Structural under-reporting of informed consent, data handling and sharing, ethical approval, and application of Open Science principles as proxies for study quality conduct in COVID-19 research: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required science to provide answers rapidly to combat the outbreak. Hence, the reproducibility and quality of conducting research may have been threatened, particularly regarding privacy and data protection, in varying ways around the globe. The objective was to investigate aspects of reporting informed consent and data handling as proxies for study quality conduct. METHODS: A systematic scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Embase. The search was performed on November 8th, 2020. Studies with hospitalised patients diagnosed with COVID-19 over 18 years old were eligible for inclusion. With a focus on informed consent, data were extracted on the study design, prestudy protocol registration, ethical approval, data anonymisation, data sharing and data transfer as proxies for study quality. For reasons of comparison, data regarding country income level, study location and journal impact factor were also collected. RESULTS: 972 studies were included. 21.3% of studies reported informed consent, 42.6% reported waivers of consent, 31.4% did not report consent information and 4.7% mentioned other types of consent. Informed consent reporting was highest in clinical trials (94.6%) and lowest in retrospective cohort studies (15.0%). The reporting of consent versus no consent did not differ significantly by journal impact factor (p=0.159). 16.8% of studies reported a prestudy protocol registration or design. Ethical approval was described in 90.9% of studies. Information on anonymisation was provided in 17.0% of studies. In 257 multicentre studies, 1.2% reported on data sharing agreements, and none reported on Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable data principles. 1.2% reported on open data. Consent was most often reported in the Middle East (42.4%) and least often in North America (4.7%). Only one report originated from a low-income country. DISCUSSION: Informed consent and aspects of data handling and sharing were under-reported in publications concerning COVID-19 and differed between countries, which strains study quality conduct when in dire need of answers.

Research recruitment and consent methods in a pandemic: a qualitative study of COVID-19 patients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Virtual data collection methods and consent procedures adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic enabled continued research activities, but also introduced concerns about equity, inclusivity, representation, and privacy. Recent studies have explored these issues from institutional and researcher perspectives, but there is a need to explore patient perspectives and preferences. This study aims to explore COVID-19 patients' perspectives about research recruitment and consent for research studies about COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative focus group and interview study among British Columbian adults who self-identified as having had COVID-19. We recruited participants through personal contacts, social media, and REACH BC, an online platform that connects researchers and patients in British Columbia. We analyzed transcripts inductively and developed thematic summaries of each coding element. RESULTS: Of the 22 individuals recruited, 16 attended a focus group or interview. We found that autonomy and the feasibility of participation, attitudes toward research about COVID-19, and privacy concerns are key factors that influence participants' willingness to participate in research. We also found that participants preferred remote and virtual approaches for contact, consent, and delivery of research on COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who had COVID-19 are motivated to participate in research studies and value autonomy in their decision to participate, but researchers must be sensitive and considerate toward patient preferences and concerns, particularly as researchers adopt virtual recruitment and data collection methods. Such awareness may increase research participation and engagement.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many research groups started conducting research activities virtually. In this study, we invited individuals who had COVID-19 to share their views about how researchers recruit patients and get their consent to participate in studies about COVID-19. Through interviews and focus groups, we found that British Columbians who had COVID-19 are motivated to participate in COVID-related studies, as long as researchers maintain usual precautions around data privacy and accommodate preferences for participation. Future studies may use these patient perspectives to make informed decisions that will increase and support patient recruitment, consent and retention in research studies.

Trials using deferred consent in the emergency setting: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of stakeholders' attitudes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute conditions often lack the capacity to provide informed consent, and narrow therapeutic windows mean there is no time to seek consent from surrogates prior to treatment being commenced. One method to enable the inclusion of this study population in emergency research is through recruitment without prior consent, often known as 'deferred consent'. However, empirical studies have shown a large disparity in stakeholders' opinions regarding this enrolment method. This systematic review aimed to understand different stakeholder groups' attitudes to deferred consent, particularly in relation to the context in which deferred consent might occur. METHODS: Databases including MEDLINE, EMCare, PsychINFO, Scopus, and HMIC were searched from 1996 to January 2021. Eligible studies focussed on deferred consent processes for adults only, in the English language, and reported empirical primary research. Studies of all designs were included. Relevant data were extracted and thematically coded using a narrative approach to 'tell a story' of the findings. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority examined patient views (n = 19). Data from the members of the public (n = 5) and health care professionals (n =5) were also reported. Four overarching themes were identified: level of acceptability of deferred consent, research-related factors influencing acceptability, personal characteristics influencing views on deferred consent, and data use after refusal of consent or participant death. CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that the use of deferred consent would be most acceptable to stakeholders during low-risk emergency research with a narrow therapeutic window and where there is potential for patients to benefit from their inclusion. While the use of narrative synthesis allowed assessment of the included studies, heterogeneous outcome measures meant that variations in study results could not be reliably attributed to the different trial characteristics. Future research should aim to develop guidance for research ethics committees when reviewing trials using deferred consent in emergency research and investigate more fully the views of healthcare professionals which to date have been explored less than patients and members of the public. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42020223623.

