Broad-scale informed consent: A survey of the CTSA landscape

The informed consent form navigator: a tool for producing readable and compliant consent documents

Background/Objective

Informed consent forms (ICFs) and practices vary widely across institutions. This project expands on previous work at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) Center for Health Literacy to develop a plain language ICF template. Our interdisciplinary team of researchers, comprised of biomedical informaticists, health literacy experts, and stakeholders in the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process, has developed the ICF Navigator, a novel tool to facilitate the creation of plain language ICFs that comply with all relevant regulatory requirements.

Methods

Our team first developed requirements for the ICF Navigator tool. The tool was then implemented by a technical team of informaticists and software developers, in consultation with an informed consent legal expert. We developed and formalized a detailed knowledge map modeling regulatory requirements for ICFs, which drives workflows within the tool.

Results

The ICF Navigator is a web-based tool that guides researchers through creating an ICF as they answer questions about their project. The navigator uses those responses to produce a clear and compliant ICF, displaying a real-time preview of the final form as content is added. Versioning and edits can be tracked to facilitate collaborative revisions by the research team and communication with the IRB. The navigator helps guide the creation of study-specific language, ensures compliance with regulatory requirements, and ensures that the resulting ICF is easy to read and understand.

Conclusion

The ICF Navigator is an innovative, customizable, open-source software tool that helps researchers produce custom readable and compliant ICFs for research studies involving human subjects.

An Idealized Clinicogenomic Registry to Engage Underrepresented Populations Using Innovative Technology

Current best practices in tumor registries provide a glimpse into a limited time frame over the natural history of disease, usually a narrow window around diagnosis and biopsy. This creates challenges meeting public health and healthcare reimbursement policies that increasingly require robust documentation of long-term clinical trajectories, quality of life, and health economics outcomes. These challenges are amplified for underrepresented minority (URM) and other disadvantaged populations, who tend to view the institution of clinical research with skepticism. Participation gaps leave such populations underrepresented in clinical research and, importantly, in policy decisions about treatment choices and reimbursement, thus further augmenting health, social, and economic disparities. Cloud computing, mobile computing, digital ledgers, tokenization, and artificial intelligence technologies are powerful tools that promise to enhance longitudinal patient engagement across the natural history of disease. These tools also promise to enhance engagement by giving participants agency over their data and addressing a major impediment to research participation. This will only occur if these tools are available for use with all patients. Distributed ledger technologies (specifically blockchain) converge these tools and offer a significant element of trust that can be used to engage URM populations more substantively in clinical research. This is a crucial step toward linking composite cohorts for training and optimization of the artificial intelligence tools for enhancing public health in the future. The parameters of an idealized clinical genomic registry are presented.

Collecting Biospecimens and Obtaining Biobank Consent From Patients in an Academic Health Care Setting: Practical and Ethical Considerations

Academic health centers and health systems increasingly ask patients to enroll in research biobanks as part of standard care, raising important practical and ethical questions for integrating biobank consent processes into health care settings. This article aims to assist academic health centers and health systems considering implementing these integrated consent processes by outlining the 5 main issues-and the key practical and ethical considerations for each issue-that Indiana University Health and the Indiana Biobank faced when integrating biobank consent into their health system, as well as the key obstacles encountered. The 5 main issues to consider include the specimen to collect (leftover, new collection, or add-ons to clinical tests), whether to use opt-in or opt-out consent, where to approach patients, how to effectively use digital tools for consent, and how to appropriately simplify consent information.

Selecting EHR-driven recruitment strategies: An evidence-based decision guide

Participant recruitment for research is a persistent bottleneck that can be improved by leveraging electronic health records (EHRs). Despite emerging evidence for various EHR-driven approaches, guidance for those attempting to select and use such approaches is limited. The national Recruitment Innovation Center established the EHR Recruitment Consult Resource (ERCR) service line to support multisite studies through implementation of EHR-driven recruitment strategies. As the ERCR, we evolved a guide through 17 consultations over 3 years with multisite studies recruiting in diverse biomedical research domains. We assessed literature and engaged domain experts to identify five key EHR-driven recruitment strategies: direct to patient messages, candidate lists for mailings/calls, direct to research alerts, point of care alerts, and participant registries. Differentiating factors were grouped into factors of study population, study protocol and recruitment workflows, and recruitment site capabilities. The decision matrix indicates acceptable or preferred strategies based on the differentiating factors. Across the ERCR consultations, candidate lists for mailing or calls were most common, participant registries were least frequently recommended, and for some studies no EHR-driven recruitment was recommended. Comparative effectiveness research is needed to refine further evidence for these and potentially new strategies to come.