Effect of deliberation on the public's attitudes toward consent policies for biobank research

US Residents' Preferences for Sharing of Electronic Health Record and Genetic Information: A Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVES

The aim to this study was to assess preferences for sharing of electronic health record (EHR) and genetic information separately and to examine whether there are different preferences for sharing these 2 types of information.

METHODS

Using a population-based, nationally representative survey of the United States, we conducted a discrete choice experiment in which half of the subjects (N = 790) responded to questions about sharing of genetic information and the other half (N = 751) to questions about sharing of EHR information. Conditional logistic regression models assessed relative preferences across attribute levels of where patients learn about health information sharing, whether shared data are deidentified, whether data are commercialized, how long biospecimens are kept, and what the purpose of sharing the information is.

RESULTS

Individuals had strong preferences to share deidentified (vs identified) data (odds ratio [OR] 3.26, 95% confidence interval 2.68-3.96) and to be able to opt out of sharing information with commercial companies (OR 4.26, 95% confidence interval 3.42-5.30). There were no significant differences regarding how long biospecimens are kept or why the data are being shared. Individuals had a stronger preference for opting out of sharing genetic (OR 4.26) versus EHR information (OR 2.64) (P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital systems and regulatory bodies should consider patient preferences for sharing of personal medical records or genetic information. For both genetic and EHR information, patients strongly prefer their data to be deidentified and to have the choice to opt out of sharing information with commercial companies.

Towards an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing: a call to synergistic action

The CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionised the biotechnology of human genome editing. Human germline gene editing promises exponential benefits to many in Africa and elsewhere, especially those affected by the highly prevalent monogenic disorders - for which, thanks to CRISPR, a relatively safe heritable radical therapy is a real possibility. Africa evidently presents a unique opportunity for empirical research in human germline gene editing because of its high prevalence of monogenic disorders. Critically, however, germline gene editing has raised serious ethical concerns especially because of the significant risks of inadvertent and intentional misuse of its transgenerational heritability. Calls for due prudence have become even more pronounced in the wake of the 2018 case of He Jiankui's 'CRISPR'd babies'. Meanwhile, Africa is seriously lagging in articulating its position on human genome editing. Conspicuously, there has been little to no attempt at comprehensively engaging the African public in discussions on the promises and concerns about human genome editing. Thus, the echoing key question remains as to how Africa should prudently embrace and govern this revolutionary biotechnology. In this article, therefore, I lay the groundwork for the possible development of an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing and call upon all stakeholders to urgent synergistic action. I particularly highlight the World Health Organisation's possible leadership role in promptly establishing the requisite expert working group for this urgent need.

Towards an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing: a call to synergistic action

The CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionised the biotechnology of human genome editing. Human germline gene editing promises exponential benefits to many in Africa and elsewhere, especially those affected by the highly prevalent monogenic disorders - for which, thanks to CRISPR, a relatively safe heritable radical therapy is now possible. Africa evidently presents a unique opportunity for empirical research in human germline gene editing because of its high prevalence of monogenic disorders. Critically, however, germline gene editing has raised serious ethical concerns especially because of the significant risks of inadvertent and intentional misuse of its transgenerational heritability. Calls for due prudence have become even more pronounced in the wake of the 2018 case of He Jiankui’s ‘CRISPR’d babies’. Meanwhile, Africa is seriously lagging in articulating its position on human genome editing. Conspicuously, there has been little to no attempt at comprehensively engaging the African public in discussions on the promises and concerns about human genome editing. Thus, the echoing key question remains as to how Africa should prudently embrace and govern this revolutionary biotechnology. In this article, therefore, I lay the groundwork for the possible development of an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing and call upon all stakeholders to urgent synergistic action. I particularly highlight the World Health Organisation’s possible leadership role in promptly establishing the requisite expert working group for this urgent need.

Broad Consent-Are We Asking Enough?

Biobanks and health data repositories provide rich reservoirs of information for use in biomedical research. These repositories depend on participants donating identifiable health data and biospecimens that may be used in perpetuity by unlimited numbers of researchers for unnamed research topics. Since 1991, U.S. federal regulatory provisions, collectively known as the Common Rule, have required informed consent of participants in federally funded human subjects research, but recent changes to the Common Rule now sanction "broad consent" in the repository research context. Broad consent is not defined in the revised Common Rule; thus, researchers and their institutions are left to determine ad hoc what broad consent means and requires. Without leadership and guidance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, stakeholders with potential conflicts of interest will reach their own conclusions and craft new and varied standards for consent. The result will be uneven protections for participants.

What can data trusts for health research learn from participatory governance in biobanks?

New models of data governance for health data are a focus of growing interest in an era of challenge to the social licence. In this article, we reflect on what the data trust model, which is founded on principles of participatory governance, can learn from experiences of involving and engagement of members of the public and participants in the governance of large-scale biobanks. We distinguish between upstream and ongoing governance models, showing how they require careful design and operation if they are to deliver on aspirations for deliberation and participation. Drawing on this learning, we identify a set of considerations important to future design for data trusts as they seek to ensure just, proportionate and fair governance. These considerations relate to the timing of involvement of participants, patterns of inclusion and exclusion, and responsiveness to stakeholder involvement and engagement. We emphasise that the evolution of governance models for data should be matched by a commitment to evaluation.