Decentralised clinical trials: ethical opportunities and challenges.

Fuelled by adaptations to clinical trial implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic, decentralised clinical trials are burgeoning. Decentralised clinical trials involve many digital tools to facilitate research without physical contact between research teams and participants at various stages, such as recruitment, enrolment, informed consent, administering study interventions, obtaining patient-reported outcome measures, and safety monitoring. These tools can provide ways of ensuring participants' safety and research integrity, while sometimes reducing participant burden and trial cost. Research sponsors and investigators are interested in expanding the use of decentralised clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration and other regulators worldwide have issued guidance on how to implement such adaptations. However, there has been little focus on the distinct ethical challenges these trials pose. In this Health Policy report, which is informed by both traditional research ethics and digital ethics frameworks, we group the related ethical issues under three areas requiring increased ethical vigilance: participants' safety and rights, scientific validity, and ethics oversight. Our aim is to describe these issues, offer practical means of addressing them, and prompt the delineation of ethical standards for decentralised trials.

ACR-ARS Practice Parameter on Informed Consent Radiation Oncology.

OBJECTIVES: Consent is a communication process between the patient and a health care provider, in which both parties have the opportunity to ask questions and exchange information relevant to the patient's diagnosis and treatment. The process of informed consent is designed to protect a patient's autonomy in their medical decision-making in the context of an asymmetric relationship with the health care system. A proper consent process assures a patient's individual autonomy, reduces the opportunity for abusive conduct or conflicts of interest, and raises trust levels among participants. This document was developed as an educational tool to facilitate these goals. METHODS: This practice parameter was produced according to the process described under the heading "The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards" on the ACR website ( https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards ) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS. Committee members were charged with reviewing the prior version of the informed consent practice parameter published in 2017 and recommending additions, modifications, or deletions. The committee met through remote access and subsequently through an online exchange to facilitate the development of the revised document. Focus was given on identifying new considerations and challenges with informed consent given the evolution of the practice of radiation oncology in part driven by the COVID-19 pandemic and other external factors. RESULTS: A review of the practice parameter published in 2017 confirmed the ongoing relevance of recommendations made at that time. In addition, the evolution of the practice of radiation oncology since the publication of the prior document resulted in the need for new topics to be addressed. These topics include remote consent either through telehealth or telephone and with the patient or their health care proxy. CONCLUSIONS: Informed consent is an essential process in the care of radiation oncology patients. This practice parameter serves as an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in optimizing this process for the benefit of all involved parties.

Electronic informed consent: effects on enrolment, practical and economic benefits, challenges, and drawbacks-a systematic review of studies within randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Enrolment is one of the most challenging aspects of conducting clinical trials, preceded by the process of informed consent (IC). Different strategies to improve recruitment in clinical trials have been used, including electronic IC. During COVID-19 pandemic, barriers to enrolment have been evident. Although digital technologies were acknowledged as the future of clinical research and potential advantages were shown for recruitment, electronic informed consent (e-IC) has not yet been globally adopted. The purpose of this review is to investigate the effect of using e-IC on enrolment, practical and economic benefits, challenges, and drawbacks when compared to traditional informed consent, through a systematic review. METHODS: Embase, Global Health Library, Medline, and The Cochrane Library databases were searched. No limit was set for publication date, age, sex, or study design. We included all studies within a randomized controlled trial (RCT), published in English, Chinese or Spanish, evaluating the electronic consent process used in the parent RCT. Studies were included if any of the three components ((i) information provision, (ii) participant's comprehension, (iii) signature) of the IC process was designed as electronic, whether administered remotely or face-to-face. The primary outcome was the rate of enrolment to the parent trial. Secondary outcomes were summarized according to the various findings reported on the use of electronic consent. RESULTS: From a total of 9069 titles, 12 studies were included in the final analysis with a total of 8864 participants. Five studies of high heterogeneity and risk of bias showed mixed results on the efficacy of e-IC on enrolment. Data of included studies suggested e-IC could improve comprehension and recall of study-related information. Meta-analysis could not be conducted due to different study designs and outcome measures and the predominantly qualitative findings. CONCLUSION: Few published studies have investigated the impact of e-IC on enrolment and findings were mixed. e-IC may improve participant's comprehension and recall of information. High-quality studies are needed to evaluate the potential benefit of e-IC to increase clinical trial enrolment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021231035 . Registration date: 19-Feb-2021.

