Linking climate change adaptation and public health: perspectives of Norwegian policymakers.

AIMS: To explore the perspectives of selected Norwegian climate and health policymakers working at national and municipality level regarding how health is accounted for in climate change adaptation plans. METHODS: Semi-structured digital interviews were conducted with representatives from eight municipalities participating in a national network for climate change adaptation, one political unit and five national public administrations working in climate, health, environment, preparedness, and civil protection. RESULTS: Municipalities coordinate the development of climate change adaptation plans with support from key national actors. Although municipalities were experienced in preparing for extreme climate events and securing infrastructure, limited consideration was given to health in the climate change adaptation work. Such integration was hindered by lack of resources and knowledge regarding what to do, and lack of collaboration between municipality sectors. To connect climate change adaptation and health better, the representatives suggested providing evidence-based information regarding health impacts of climate change, developing concrete tools including warning systems, and implementing regional, national, and international projects to map the impact of climate change and raise capacity. The representatives called for more stringent national guidelines for the integration of health in climate change adaptation, and pinpointed that lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic will enable municipalities to be better prepared and more adaptable in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Governmental authorities should provide more concrete guidance regarding the integration of health in climate change adaptation plans. Public health authorities have a central role to play in supporting such endeavours.

Encouraging greater empowerment for adolescents in consent procedures in social science research and policy projects.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child emphasizes the importance of allowing children and adolescents to influence decisions that are important to them following their age and maturity. This paper explores the principles, practices, and implications around using parental versus child/adolescent consent when participating in social science research and policy development. Experiences from two studies are presented: The Confronting Obesity: Co-creating policy with youth (CO-CREATE) and the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study, a World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborative Cross-National study. Although parental consent may be an important gatekeeper for protecting children and adolescents from potentially harmful research participation, it may also be considered an obstacle to the empowerment of children and adolescents in case they want to share their views and experiences directly. This paper argues that evaluation of possible harm should be left to ethics committees and that, if no harm related to the research participation processes is identified and the project has a clear perspective on collaborating with the target group, adolescents from the age of 12 years should be granted the legal capacity to give consent to participate in the research project. Collaboration with adolescents in the development of the research project is encouraged.

Stakeholder engagement in European brain research: Experiences of the Lifebrain consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Stakeholder engagement remains scarce in basic brain research. However, it can greatly improve the relevance of investigations and accelerate the translation of study findings to policy. The Lifebrain consortium investigated risk and protective factors influencing brain health using cognition, lifestyle and imaging data from European cohorts. Stakeholder activities of Lifebrain-organized in a separate work package-included organizing stakeholder events, investigating public perceptions of brain health and dissemination. Here, we describe the experiences of researchers and stakeholders regarding stakeholder engagement in the Lifebrain project. METHODS: Stakeholder engagement in Lifebrain was evaluated through surveys among researchers and stakeholders and stakeholders' feedback at stakeholder events through evaluation forms. Survey data were analysed using a simple content analysis approach, and results from evaluation forms were summarized after reviewing the frequency of responses. RESULTS: Consortium researchers and stakeholders experienced the engagement activities as meaningful and relevant. Researchers highlighted that it made the research and research processes more visible and contributed to new networks, optimized data collection on brain health perceptions and the production of papers and provided insights into stakeholder views. Stakeholders found research activities conducted in the stakeholder engagement work package to be within their field of interest and research results relevant to their work. Researchers identified barriers to stakeholder engagement, including lack of time, difficulties in identifying relevant stakeholders, and challenges in communicating complex scientific issues in lay language and maintaining relationships with stakeholders over time. Stakeholders identified barriers such as lack of budget, limited resources in their organization, time constraints and insufficient communication between researchers and stakeholders. CONCLUSION: Stakeholder engagement in basic brain research can greatly benefit researchers and stakeholders alike. Its success is conditional on dedicated human and financial resources, clear communication, transparent mutual expectations and clear roles and responsibilities. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient organizations, research networks, policymakers and members of the general public were involved in engagement and research activities throughout the project duration.

A practical checklist for return of results from genomic research in the European context.

