Seeking help as a strategy for ethical and professional decision-making in research: Perspectives of researchers from East Asia and the United States.

Background: A person's cultural background shapes how they interpret and navigate problems. Given that large numbers of international researchers work and train in the U.S. we sought to better understand how researchers use the decision-making strategy of seeking help to navigate ethical and professional challenges.Methods: Participants (N = 300) were researchers working or training in the U.S. who were born in East Asia (EA) or born in the U.S. They completed a screening survey; then a subset completed think-aloud interviews (n = 66) focused on how they would respond to three hypothetical research scenarios.Results: Thematic analysis of the transcripts showed that seeking help was a commonly endorsed strategy, with some nuances between groups. Themes included seeking help in the form of getting advice, seeking someone to help solve the problem, and gathering information. Endorsement of the seeking help strategy frequently depended on participants' relationships; desiring to seek help from people they trusted. Notably, EA participants tended to prefer seeking help in ways that avoided reputational harm to others.Conclusion: A better understanding of how researchers from different cultural backgrounds use decision-making strategies can inform how to make educational programs more inclusive and comprehensive to more effectively develop researchers' ethical and professional decision-making skills.

Providing Adolescents with Access to Online Patient Portals: Interviews with Parent-Adolescent Dyads.

OBJECTIVE: To identify perceived benefits, problems, facilitators, and barriers to adolescent online patient portal use. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with dyads of parents and adolescents with or without chronic illness. The study team purposively sampled for racial and ethnic minorities and fathers. Three team members then performed thematic analysis of the transcripts, with subsequent dyadic analysis of themes represented by related parents and adolescents. RESULTS: We performed 102 interviews with 51 dyads of parents and adolescents (26 with chronic illness, 25 without chronic illness). Nearly all participants believed that adolescents should be permitted portal access. We identified 4 themes related to portal benefits: improves adolescent's knowledge of health; supports medical self-management and autonomy; strengthens communication and relationships; and supports parental influence. We identified 4 themes related to portal problems: misunderstanding or confusion; emotional distress; strain on relationships; and irresponsible use of portal. Facilitators of portal use included severity of illness, adolescent's curiosity, and ease of technology use. Barriers included lack of awareness or interest, complexity of information, and access difficulties. Twenty adolescents (39%) did not know they could access the portal, and 23 (45%) lacked interest in portals. Parents and adolescents seldom used the portal as a collaborative tool, and instead were engaging with the portal independently. CONCLUSION: Parents and adolescents perceive several benefits and problems with portal use, but many adolescents lack interest in using portals. Adolescent portals represent an underutilized resource to engage adolescents in their care.

An Overarching Framework for the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Pediatrics.

This Viewpoint discusses the use of artificial intelligence in pediatrics.

Evaluating ApoL1 Genetic Testing Policy Options for Transplant Centers: A Delphi Consensus Panel Project with Stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) variants G1 and G2 are associated with a higher risk of kidney disease. ApoL1 risk variants are predominantly seen in individuals with sub-Saharan African ancestry. In most transplant centers, potential organ donors are being selectively genetically tested for ApoL1 risk variants. Transplant programs have highly variable ApoL1 testing practices and need guidance on essential ApoL1 clinical policy questions. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi consensus panel focused on ApoL1 clinical policy questions, including who gets tested, who decides whether testing occurs, how test results are shared, who receives test results, and how test results are used. A total of 27 panelists across seven stakeholder groups participated: living kidney donors ( n =4), deceased donor family members ( n =3), recipients of a deceased donor kidney ( n =4), recipients of a living donor kidney ( n =4), nephrologists ( n =4), transplant surgeons ( n =4), and genetic counselors ( n =4). Nineteen panelists (70%) identified as Black. The Delphi panel process involved two rounds of educational webinars and three rounds of surveys administered to panelists, who were asked to indicate whether they support, could live with, or oppose each policy option. RESULTS: The panel reached consensus on one or more acceptable policy options for each clinical policy question; panelists supported 18 policy options and opposed 15. Key elements of consensus include the following: ask potential donors about African ancestry rather than race; make testing decisions only after discussion with donors; encourage disclosure of test results to blood relatives and organ recipients but do not require it; use test results to inform decision making, but never for unilateral decisions by transplant programs. CONCLUSIONS: The panel generally supported policy options involving discussion and shared decision making among patients, donors, and family stakeholders. There was general opposition to unilateral decision making and prohibiting donation altogether.