Digitalizing the Clinical Research Informed Consent Process: Assessing the Participant Experience in Comparison With Traditional Paper-Based Methods.

PURPOSE: Consent processes are critical for clinical care and research and may benefit from incorporating digital strategies. We compared an electronic informed consent (eIC) option to paper consent across four outcomes: (1) technology burden, (2) protocol comprehension, (3) participant agency (ability to self-advocate), and (4) completion of required document fields. METHODS: We assessed participant experience with eIC processes compared with traditional paper-based consenting using surveys and compared completeness of required fields, over 3 years (2019-2021). Participants who consented to a clinical trial at a large academic cancer center via paper or eIC were invited to either pre-COVID-19 pandemic survey 1 (technology burden) or intrapandemic survey 2 (comprehension and agency). Consent document completeness was assessed via electronic health records. RESULTS: On survey 1, 83% of participants (n = 777) indicated eIC was easy or very easy to use; discomfort with technology overall was not correlated with discomfort using eIC. For survey 2, eIC (n = 262) and paper consenters (n = 193) had similar comprehension scores. All participants responded favorably to at least five of six agency statements; however, eIC generated a higher proportion of positive free-text comments (P < .05), with themes such as thoroughness of the discussion and consenter professionalism. eIC use yielded no completeness errors across 235 consents versus 6.4% for paper (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that eIC when compared with paper (1) did not increase technology burden, (2) supported comparable comprehension, (3) upheld key elements of participant agency, and (4) increased completion of mandatory consent fields. The results support a broader call for organizations to offer eIC for clinical research discussions to enhance the overall participant experience and increase the completeness of the consent process.

Research Ethics during Pandemics: How IRBs Can Prepare.

The Covid-19 pandemic has raised a range of complex challenges for the research community in the United States. This essay uses Covid-19 as a model pandemic illness to consider two such issues that have yet to be fully explored in the ethics literature: first, whether the informed consent process should include a discussion of pandemic risks and, if so, how precisely these risks should be conveyed to potential research participants and, second, whether and under what circumstances vaccination status should be taken into consideration when enrolling subjects in non-pandemic-related studies during a pandemic.

The study protocol for the randomized controlled trial of the effects of a theory-based intervention on resilience, social capital, psychological wellbeing, and health-promoting lifestyle in healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: The workplace has been identified as a key determinant of health status. There is evidence of innumerable health problems among employees, particularly healthcare workers. Against this background, a holistic-systemic approach together with a good theoretical framework is required to reflect on this issue, and to support the design of effective interventions to promote the health and wellbeing of the given population. The present study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an educational intervention in improving resilience, social capital, psychological wellbeing, and health-promoting lifestyle in healthcare workers, utilizing the Social Cognitive Theory integrated into the PRECEDE-PROCEED model. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial will be performed on a large sample of the employees working in two healthcare centers in the city of Shiraz, Iran. The study will proceed with the healthcare workers of one city being given the educational intervention and the healthcare workers of the other city serving as a control group. Using a census method, all healthcare workers in the two cities will be informed of the trial and its purpose, and then invitations to join the study will be issued. The minimum sample size required has been calculated as 66 individuals in each healthcare centers. Recruitment to the trial will by systematic random sampling of eligible employees who submit an expression of interest in joining the trial, and subsequently give informed consent. Data will be collected through a self-administered survey instrument at three stages: at baseline, and both immediately and three months after the intervention. The experimental group members should participate in at least eight of the ten weekly educational sessions of the intervention and complete the surveys in the three stages. There is no educational intervention for the control group, and they simply experience some routine programs, and complete the surveys at the same three timepoints. DISCUSSION: The findings will provide evidence for the possible effectiveness of a theory-based educational intervention to improve resilience, social capital, psychological wellbeing, and health-promoting lifestyle among healthcare workers. If the educational intervention is found to be effective, then its protocol will be exploited in other organizations to boost resilience. Trial registration IRCT20220509054790N1.

