Race, Trust in Doctors, Privacy Concerns, and Consent Preferences for Biobanks

Patient Perspectives and Preferences for Consent in the Digital Health Context: State-of-the-art Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The increasing integration of digital health tools into care may result in a greater flow of personal health information (PHI) between patients and providers. Although privacy legislation governs how entities may collect, use, or share PHI, such legislation has not kept pace with digital health innovations, resulting in a lack of guidance on implementing meaningful consent. Understanding patient perspectives when implementing meaningful consent is critical to ensure that it meets their needs. Consent for research in the context of digital health is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This state-of-the-art review aimed to understand the current state of research as it relates to patient perspectives on digital health consent. Its objectives were to explore what is known about the patient perspective and experience with digital health consent and provide recommendations on designing and implementing digital health consent based on the findings.

METHODS

A structured literature search was developed and deployed in 4 electronic databases-MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science-for articles published after January 2010. The initial literature search was conducted in March 2021 and updated in March 2022. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they discussed electronic consent or consent, focused on the patient perspective or preference, and were related to digital health or digital PHI. Data were extracted using an extraction template and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 75 articles were included for analysis. Most studies were published within the last 5 years (58/75, 77%) and conducted in a clinical care context (33/75, 44%) and in the United States (48/75, 64%). Most studies aimed to understand participants' willingness to share PHI (25/75, 33%) and participants' perceived usability and comprehension of an electronic consent notice (25/75, 33%). More than half (40/75, 53%) of the studies did not describe the type of consent model used. The broad open consent model was the most explored (11/75, 15%). Of the 75 studies, 68 (91%) found that participants were willing to provide consent; however, their consent behaviors and preferences were context-dependent. Common patient consent requirements included clear and digestible information detailing who can access PHI, for what purpose their PHI will be used, and how privacy will be ensured.

CONCLUSIONS

There is growing interest in understanding the patient perspective on digital health consent in the context of providing clinical care. There is evidence suggesting that many patients are willing to consent for various purposes, especially when there is greater transparency on how the PHI is used and oversight mechanisms are in place. Providing this transparency is critical for fostering trust in digital health tools and the innovative uses of data to optimize health and system outcomes.

Inequities in Alliance Acute Leukemia Clinical Trial and Biobank Participation: Defining Targets for Intervention

PURPOSE

Representativeness in acute leukemia clinical research is essential for achieving health equity. The National Cancer Institute's mandate for Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) to define and assume responsibility for cancer control and treatment across a geographic catchment area provides an enforceable mechanism to target and potentially remediate participatory inequities.

METHODS

We examined enrollee characteristics across 15 Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance cooperative group adult acute leukemia clinical trials (N = 3,734) from 1998 to 2013, including participation in optional companion biobanks. We determined enrollment odds by race-ethnicity for all participants adjusted for national incidence, and for those enrolled at CCCs adjusted for catchment area incidence. We modeled biobank participation by sociodemographics using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Non-Hispanic (NH)-White patients were more likely to be enrolled than NH-Black, NH-Asian, or Hispanic patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.75, 0.48, and 0.44, respectively; all P < .001), but less likely than NH-Native American patients (OR, 1.91; P < .001), adjusted for national incidence. Enrollment odds were lower for NH-Black, NH-Asian, and Hispanic patients at CCCs adjusted for catchment area incidence (OR, 0.57, 0.26, and 0.32, respectively; P < .001); differences were driven by overenrollment of NH-White patients from outside self-defined catchment areas (18.1% v 12.3%; χ2 P = .01) and by CCCs with less absolute enrollee diversity (rank sum P = .03). Among all enrollees, NH-White race-ethnicity and lower neighborhood deprivation correlated with biobank participation (OR, 1.81 and 1.45, respectively; P = .01 and .03). For CCC enrollees, the correlation of race-ethnicity with biobank participation was attenuated by a measure accounting for their site's degree of enrollment disparity but not neighborhood deprivation.

CONCLUSION

Acute leukemia clinical research disparities are substantial and driven by structural trial enrollment barriers at CCCs. Real-time CCC access and enrollment monitoring is needed to better align research participation with local populations.

A Pilot Study of Latinx Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adolescent Patients' Goal Prioritizations in Patient-Provider Sexual Orientation and Health Disclosures

This pilot study provides a theoretically-driven explanation of the dilemmas young Latinx LGB patients may experience surrounding disclosure of personal sexual orientation and sexual health information to a health care provider (HCP). The research team conducted face-to-face semi-structured interviews with LGB Latinx individuals (N= 29) ages 18-22 about their experiences, concerns, and preferences regarding divulging this type of information to an HCP. Interviews were thematically analyzed to identify (a) participants' instrumental, identity, and relational goals during the potential and real disclosures and (b) patterns of how the participants prioritized their goals. Thematic analysis revealed four distinct goal prioritization patterns detailed in this study. Participants' goals were shaped by (a) cultural upbringing, (b) beliefs about human sexuality, (c) perception of data leakage risk, (d) individual personality, (e) medical situation, and (f) the geographic location of clinic.

Public Attitudes to Digital Health Research Repositories: Cross-sectional International Survey

Background

Digital health research repositories propose sharing longitudinal streams of health records and personal sensing data between multiple projects and researchers. Motivated by the prospect of personalizing patient care (precision medicine), these initiatives demand broad public acceptance and large numbers of data contributors, both of which are challenging.

