principles of patient-centered counseling.

RESULTS

The collected data reflects responses from 335 participants. Within this sample, there were both explicit and implicit biases towards individuals with physical disabilities. Prior to the IAT and educational module, when respondents were tasked with providing genetic testing recommendations, implicit biases and personal preferences for genetic testing and termination influenced respondents' clinical recommendations. Importantly, having previous professional experience with individuals with disabilities diminished biased clinical recommendations prior to the intervention. In response to the IAT and educational intervention, the effect of implicit bias and personal preferences on clinical recommendations decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates how bias against a marginalized group exists within the medical community and that personal opinions can impact clinical counseling. Importantly, our findings suggest that there are strategies that can be easily implemented into curricula to address disability bias, including formal educational interventions and the addition of professional experiences into healthcare professional training programs.

Enrolling Children in Clinical Trials for Genetic Neurodevelopmental Conditions: Ethics, Parental Decisions, and Children's Identities

Knowledge of genetic mechanisms contributing to neurodevelopmental conditions is advancing. This is informing development of new drugs to treat or ameliorate these conditions, through targeting underlying genetic pathways. Drugs are tested in clinical trials, necessitating parents to engage with decisions about whether to enroll their child. In this article, we consider important ethical issues to anticipate as clinical research opportunities in genetic neurodevelopmental conditions arise. For example, genetic pathways targeted by the drugs may interact with valued character and personality traits. It is essential that recruitment and consent processes are optimized for families who will grapple with whether these novel drug treatments interact with their child's personality and authentic identity. We call for focused social science research and further normative analysis so that parents are better supported to make informed choices. Additionally, clinical research regulators should have a sound understanding of the contextual experiences regarding how this population of parents engages with decisions.

Challenges in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Research and Clinical Oncology

Disparities are common and well-known in the field of clinical oncology and cancer research. In patient care, poor access and a number of other factors disadvantage patients and this can lead to inadequate screening, prevention or treatment of cancer and poor patient outcomes. World-wide, socioeconomic status, health care expenditures and a number of other challenges contribute to disparities in cancer care and patient outcomes. Access to cancer clinical trials remains inadequate for underrepresented minorities as well as non-white racial and ethnic groups. There are also disparities and many challenges in the biomedical research enterprise that can limit innovation and that must be addressed as part of active interventions.

Structural Racism in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Moving Forward

The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a substantial human, social and economic toll globally, but its impact on Black/African Americans, Latinx, and American Indian/Alaska Native communities in the U.S. is unconscionable. As the U.S. continues to combat the current COVID-19 cycle and prepares for future pandemics, it will be critical to learn from and rectify past and contemporary wrongs. Drawing on experiences in genomic research and intersecting areas in medical ethics, health disparities, and human rights, this article considers three key COVID-19-related issues: research to identify remedies; testing, contact tracing and surveillance; and lingering health needs and disability. It provides a pathway for the future: community engagement to develop culturally-sensitive responses to the myriad genomic/bioethical dilemmas that arise, and the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to transition the country from its contemporary state of segregation in healthcare and health outcomes into an equitable and prosperous society for all.

Delivering disability competencies of MCI's revised competency based curriculum at a medical university in North Karnataka

BACKGROUND

India has ratified with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and has passed the Rights of People with Disabilities Act in 2016. There is need for training healthcare professionals in disability competencies as people with disabilities are many and marginalized. Disability competencies were introduced in the foundation course of revised competency based medical curriculum for Indian medical graduates by the Medical Council of India (MCI) just prior to the rollout of the programme. We intend describing our center's experience in implementing the same.

METHODS

FC 4.5.1 TO 4.5.8 of MCI foundation course guidelines were resource material. Eight faculty members participated. Setting was the lecture theatre. The suggested and actual teaching learning methods are compared for each competency. Notes made from delivering disability competencies, photographs, videos and reflections from students were source of data.

RESULTS

We used sensitizing lectures of 15 min each for FC 4.5.1, 4.5.2 and 4.5.4 [cognitive] with interesting set induction, student narratives of family members with disability, buzz groups for interaction and self-directed learning activity using mobile phones. We facilitated FC 4.5.3 and 4.5.5 [skill/affective domain] demonstrating unacceptable and acceptable disability etiquettes using standardized patients and role play. We conducted a forum theatre of the oppressed for FC 4.5.6. We introduced our learners to universal design in our campus for teaching 4.5.7. As a part of the principle of inclusivity we involved two staff members with motor disabilities for delivering FC 4.5.8 in an interview. We assessed the learners using written reflections and obtained feedback on a rating scale.

Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Research to Improve Medication Adherence: A Systematic Review

People with disabilities have high rates of chronic health conditions and often require complex medication regimens to manage their health. Approximately 20-50% of people with disabilities fail to take their medication as prescribed. It is unclear, however, to what extent the literature describes the effectiveness of medication adherence interventions for people with disabilities. In this review, the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the 182 studies included in the Cochrane Review on Interventions for Enhancing Medication Adherence were evaluated for their inclusion of people with disabilities. Of the studies, 1% excluded persons for hearing impairment, 3% for motor impairment, 7% for visual impairment, and 32% for cognitive impairment. Most studies (65%) did not exclude persons based on specific impairment. Medication event monitoring systems were used in 21% of studies, and investigators excluded people unable to use this device in 5% of studies. Caregiver assistance was an exclusion criteria in 4% of studies. Additional barriers like the ability of investigators to exclude persons based on their judgement were found. These barriers exist in addition to the known barriers affecting persons with disabilities, such as accessibility of research facilities and access to transportation. These data suggest that people with disabilities are systemically excluded from the medication adherence intervention literature. Subsequently, it cannot be assumed that current adherence interventions are effective for people with disabilities. More research is needed to understand how to address medication adherence for people with disabilities.

In Different Voices: The Views of People with Disabilities about Return of Results from Precision Medicine Research

PURPOSE

Returning genetic results to research participants is gaining momentum in the USA. It is believed to be an important step in exploring the impact of efforts to translate findings from research to bedside and public health benefits. Some also hope that this practice will incentivize research participation, especially among people from historically marginalized communities who are commonly underrepresented in research. However, research participants' interest in receiving nongenomic medical and nonmedical results that may emerge from precision medicine research (PMR) is understudied and no study to date has explored the views of people with disabilities about return of genomic and nongenomic results from PMR.

METHODS

In a national online survey of people with disabilities, participants were queried about their interest in receiving biological, environmental, and lifestyle results from PMR (n = 1,294). Analyses describe findings for all of the participants and comparisons for key demographic characteristics and disability subgroups.

RESULTS

The participants expressed high interest in biological and health-related results and less interest in other findings. However, the interest among the study participants was lower than that found in comparable studies of the general population. Moreover, this interest varied significantly across gender, race/ethnicity, and disability subgroups. Possible reasons for these differences are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Insofar as return of results from PMR may impact translational efforts, it is important to better understand the role of sociomedical marginalization in decisions about return of results from PMR and to develop strategies to address existing barriers.