An increasing number of European research projects return, or plan to return, individual genomic research results (IRR) to participants. While data access is a data subject's right under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and many legal and ethical guidelines allow or require participants to receive personal data generated in research, the practice of returning results is not straightforward and raises several practical and ethical issues. Existing guidelines focusing on return of IRR are mostly project-specific, only discuss which results to return, or were developed outside Europe. To address this gap, we analysed existing normative documents identified online using inductive content analysis. We used this analysis to develop a checklist of steps to assist European researchers considering whether to return IRR to participants. We then sought feedback on the checklist from an interdisciplinary panel of European experts (clinicians, clinical researchers, population-based researchers, biobank managers, ethicists, lawyers and policy makers) to refine the checklist. The checklist outlines seven major components researchers should consider when determining whether, and how, to return results to adult research participants: 1) Decide which results to return; 2) Develop a plan for return of results; 3) Obtain participant informed consent; 4) Collect and analyse data; 5) Confirm results; 6) Disclose research results; 7) Follow-up and monitor. Our checklist provides a clear outline of the steps European researchers can follow to develop ethical and sustainable result return pathways within their own research projects. Further legal analysis is required to ensure this checklist complies with relevant domestic laws.

Youth engagement in research and policy: The CO-CREATE framework to optimize power balance and mitigate risks of conflicts of interest.

Including youth in the co-creation of policies that affect them has proven to be particularly impactful in public health. Using youth participatory action research methods, the CO-CREATE project engages European youth 16-18 years old in the co-creation of obesity prevention policies. To discuss the feasibility and implications of the policy, youth are invited to engage in an intergenerational dialogue. Given the youth-adult dynamic and policy discussion, conflicts of interests (COIs) can arise and impact the quality of the dialogue. COI frameworks are a tool that can help identify, mitigate, and address COIs. This paper presents a novel framework to mitigate COIs in intergenerational policy dialogues, with a focus on power imbalance. Following a series of youth consultations, interviews, and examination of existing frameworks, our findings suggest that safe, participatory, and empowering dialogues can take place if appropriate measures are integrated into all phases of a dialogue. The selection of stakeholders, use of accessible language, and youth moderation are all factors that can impact COI risks. Measures that promote mutual empowerment, such as equal representation of youth and adults, were deemed important. This framework provides a roadmap to ensure that youth participation in the formulation of policies is safe and empowering.

Overweight and obesity prevention for and with adolescents: The "Confronting obesity: Co-creating policy with youth" (CO-CREATE) project.

The CO-CREATE project focuses on the need for research on obesity prevention in adolescents to move away from studies of single interventions, toward the investigation of systems-based research incorporating youth involvement. This paper provides an overview of the project, presenting the objectives, design, and novel methodologies applied, as well as findings to date and anticipated outcomes. Adolescents (16-18 years old) in five European countries participated. Methods applied in the project include monitoring and benchmarking of policies, systematic literature reviews, epidemiological surveillance, linking observed overweight and obesity trends to observed policy landscapes, group model building to identify perceived drivers of obesity, alliance building with adolescents, dialog with stakeholders, and system dynamics modelling to explore the potential impact of policy options. Outcomes include tools for developing policy ideas and investigation of prevention strategies with adolescents, including policy databases, system maps of drivers of obesity, protocols for organizing youth alliances, an intergenerational policy dialog tool, and system dynamic models exploring the impacts of cocreated policy ideas. These outcomes make an important contribution to building a pan-European infrastructure for designing and evaluating policies and for providing youth with the opportunity to make their voices heard in the development and implementation of obesity prevention measures.

Recruiting and engaging adolescents in creating overweight and obesity prevention policies: The CO-CREATE project.

The CO-CREATE project aims to collaborate with adolescents across Europe in developing policy ideas that contribute to overweight and obesity prevention. In this paper, we present the theoretical basis and methodological approach to recruitment and engagement in the project. The principles of youth-led participatory action research were employed to design Youth Alliances in which adolescents and adults could collaborate. These Alliances should serve to promote and support adolescent participation and to develop policy ideas that would contribute to obesity prevention. Alliance members were recruited in two local geographical areas per country with a focus on reaching out to underrepresented youth. We started with fieldwork to assess locally relevant forms of inclusion and exclusion. The methodology entailed a handbook combining existing tools which could be used flexibly, a collaborative organization, and budgets for the alliances. Engagement started in local organizations, that is, schools and scouts, and with peers. Health- and overweight-related challenges were addressed in their immediate surroundings and supported the inclusion of experiential knowledge. Adolescents were then supported to address the wider obesogenic system when designing policy ideas. The CO-CREATE Alliances provide a concrete example of how to engage youth in public health, in a manner that strives to be participatory, transformative, and inquiry based.