Current ethical and social issues in epidemiology.

PURPOSE: The American College of Epidemiology held its 2021 Annual Meeting virtually, September 8-10, with a conference theme of 'From Womb to Tomb: Insights from Health Emergencies'. The American College of Epidemiology Ethics Committee hosted a symposium session in recognition of the ethical and social challenges brought to light by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and on the occasion of the publication of the third edition of the classic text, Ethics and Epidemiology. The American College of Epidemiology Ethics Committee invited the book editor and contributing authors to present at the symposium session titled 'Current Ethical and Social Issues in Epidemiology.' The purpose of this paper is to further highlight the ethical challenges and presentations. METHODS: Three speakers with expertise in ethics, health law, health policy, global health, health information technology, and translational research in epidemiology and public health were selected to present on the social and ethical issues in the current landscape. Dr. S Coughlin presented on the 'Ethical and Social Issues in Epidemiology', Dr. L Beskow presented on 'Ethical Challenges in Genetic Epidemiology', and Dr. K Goodman presented on the 'Ethics of Health Informatics'. RESULTS: New digital sources of data and technologies are driving the ethical challenges and opportunities in epidemiology and public health as it relates to the three emerging topic areas identified: (1) digital epidemiology, (2) genetic epidemiology, and (3) health informatics. New complexities such as the reliance on social media to control infectious disease outbreaks and the introduction of computing advancements are requiring re-evaluation of traditional bioethical frameworks for epidemiology research and public health practice. We identified several cross-cutting ethical and social issues related to informed consent, benefits, risks and harms, and privacy and confidentiality and summarized these alongside more nuanced ethical considerations such as algorithmic bias, group harms related to data (mis)representation, risks of misinformation, return of genomic research results, maintaining data security, and data sharing. We offered an integrated synthesis of the stages of epidemiology research planning and conduct with the ethical issues that are most relevant in these emerging topic areas. CONCLUSIONS: New realities exist for epidemiology and public health as professional groups who are faced with addressing population health, and especially given the recent pandemic and the widespread use of digital tools and technologies. Many ethical issues can be understood in the context of existing ethical frameworks; however, they have yet to be clearly identified or connected with the new technical and methodological applications of digital tools and technologies currently in use for epidemiology research and public health practice. To address current ethical challenges, we offered a synthesis of traditional ethical principles in public health science alongside more nuanced ethical considerations for emerging technologies and aligned these with lifecycle stages of epidemiology research. By critically reflecting on the impact of new digital sources of data and technologies on epidemiology research and public health practice, specifically in the control of infectious outbreaks, we offered insights on cultivating these new areas of professional growth while striving to improve population health.

The coverage of medical injuries in company trial informed consent forms.

Best practice consent forms in company clinical trials detail the financial coverage for medical treatment of injuries. In trials undertaken for licensing purposes these arrangements can raise concerns. We detail three cases in which elements of the consent forms appear misleading and designed to elicit a consent to participation that might not be forthcoming if volunteers for these clinical trials were aware that what is outlined in principle is not likely to happen in practice. Beyond clinical trial participants, these consent forms have wider implications. Medical coverage of injuries sustained in a clinical trial is a nexus where business, scientific and ethical considerations meet. It is not clear that anyone to date has grappled with the issues posed. This paper uses three clinical trials to illustrate the problems to be addressed.

Adolescent Self-Consent for COVID-19 Vaccination: Views of Healthcare Workers and Their Adolescent Children on Vaccination Autonomy.