Eliciting patient views on the allocation of limited healthcare resources: a deliberation on hepatitis C treatment in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

In response to the development of highly effective but expensive new medications, policymakers, payors, and health systems are considering novel and pragmatic ways to provide these medications to patients. One approach is to target these treatments to those most likely to benefit. However, to maximize the fairness of these policies, and the acceptance of their implementation, the values and beliefs of patients should be considered. The provision of treatments for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) in the resource-constrained context of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) offered a real-world example of this situation, providing the opportunity to test the value of using Democratic Deliberation (DD) methods to solicit the informed opinions of laypeople on this complex issue.

METHODS

We recruited Veterans (n = 30) from the VHA to attend a DD session. Following educational presentations from content experts, participants engaged in facilitated small group discussions to: 1) identify strategies to overcome CHC treatment barriers and 2) evaluate, vote on, and modify/improve two CHC treatment policies - "first come, first served" (FCFS) and "sickest first" (SF). We used transcripts and facilitators' notes to identify key themes from the small group discussions. Additionally, participants completed pre- and post-DD surveys.

RESULTS

Most participants endorsed the SF policy over the FCFS policy, emphasizing the ethical and medical appropriateness of treating the sickest first. Concerns about SF centered on the difficulty of implementation (e.g., how is "sickest" determined?) and unfairness to other Veterans. Proposed modifications focused on: 1) the need to consider additional health factors, 2) taking behavior and lifestyle into account, 3) offering education and support, 4) improving access, and 5) facilitating better decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

DD offered a robust and useful method for addressing the allocation of the scarce resource of CHC treatment. Participants were able to develop a modified version of the SF policy and offered diverse recommendations to promote fairness and improve quality of care for Veterans. DD is an effective approach for incorporating patient preferences and gaining valuable insights for critical healthcare policy decisions in resource-limited environments.

Biobanks and the Moral Concerns of Donors: A Democratic Deliberation

Do members of the public believe that biobanks should accommodate the moral concerns of donors about the types of research done with their biospecimens? The answer to this question is critical to the future of genomic and precision medicine, endeavors that rely on a public willing to share their biospecimens and medical data. To explore public attitudes regarding the requirements of consent for biobank donations, we organized three democratic deliberations involving 180 participants. The deliberative sessions involved small group discussions informed by presentations given by experts in both biobank research and ethics. We found that participants had a sophisticated understanding of the ethical problems of biobank consent and the complexity of balancing donor concerns while promoting research important to the future of health care. Our research shows how deliberative methods can offer policy makers creative ideas for accommodating the moral concerns of donors in the biobank consent process.

Effect of Public Deliberation on Patient Attitudes Regarding Consent and Data Use in a Learning Health Care System for Oncology

PURPOSE

We sought to generate informed and considered opinions regarding acceptable secondary uses of deidentified health information and consent models for oncology learning health care systems.

METHODS

Day-long democratic deliberation sessions included 217 patients with cancer at four geographically and sociodemographically diverse sites. Patients completed three surveys (at baseline, immediately after deliberation, and 1-month follow-up).

RESULTS

Participants were 67.3% female, 21.7% black, and 6.0% Hispanic. The most notable changes in perceptions after deliberation related to use of deidentified medical-record data by insurance companies. After discussion, 72.3% of participants felt comfortable if the purpose was to make sure patients receive recommended care (v 79.5% at baseline; P = .03); 24.9% felt comfortable if the purpose was to determine eligibility for coverage or reimbursement (v 50.9% at baseline; P < .001). The most notable change about secondary research use related to believing it was important that doctors ask patients at least once whether researchers can use deidentified medical-records data for future research. The proportion endorsing high importance decreased from baseline (82.2%) to 68.7% immediately after discussion (P < .001), and remained decreased at 73.1% (P = .01) at follow-up. At follow-up, non-Hispanic whites were more likely to consider it highly important to be able to conduct medical research with deidentified electronic health records (96.8% v 87.7%; P = .01) and less likely to consider it highly important for doctors to get a patient's permission each time deidentified medical record information is used for research (23.2% v 51.6%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This research confirms that most patients wish to be asked before deidentified medical records are used for research. Policies designed to realize the potential benefits of learning health care systems can, and should be, grounded in informed and considered public opinion.

Comparing the attitudes of four groups of stakeholders from Quebec, Canada, toward extending medical aid in dying to incompetent patients with dementia

OBJECTIVE

The Canadian province of Quebec has recently legalized medical aid in dying (MAID) for competent patients who satisfy strictly defined criteria. The province is considering extending the practice to incompetent patients. We compared the attitudes of four groups of stakeholders toward extending MAID to incompetent patients with dementia.

METHODS

We conducted a province-wide postal survey in random samples of older adults, informal caregivers of persons with dementia, nurses, and physicians caring for patients with dementia. Clinical vignettes featuring a patient with Alzheimer's disease were used to measure the acceptability of extending MAID to incompetent patients with dementia. Vignettes varied according to the stage of the disease (advanced or terminal) and type of request (written or oral only). We used the generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach to compare attitudes across groups and vignettes.

RESULTS

Response rates ranged from 25% for physicians to 69% for informal caregivers. In all four groups, the proportion of respondents who felt it was acceptable to extend MAID to an incompetent patient with dementia was highest when the patient was at the terminal stage, showed signs of distress, and had written a MAID request prior to losing capacity. In those circumstances, this proportion ranged from 71% among physicians to 91% among informal caregivers.

CONCLUSION

We found high support in Quebec for extending the current MAID legislation to incompetent patients with dementia who have reached the terminal stage, appear to be suffering, and had requested MAID in writing while still competent.