Ethical considerations in engaging young people in European obesity prevention research: The CO-CREATE experience.

Engaging youth in obesity prevention research and policy action is essential to develop strategies that are relevant and sensitive to their needs. Research with young people requires critical reflection to safeguard their rights, dignity, and well-being. The CO-CREATE project used various methods to engage approximately 300 European youth aged 15-19 years in the development of policies to prevent adolescent obesity. This paper discusses ethical considerations made in the project pertaining to the youth's voluntary participation, their protection from obesity stigma, respect for their time, data privacy and confidentiality, power balance, and equality of opportunity to participate in the research. We describe measures implemented to prevent or limit the emergence of ethical challenges in our interaction with youth and discuss their relevance based on our experience with implementation. While some challenges seemingly were prevented, others arose related to the youth's voluntary participation, time burdens on them, and the sustainability of participation under the Covid-19 pandemic. Concrete and ongoing ethical guidance may be useful in projects aiming to interact and build collaborative relationships with youth for long periods of time.

People's interest in brain health testing: Findings from an international, online cross-sectional survey.

Brain health entails mental wellbeing and cognitive health in the absence of brain disorders. The past decade has seen an explosion of tests, cognitive and biological, to predict various brain conditions, such as Alzheimer's Disease. In line with these current developments, we investigated people's willingness and reasons to-or not to-take a hypothetical brain health test to learn about risk of developing a brain disease, in a cross-sectional multilanguage online survey. The survey was part of the Global Brain Health Survey, open to the public from 4th June 2019 to 31st August 2020. Respondents were largely recruited via European brain councils and research organizations. 27,590 people responded aged 18 years or older and were predominantly women (71%), middle-aged or older (>40 years; 83%), and highly educated (69%). Responses were analyzed to explore the relationship between demographic variables and responses. Results: We found high public interest in brain health testing: over 91% would definitely or probably take a brain health test and 86% would do so even if it gave information about a disease that cannot be treated or prevented. The main reason for taking a test was the ability to respond if one was found to be at risk of brain disease, such as changing lifestyle, seeking counseling or starting treatment. Higher interest in brain health testing was found in men, respondents with lower education levels and those with poor self-reported cognitive health. Conclusion: High public interest in brain health and brain health testing in certain segments of society, coupled with an increase of commercial tests entering the market, is likely to put pressure on public health systems to inform the public about brain health testing in years to come.

Public perceptions of brain health: an international, online cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate public perspectives on brain health. DESIGN: Cross-sectional multilanguage online survey. SETTING: Lifebrain posted the survey on its website and social media and shared it with stakeholders. The survey was open from 4 June 2019 to 31 August 2020. PARTICIPANTS: n=27 590 aged ≥18 years from 81 countries in five continents completed the survey. The respondents were predominantly women (71%), middle aged (41-60 years; 37%) or above (>60 years; 46%), highly educated (69%) and resided in Europe (98%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents' views were assessed regarding factors that may influence brain health, life periods considered important to look after the brain and diseases and disorders associated with the brain. We run exploratory linear models at a 99% level of significance to assess correlates of the outcome variables, adjusting for likely confounders in a targeted fashion. RESULTS: Of all significant effects, the respondents recognised the impact of lifestyle factors on brain health but had relatively less awareness of the role socioeconomic factors might play. Most respondents rated all life periods as important for the brain (95%-96%), although the prenatal period was ranked significantly lower (84%). Equally, women and highly educated respondents more often rated factors and life periods to be important for brain health. Ninety-nine per cent of respondents associated Alzheimer's disease and dementia with the brain. The respondents made a connection between mental health and the brain, and mental disorders such as schizophrenia and depression were significantly more often considered to be associated with the brain than neurological disorders such as stroke and Parkinson's disease. Few respondents (<32%) associated cancer, hypertension, diabetes and arthritis with the brain. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in perceptions of brain health were noted among specific segments of the population. Policies providing information about brain-friendly health behaviours and targeting people less likely to have relevant experience may be needed.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

The Global Brain Health Survey: Development of a Multi-Language Survey of Public Views on Brain Health.