PURPOSE: This study explored the perceptions of healthcare worker parents (physicians, nurses, and staff) and their adolescents (aged 12-17 years) on adolescent self-consent to COVID-19 vaccination by applying the concept of positive deviance of those already vaccinated against COVID-19. METHODS: We used a qualitative descriptive design to conduct individual, semi-structured interviews with COVID-19-vaccinated healthcare workers in Southern California and their vaccinated adolescent children. Separate interviews were conducted with parents and adolescents from November to December 2021 using digital phone conferencing software. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Thematic and constant comparative analysis techniques were used to identify relevant themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Twenty one healthcare workers (9 nurses, one nurse practitioner, one technologist, and 10 physicians) and their adolescents (N = 17) participated. Three overarching themes were identified to describe participants' perspectives about adolescent self-consent for COVID-19 vaccination: (1) Family values and practices around adolescent vaccination; (2) Differences in parent and adolescent support for vaccine self-consent laws; and (3) Parent and adolescent uncertainty on readiness for vaccine self-consent laws. Adolescents largely supported self-consent while parents supported the policy if they would be able to have a discussion with their adolescent prior to the decision. DISCUSSION: Parents and adolescents supported adolescent self-consent for COVID-19 vaccination, with the reservation that adolescents should discuss the decision alongside their parents to exercise their medical autonomy with supportive guidance. Greater adolescent involvement in making decisions and providing self-consent for healthcare, including vaccines, could prepare adolescents to have a greater sense of autonomy over their health and contribute to population health measures.

Ethics of age de-escalation in pediatric vaccine trials: Attending to the case of COVID-19.

In the development of new vaccines, many trials use age de-escalation: after establishing safety and efficacy in adult populations, progressively younger cohorts are enrolled and studied. Age de-escalation promotes many values. The responsibility to protect children from potential risks of experimental vaccines is significant, not only given increased risks of adverse effects but also because parents and medical professionals have a moral responsibility to protect children from harms associated with novel, uncertain interventions. Further, given that young children cannot provide informed consent, acceptable risks for research requiring proxy consent are lower than for adults making decisions for themselves. Although age de-escalation approaches are widely used in vaccine trials, including notably in the recent development of pediatric COVID-19 vaccines, ethicists have not addressed the benefits and risks of these approaches. Their benefits are largely assumed and unstated, while their potential risks are usually overlooked. There are no official ethics guidelines for the use of age de-escalation in clinical research. In this paper, we provide a systematic account of key moral factors to consider when employing age de-escalation. Analyzing pediatric COVID-19 vaccine development as our key case study, we clarify the benefits, risks, and trade-offs involved in age de-escalation approaches and call for the development of evidence-based best practice guidelines to identify when age de-escalation is likely to be an ethical strategy in vaccine development.

Who decides? Consent for healthcare decisions of minors in the United States.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to examine when parents and legal guardians have the authority to make medical decisions on behalf of the minors in their care, when the decisions of healthcare professionals may supersede those of parents and guardians, and under what conditions minors can make healthcare decisions for themselves. RECENT FINDINGS: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has reignited discussion of who should make healthcare decisions for minors. Though serious adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines are rare, hesitancy toward pediatric COVID-19 vaccination is prevalent among parents in the United States. This has contributed to large numbers of minors who are not up-to-date or not fully vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Surveys reveal a majority of minors in the United States are willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. A number of scholars have recommended allowing adolescents the ability to consent to COVID-19 vaccination without parental approval. SUMMARY: Allowing adolescents with a minimum age of 15 to consent to vaccination without parental or guardian approval will more quickly enable adolescents to receive new vaccines as they become available, such as the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine.

COVID-19 Vaccination: Guidance for Ethical, Informed Consent in a National Context.