Objective

This study investigates public attitudes toward possibly contributing to digital health research repositories to identify factors for their acceptance and to inform future developments.

Methods

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from March 2020 to December 2020. Because of the funded project scope and a multicenter collaboration, study recruitment targeted young adults in Denmark and Brazil, allowing an analysis of the differences between 2 very contrasting national contexts. Through closed-ended questions, the survey examined participants’ willingness to share different data types, data access preferences, reasons for concern, and motivations to contribute. The survey also collected information about participants’ demographics, level of interest in health topics, previous participation in health research, awareness of examples of existing research data repositories, and current attitudes about digital health research repositories. Data analysis consisted of descriptive frequency measures and statistical inferences (bivariate associations and logistic regressions).

Results

The sample comprises 1017 respondents living in Brazil (1017/1600, 63.56%) and 583 in Denmark (583/1600, 36.44%). The demographics do not differ substantially between participants of these countries. The majority is aged between 18 and 27 years (933/1600, 58.31%), is highly educated (992/1600, 62.00%), uses smartphones (1562/1600, 97.63%), and is in good health (1407/1600, 87.94%). The analysis shows a vast majority were very motivated by helping future patients (1366/1600, 85.38%) and researchers (1253/1600, 78.31%), yet very concerned about unethical projects (1219/1600, 76.19%), profit making without consent (1096/1600, 68.50%), and cyberattacks (1055/1600, 65.94%). Participants’ willingness to share data is lower when sharing personal sensing data, such as the content of calls and texts (1206/1600, 75.38%), in contrast to more traditional health research information. Only 13.44% (215/1600) find it desirable to grant data access to private companies, and most would like to stay informed about which projects use their data (1334/1600, 83.38%) and control future data access (1181/1600, 73.81%). Findings indicate that favorable attitudes toward digital health research repositories are related to a personal interest in health topics (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.02; P=.01), previous participation in health research studies (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.24-2.35; P=.001), and awareness of examples of research repositories (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.83-4.38; P<.001).

Conclusions

This study reveals essential factors for acceptance and willingness to share personal data with digital health research repositories. Implications include the importance of being more transparent about the goals and beneficiaries of research projects using and re-using data from repositories, providing participants with greater autonomy for choosing who gets access to which parts of their data, and raising public awareness of the benefits of data sharing for research. In addition, future developments should engage with and reduce risks for those unwilling to participate.

Considerations for Cardiovascular Genetic and Genomic Research With Marginalized Racial and Ethnic Groups and Indigenous Peoples: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples are burdened by significant health inequities that are compounded by their underrepresentation in genetic and genomic research. Of all genome-wide association study participants, ≈79% are of European descent, despite this group constituting only 16% of the global population. For underrepresented populations, polygenic risk scores derived from these studies are less accurate in predicting disease phenotypes, novel population-specific genetic variations may be misclassified as potentially pathogenic, and there is a lack of understanding of how different populations metabolize drugs. Although inclusion of marginalized racial and ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples in genetic and genomic research is crucial, scientific studies must be guided by ethical principles of respect, honesty, justice, reciprocity, and care for individuals and communities. Special considerations are needed to support research that benefits the scientific community as well as Indigenous peoples and marginalized groups. Before a project begins, collaboration with community leaders and agencies can lead to successful implementation of the study. Throughout the study, consideration must be given to issues such as implications of informed consent for individuals and communities, dissemination of findings through scientific and community avenues, and implications of community identity for data governance and sharing. Attention to these issues is critical, given historical harms in biomedical research that marginalized groups and Indigenous peoples have suffered. Conducting genetic and genomic research in partnership with Indigenous peoples and marginalized groups guided by ethical principles provides a pathway for scientific advances that will enhance prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease for everyone.

User-focused data sharing agreements: a foundation for the genomic future

Data sharing agreements that clearly describe what individuals are agreeing to and what responsibilities data stewards will undertake are crucial for the establishment, maintenance, and flourishing of genomic datasets. To optimize genomic data resources, researchers, care professionals, and informaticians must regard system design, user objectives, and environmental considerations through users' eyes, identifying fundamental values on which to build and potential barriers to success that must be avoided. Design of agreements that promote desired data sharing and protect valuable data resources as necessary begins with a review of user interests and concerns. Nontraditional approaches for informed consent (eg, abbreviated informed consent, electronic informed consent, and dynamic consent) can facilitate achievement of data donors' privacy-related goals while making data available to researchers. Transparency in individual-researcher interactions, recognition and accommodation of cultural differences, and identification of shared needs and goals create a foundation for data sharing agreements that work over short and long terms.

Relationships of health information orientation and cancer history on preferences for consent and control over biospecimens in a biobank: A race-stratified analysis

In this study, we investigated how patients' self-reported health information efficacy, relationship with health providers, and cancer history are associated with their preferences for informed consent and need for control over biobank biospecimens. We recruited 358 women aged 40 and older (56% African American; 44% European American) and analyzed the data using multivariable regression models. Results show that African American participants' health information efficacy was significantly and negatively associated with their need for control over biospecimens and preference for a study-specific model. European American participants' dependency on doctors was a significant and negative predictor of their preference for a study-specific model. Several significant interaction effects, which varied across races, were found with regard to health information efficacy, personal cancer history, need for control, and preference for a study-specific model. The study findings suggest it is important to consider health information efficacy, relationship with providers, and need for control when developing large diverse biobanks.