Background: Brain health is a multi-faceted concept used to describe brain physiology, cognitive function, mental health and well-being. Diseases of the brain account for one third of the global burden of disease and are becoming more prevalent as populations age. Diet, social interaction as well as physical and cognitive activity are lifestyle factors that can potentially influence facets of brain health. Yet, there is limited knowledge about the population's awareness of brain health and willingness to change lifestyle to maintain a healthy brain. This paper introduces the Global Brain Health Survey protocol, designed to assess people's perceptions of brain health and factors influencing brain health. Methods: The Global Brain Health Survey is an anonymous online questionnaire available in 14 languages to anyone above the age of 18 years. Questions focus on (1) willingness and motivation to maintain or improve brain health, (2) interest in learning more about individual brain health using standardized tests, and (3) interest in receiving individualized support to take care of own brain health. The survey questions were developed based on results from a qualitative interview study investigating brain health perceptions among participants in brain research studies. The survey includes 28 questions and takes 15-20 min to complete. Participants provide electronically informed consent prior to participation. The current survey wave was launched on June 4, 2019 and will close on August 31, 2020. We will provide descriptive statistics of samples distributions including analyses of differences as a function of age, gender, education, country of residence, and we will examine associations between items. The European Union funded Lifebrain project leads the survey in collaboration with national brain councils in Norway, Germany, and Belgium, Brain Foundations in the Netherlands and Sweden, the National University of Ostroh Academy and the Women's Brain Project. Discussion: Results from this survey will provide new insights in peoples' views on brain health, in particular, the extent to which the adoption of positive behaviors can be encouraged. The results will contribute to the development of policy recommendations for supporting population brain health, including measures tailored to individual needs, knowledge, motivations and life situations.

Are People Ready for Personalized Brain Health? Perspectives of Research Participants in the Lifebrain Consortium.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A healthy brain is central to physical and mental well-being. In this multi-site, qualitative study, we investigated views and attitudes of adult participants in brain research studies on the brain and personalized brain health as well as interest in maintaining a healthy brain. DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted individual interviews with 44 adult participants in brain research cohorts of the Lifebrain consortium in Spain, Norway, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded using a cross-country codebook. The interview data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Most participants did not focus on their own brain health and expressed uncertainty regarding how to maintain it. Those actively focusing on brain health often picked one specific strategy like diet or memory training. The participants were interested in taking brain health tests to learn about their individual risk of developing brain diseases, and were willing to take measures to maintain their brain health if personalized follow-up was provided and the measures had proven impact. The participants were interested in more information on brain health. No differences in responses were identified between age groups, sex, or countries. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Concise, practical, personalized, and evidence-based information about the brain may promote brain health. Based on our findings, we have launched an ongoing global brain health survey to acquire more extensive, quantitative, and representative data on public perception of personalized brain health.

Correction: Data in question: A survey of European biobank professionals on ethical, legal and societal challenges of biobank research.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221496.].

Data in question: A survey of European biobank professionals on ethical, legal and societal challenges of biobank research.

Biobanks have evolved, and their governance procedures have undergone important transformations. Our paper examines this issue by focusing on the perspective of the professionals working in management or scientific roles in research-based biobanks, who have an important impact on shaping these transformations. In particular, it highlights that recent advances in molecular medicine and genomic research have raised a range of ethical, legal and societal implications (ELSI) related to biobank-based research, impacting directly on regulations and local practices of informed consent (IC), private-public partnerships (PPPs), and engagement of participants. In our study, we investigate the ways that these concerns influence biobanking practices and assess the level of satisfaction of the cross-national biobanking research communities with the ELSI related procedures that are currently in place. We conducted an online survey among biobankers and researchers to investigate secondary use of data, informing and/or re-contacting participants, sharing of data with third parties from industry, participant engagement, and collaboration with industrial partners. Findings highlight the need for a more inclusive and transparent biobanking practice where biobanks are seen in a more active role in providing information and communicating with participants; the need to improve the current IC procedures and the role of biobanks in sharing of samples and data with industry partners and different countries, and the need for practical, tangible and hands-on ethical and legal guidance.

Including all voices in international data-sharing governance.