This Guidance addresses the essential elements of informed consent to novel, provisionally registered COVID-19 vaccines which conform to the current definition of an investigational vaccine namely, lacking requirements for approval for full registration. 1 First, it addresses the ethical obtaining of informed consent in a setting of short and long term knowns and unknowns, by structuring the personal nature of informed consent into its twelve component parts. Second, as a guidance for family physicians, it explores reasonable medical concerns arising for individuals from both knowns and unknowns about COVID-19 disease and vaccines.Where there are waves of pandemic pressure impelling political, economic, social and public health forces to promote vaccination to health care providers and their patients, the necessary constituents of valid informed consent can be sublimated and possibly forfeited. This context of informed consent for COVID-19 vaccines is not unique to Australia. The analysis and presentation of international data by Australian Government agencies is a process occurring in all countries. Therefore, the Australian experience of consenting for vaccination is relevant to informed consent across the globe.The purpose of this Guidance is to assist personalised risk-benefit assessment for the informed consent of the vaccinee. Its aim is not to give a therapeutic guide nor to draw conclusions which can only rightly be drawn pertaining to each individual recipient in discussion with a health care provider. This is especially true in the setting of incomplete research where the many unknowns may be more significant for some than others. Since data is changing over time, national tables have not been used for specifics which the vaccine provider should access at the time of consultation.While we recommend the Guidance be read in conjunction with Government issued information, this Guidance will address specific fields relevant to informed consent which may not be addressed in those communications, but which a consenting individual as a person with their own values and experiences may wish to know. Aim: To address the requirements of ethical informed consent of the individual adult in the context of reasonable concerns pertaining to the unknowns and incomplete research attending novel, provisionally registered COVID-19 vaccines. Methodology: To elucidate what might be reasonable concerns for individuals considering vaccination, Public Assessment Reports of regulatory authorities (Food and Drug Administration and Therapeutic Goods Administration) and published trials of currently available vaccines were reviewed. International Covid-19 vaccine safety discussions were observed for peer-reviewed and, if necessary, pre-print references base. These references were studied for potential relevance to vaccine recipients. Vaccine Development Guidelines were also reviewed for pre-clinical requirements and compared with pre-clinical data presented at licensing. Missing information was requested from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).Pertinent unknowns were thereby identified as issues potentially relevant to fully informed consent, and compared with the content of standard Government-issued vaccine consent advice forms. Disparities were selected as relevant unknowns or reflecting incomplete research.Pertinent issues were incorporated into a twelve point structure for reasonable consideration to guide ethical inform consent. Paediatric COVID disease and vaccination are mentioned briefly due to paediatric vaccination being unapproved in Australia at the time of writing in under 12-year-olds, and exclusion of minors from phase III safety and efficacy trials. Conclusion: The provision of ethically obtained, fully informed consent is very pertinent to an investigational vaccine notwithstanding the pandemic context. To ascertain informed consent to the best of our ability, the gap between officially delivered information and reasonable concerns generated by knowns and relevant unknowns, can be addressed in a structured manner by physicians. Consent should not be coerced but be free of inducements and reprisals, respecting declarations of human rights, particularly given the investigational nature of COVID-19 vaccines. Each recipient requires adequate information to make their own judgment. The process of validly informed consent will therefore include discussion of concerns and of relevant information we do and do not yet have. Ethical informed consent should address those concerns as best is possible.

Community Genetics screening in a pandemic: solutions for pre-test education, informed consent, and specimen collection.

A Community Genetics carrier screening program for the Jewish community has operated on-site in high schools in Sydney (Australia) for 25 years. During 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, government-mandated social-distancing, 'lock-down' public health orders, and laboratory supply-chain shortages prevented the usual operation and delivery of the annual testing program. We describe development of three responses to overcome these challenges: (1) pivoting to online education sufficient to ensure informed consent for both genetic and genomic testing; (2) development of contactless telehealth with remote training and supervision for collecting genetic samples using buccal swabs; and (3) a novel patient and specimen identification 'GeneTrustee' protocol enabling fully identified clinical-grade specimens to be collected and DNA extracted by a research laboratory while maintaining full participant confidentiality and privacy. These telehealth strategies for education, consent, specimen collection and sample processing enabled uninterrupted delivery and operation of complex genetic testing and screening programs even amid pandemic restrictions. These tools remain available for future operation and can be adapted to other programs.

Primary Care Physicians' and Patients' Perspectives on Equity and Health Security of Infectious Disease Digital Surveillance.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic facilitated the rapid development of digital detection surveillance (DDS) for outbreaks. This qualitative study examined how DDS for infectious diseases (ID) was perceived and experienced by primary care physicians and patients in order to highlight ethical considerations for promoting patients' autonomy and health care rights. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with a purposefully selected group of 16 primary care physicians and 24 of their patients. The group was reflective of a range of ages, educational attainment, and clinical experiences from urban areas in northern and southern China. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and translated. Two researchers coded data and organized it into themes. A third researcher reviewed 15% of the data and discussed findings with the other researchers to assure accuracy. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: ambiguity around the need for informed consent with usage of DDS; importance of autonomous decision making; potential for discrimination against vulnerable users of DDS for ID; risk of social inequity and disparate care outcomes; and authoritarian institutions' responsibility for maintaining health data security. The adoption of DDS meant some patients would be reluctant to go to the hospital for fear of either being discriminated against or forced into quarantine. Certain groups (older people and children) were thought to be vulnerable to DDS misappropriation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate the paramount importance of establishing national and international ethical frameworks for DDS implementation. Frameworks should guide all aspects of ID surveillance, addressing privacy protection and health security, and underscored by principles of social equity and accountability.Annals "Online First" article.