BACKGROUND: Governments, funding bodies, institutions, and publishers have developed a number of strategies to encourage researchers to facilitate access to datasets. The rationale behind this approach is that this will bring a number of benefits and enable advances in healthcare and medicine by allowing the maximum returns from the investment in research, as well as reducing waste and promoting transparency. As this approach gains momentum, these data-sharing practices have implications for many kinds of research as they become standard practice across the world. MAIN TEXT: The governance frameworks that have been developed to support biomedical research are not well equipped to deal with the complexities of international data sharing. This system is nationally based and is dependent upon expert committees for oversight and compliance, which has often led to piece-meal decision-making. This system tends to perpetuate inequalities by obscuring the contributions and the important role of different data providers along the data stream, whether they be low- or middle-income country researchers, patients, research participants, groups, or communities. As research and data-sharing activities are largely publicly funded, there is a strong moral argument for including the people who provide the data in decision-making and to develop governance systems for their continued participation. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that governance of science becomes more transparent, representative, and responsive to the voices of many constituencies by conducting public consultations about data-sharing addressing issues of access and use; including all data providers in decision-making about the use and sharing of data along the whole of the data stream; and using digital technologies to encourage accessibility, transparency, and accountability. We anticipate that this approach could enhance the legitimacy of the research process, generate insights that may otherwise be overlooked or ignored, and help to bring valuable perspectives into the decision-making around international data sharing.

The challenges of the expanded availability of genomic information: an agenda-setting paper.

Rapid advances in microarray and sequencing technologies are making genotyping and genome sequencing more affordable and readily available. There is an expectation that genomic sequencing technologies improve personalized diagnosis and personalized drug therapy. Concurrently, provision of direct-to-consumer genetic testing by commercial providers has enabled individuals' direct access to their genomic data. The expanded availability of genomic data is perceived as influencing the relationship between the various parties involved including healthcare professionals, researchers, patients, individuals, families, industry, and government. This results in a need to revisit their roles and responsibilities. In a 1-day agenda-setting meeting organized by the COST Action IS1303 "Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives," participants discussed the main challenges associated with the expanded availability of genomic information, with a specific focus on public-private partnerships, and provided an outline from which to discuss in detail the identified challenges. This paper summarizes the points raised at this meeting in five main parts and highlights the key cross-cutting themes. In light of the increasing availability of genomic information, it is expected that this paper will provide timely direction for future research and policy making in this area.

Dynamic Consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in technology have contributed to rapid changes in the way that modern biomedical research is carried out. Researchers are increasingly required to endorse adaptive and flexible approaches to accommodate these innovations and comply with ethical, legal and regulatory requirements. This paper explores how Dynamic Consent may provide solutions to address challenges encountered when researchers invite individuals to participate in research and follow them up over time in a continuously changing environment. METHODS: An interdisciplinary workshop jointly organised by the University of Oxford and the COST Action CHIP ME gathered clinicians, researchers, ethicists, lawyers, research participants and patient representatives to discuss experiences of using Dynamic Consent, and how such use may facilitate the conduct of specific research tasks. The data collected during the workshop were analysed using a content analysis approach. RESULTS: Dynamic Consent can provide practical, sustainable and future-proof solutions to challenges related to participant recruitment, the attainment of informed consent, participant retention and consent management, and may bring economic efficiencies. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic Consent offers opportunities for ongoing communication between researchers and research participants that can positively impact research. Dynamic Consent supports inter-sector, cross-border approaches and large scale data-sharing. Whilst it is relatively easy to set up and maintain, its implementation will require that researchers re-consider their relationship with research participants and adopt new procedures.

Patient and interest organizations' views on personalized medicine: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Personalized medicine (PM) aims to tailor disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment to individuals on the basis of their genes, lifestyle and environments. Patient and interest organizations (PIOs) may potentially play an important role in the realization of PM. This paper investigates the views and perspectives on PM of a variety of PIOs. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted among leading representatives of 13 PIOs located in Europe and North-America. The data collected were analysed using a conventional content analysis approach. RESULTS: The PIO representatives supported the realization of PM but feared that many financial, structural and organizational challenges may delay its realization. They encouraged strategies to modernize drug licencing mechanisms, develop research and data sharing infrastructures, and educate patients and health care professionals in PM. Notably, they emphasized the importance of developing PM in an equitable way and taking into consideration the patients' needs, values and personal situation. Despite varying levels of awareness regarding PM, the PIO representatives expressed willingness to engage in the PM agenda and recommended that PIOs work closely with policy-makers to design PM in a way that truly addresses the needs and concerns of patients. CONCLUSIONS: PIOs have the potential to become central drivers of the PM agenda. Collaborations should be further developed between PIOs, researchers, drug developers and health care authorities.