Reproductive decision making in women with medical comorbidities: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: A growing number of reproductive-age women in the U.S. have chronic medical conditions, increasing their risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Still, they experience unintended pregnancies at similar rates to low-risk mothers. We have limited understanding of how these individuals consider decisions about pregnancy and contraceptive use. The purpose of this study was to understand factors that influence reproductive decision-making among pregnant women with chronic medical conditions. METHODS: We conducted 28 semi-structured interviews with pregnant women with pre-existing medical conditions admitted to a tertiary maternal hospital to examine factors influencing reproductive decision making. Maternal demographic characteristics, medical history, and pregnancy outcome data were obtained through participant surveys and abstraction from electronic health records. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using Dedoose® with both deductive and inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Out of 33 eligible participants, 30 consented to participate and 28 completed interviews. The majority of participants identified as black, Christian, made less than $23,000 yearly, and had a variety of preexisting medical conditions. Overarching themes included: 1) Perceived risks-benefits of pregnancy, 2) Perceived risks-benefits of birth control, 3) Determinants of contraceptive utilization, and 4) Perceived reproductive self-agency. Contraception was viewed as acceptable, but with concerning physical and psychological side effects. Although some considered pregnancy as a health threat, more experienced pregnancy as positive and empowering. Few planned their pregnancies. CONCLUSIONS: Preexisting health conditions did not significantly influence reproductive decision-making. Barriers to birth control use were generally based in patient value-systems instead of external factors. Interventions to improve uptake and use of birth control in this cohort should focus on improving care for chronic health conditions and influencing patient knowledge and attitudes toward contraception.

Exchanging words: Engaging the challenges of sharing qualitative research data.

In January 2023, a new NIH policy on data sharing went into effect. The policy applies to both quantitative and qualitative research (QR) data such as data from interviews or focus groups. QR data are often sensitive and difficult to deidentify, and thus have rarely been shared in the United States. Over the past 5 y, our research team has engaged stakeholders on QR data sharing, developed software to support data deidentification, produced guidance, and collaborated with the ICPSR data repository to pilot the deposit of 30 QR datasets. In this perspective article, we share important lessons learned by addressing eight clusters of questions on issues such as where, when, and what to share; how to deidentify data and support high-quality secondary use; budgeting for data sharing; and the permissions needed to share data. We also offer a brief assessment of the state of preparedness of data repositories, QR journals, and QR textbooks to support data sharing. While QR data sharing could yield important benefits to the research community, we quickly need to develop enforceable standards, expertise, and resources to support responsible QR data sharing. Absent these resources, we risk violating participant confidentiality and wasting a significant amount of time and funding on data that are not useful for either secondary use or data transparency and verification.

Engaging Adolescents in Using Online Patient Portals.

Importance: Many health care systems offer adolescents access to health information through online patient portals, but few studies have explored how to engage adolescents in using and benefiting from online portals. Objective: To determine how US children's hospitals have attempted to encourage adolescent portal use, barriers to engaging adolescents, and ideal future goals for engagement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study performed structured qualitative interviews with informatics administrators from children's hospitals across the US between February and July 2022. Informatics administrators were employed by US health care systems that managed a children's hospital with at least 50 dedicated pediatrics beds. Data analysis was performed from November 2022 to January 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: This study used thematic analysis of (1) current steps that health care systems had taken to engage adolescents in using their online patient portals and (2) barriers to engaging adolescents and ideal future goals and outcomes of engagement. Results: Among 58 total interviews with 65 informatics administrators who represented 63 hospitals across 58 health care systems, 6 themes of approaches to engaging adolescents in portal use were identified: (1) promoting and educating adolescents about portal enrollment, (2) establishing workflows to support enrollment, (3) seeking and incorporating feedback, (4) creating a culture or environment supporting engagement, (5) increasing portal utility, and (6) limited efforts. Barriers to engaging adolescents in portal use related to either (1) stakeholder investment, interest, and capabilities or (2) intersecting technical, ethical, and legal factors. Participants identified 4 ideal future efforts to engage adolescents: (1) develop adaptable private means of communication with adolescents, (2) use adolescent-centric user design, (3) enhance promotion and education about portal use, and (4) simplify and adapt workflows to encourage enrollment. Participants described 3 ideal outcomes of this future engagement: (1) provide education about current health, (2) prepare for transition to adulthood, and (3) improve digital health education of adolescents. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study of informatics administrators, children's hospitals across the US were found to have varying degrees of efforts to engage adolescents in using their portals. Most of these efforts focused on supporting adolescent enrollment, but fewer efforts focused on making the portal useful and interesting to adolescents.

Addressing serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations through action plans: Interviews with institutional officials.

Serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations undermine the quality of research and trust in science. When researchers engage in these behaviors, institutional officials (IOs) often develop corrective action plans. Ideally, such plans address the root causes so noncompliance or research integrity violations discontinue. The aim of this study was to identify what IOs perceive as causes and action plan activities typically prescribed. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 47 IOs at research institutions across the U.S. including: institutional review board and institutional animal care and use committee chairs and directors, chief research officers, research compliance and integrity officers, and institutional conflicts of interest chairs and directors. The most common root causes identified were: 1) lack of knowledge or training, 2) failure to provide research team supervision, and 3) researcher attitudes toward compliance. The most common action plan activities include: 1) retraining in compliance or research integrity, 2) follow-up and hands-on involvement with the researcher, and 3) mandated oversight or mentoring. Because the most commonly identified action plan activities fail to adequately address the majority of root causes, our findings suggest a need for IOs to rethink existing approaches to action plan development to more effectively target root causes.

Barriers to Using Legally Authorized Representatives in Clinical Research with Older Adults.

Background: Older adults are at increased risk of cognitive impairments including Alzheimer's disease dementia. Legally authorized representatives (LARs) can provide informed consent when a participant is no longer able to, but little is known about barriers to incorporating them in research. Objective: Explore reasons for not asking and documenting participant decisions to appoint LARs among researchers conducting clinical intervention trials studying older adults or individuals with cognitive impairments. Methods: Mixed method design consisting of a survey (N = 1,284) and qualitative interviews (N = 40) regarding barriers to incorporating LARs. Participants were principal investigators and clinical research coordinators. Results: 37% (N = 469) had not asked and documented participant decisions about appointing LARs in the prior year. They had significantly lower confidence in resources available to incorporate LARs and lower positive attitudes compared to their counterparts who had done so. The majority (83%) had no trials studying individuals with cognitive impairments and reported LARs were not applicable. A minority (17%) had at least one trial studying individuals with cognitive impairments and reported being unaware of LARs. Qualitative findings indicate discomfort broaching a sensitive topic especially with individuals who are not yet impaired. Conclusion: Resources and education to increase awareness and knowledge of LARs are needed. Researchers studying older adults should, at minimum, have the knowledge and resources to incorporate LARs when necessary. Stigma and discomfort discussing LARs will need to be overcome, as early proactive discussions before a participant loses decisional capacity could enhance participant autonomy and facilitate recruitment and retention of older adults to research.

A survey of solid organ transplant recipient attitudes and concerns regarding contraception and pregnancy.

INTRODUCTION: Many women who are solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients wish to have children after transplantation. Contraception is an important component of post-transplant planning and care, given the increased risk associated with post-transplant pregnancies. We sought to understand patient attitudes and concerns about post-transplant contraception and pregnancy. METHODS: Following a comprehensive literature review, our team developed a survey that was administered to female SOT recipients of childbearing age. We used descriptive and inferential statistics to characterize participant views RESULTS: A total of 243 transplant recipients completed the survey (80.7% response rate). The mean age of respondents was 37.5 years (±8.1 years), 66.7% were kidney recipients, and 40.7% were within the first year after transplant. The most common concerns among respondents included fetal and maternal health complications. Participants generally did not agree that transplant recipients should be advised to avoid pregnancy. There was strong support for shared decision-making about pregnancy after transplantation CONCLUSION: Understanding patient perspectives can help transplant providers make better care recommendations and support patient autonomy in reproductive decisions post-transplant. Given that there are some differences in views by transplant type, individualized conversations between patients and providers are needed.

A randomized implementation trial to increase adoption of evidence-informed consent practices.

Introduction: Several evidence-informed consent practices (ECPs) have been shown to improve informed consent in clinical trials but are not routinely used. These include optimizing consent formatting, using plain language, using validated instruments to assess understanding, and involving legally authorized representatives when appropriate. We hypothesized that participants receiving an implementation science toolkit and a social media push would have increased adoption of ECPs and other outcomes. Methods: We conducted a 1-year trial with clinical research professionals in the USA (n = 1284) who have trials open to older adults or focus on Alzheimer's disease. We randomized participants to receive information on ECPs via receiving a toolkit with a social media push (intervention) or receiving an online learning module (active control). Participants completed a baseline survey and a follow-up survey after 1 year. A subset of participants was interviewed (n = 43). Results: Participants who engaged more with the toolkit were more likely to have tried to implement an ECP during the trial than participants less engaged with the toolkit or the active control group. However, there were no significant differences in the adoption of ECPs, intention to adopt, or positive attitudes. Participants reported the toolkit and social media push were satisfactory, and participating increased their awareness of ECPs. However, they reported lacking the time needed to engage with the toolkit more fully. Conclusions: Using an implementation science approach to increase the use of ECPs was only modestly successful. Data suggest that having institutional review boards recommend or require ECPs may be an effective way to increase their use.

Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review.

Geographical ancestry has been associated with an increased risk of various genetic conditions. Race and ethnicity often have been used as proxies for geographical ancestry. Despite numerous problems associated with the crude reliance on race and ethnicity as proxies for geographical ancestry, some genetic testing in the clinical, research, and employment settings has been and continues to be race- or ethnicity-based. Race-based or race-targeted genetic testing refers to genetic testing offered only or primarily to people of particular racial or ethnic groups because of presumed differences among groups. One current example is APOL1 testing of Black kidney donors. Race-based genetic testing raises numerous ethical and policy questions. Given the ongoing reliance on the Black race in genetic testing, it is important to understand the views of people who identify as Black or are identified as Black (including African American, Afro-Caribbean, and Hispanic Black) regarding race-based genetic testing that targets Black people because of their race. We conducted a systematic review of studies and reports of stakeholder-engaged projects that examined how people who identify as or are identified as Black perceive genetic testing that specifically presumes genetic differences exist among racial groups or uses race as a surrogate for ancestral genetic variation and targets Black people. Our review identified 14 studies that explicitly studied this question and another 13 that implicitly or tacitly studied this matter. We found four main factors that contribute to a positive attitude toward race-targeted genetic testing (facilitators) and eight main factors that are associated with concerns regarding race-targeted genetic testing (barriers). This review fills an important gap. These findings should inform future genetic research and the policies and practices developed in clinical, research, public health, or other settings regarding genetic testing.

What Can State Medical Boards Do to Effectively Address Serious Ethical Violations?

State Medical Boards (SMBs) can take severe disciplinary actions (e.g., license revocation or suspension) against physicians who commit egregious wrongdoing in order to protect the public. However, there is noteworthy variability in the extent to which SMBs impose severe disciplinary action. In this manuscript, we present and synthesize a subset of 11 recommendations based on findings from our team's larger consensus-building project that identified a list of 56 policies and legal provisions SMBs can use to better protect patients from egregious wrongdoing by physicians.

The Microethics of Communication in Health Care: A New Framework for the Fast Thinking of Everyday Clinical Encounters.

In almost every clinical interaction, clinicians must navigate interpersonal challenges with near-instantaneous responses to patients. Yet medical ethics has largely overlooked these small, interpersonal exchanges, instead focusing on "big" ethical problems, such as euthanasia, brain death, or genetic modification. In 1995, Paul Komesaroff proposed the concept of microethics as a nonprinciplist approach to ethics that focuses on "what happens in every interaction between every doctor and every patient." We aim to develop a microethics framework to guide everyday clinical encounters, with a special focus on communication with patients and family members. We will advance three core insights: First, communication is an ethical act in ways seldom considered. Second, microethics is an essential lens through which to view the ethics of communication. Third, virtue can bridge reflective and automatic processes. Our intuitionist framework for microethics is thus based on this understanding of the role of virtue, and we propose six virtues that contribute to the goal of healing communication.

Co-management of communication and care in adolescent and young adult oncology.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians have an ethical and practical imperative to engage adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer in communication and care. Many young AYAs have involved parents, but guidelines for co-management of care with AYAs and their parents are lacking. METHODS: We performed 37 semistructured interviews with AYAs aged 12-24 years at diagnosis, recruiting them from two pediatric cancer centers. We performed thematic analysis, aiming to understand how AYAs and their parents navigate their roles in communication and care. RESULTS: We identified six roles that AYAs co-managed with their parents: (1) managing information, (2) managing social and emotional needs, (3) managing health, (4) advocating and empowering, (5) making decisions, and (6) managing logistics. AYAs tended to take more active roles in managing information and more passive roles in managing logistics, managing health, and making decisions. AYAs described how they and their parents had mutual responsibilities to be strong and to protect other's emotions. Additionally, we identified five factors that influenced AYAs' roles in communication and care: (1) AYA agency, (2) clinician encouragement, (3) emotional and physical well-being, (4) personality, preferences, and values, and (5) insights and skills. CONCLUSIONS: AYAs have nuanced preferences for how they are involved in communication and care roles. Clinicians can help families to clarify their preferences and values around these roles in a way that meets each family's unique needs. Future studies should aim to develop tools that support the fulfillment of these engagement goals.

Responding to Sexual Abuse in Health Care: Development of a Guide for Patients.

This report details the development of a stakeholder- and evidence-informed online resource guide for patients that provides information to raise awareness about sexual abuse in health care, the value of chaperones, and options for responding to sexual abuse. The guide was developed to reflect lessons learned from 10 years of researching physician wrongdoing (ie, sexual violations, improper prescribing, and unnecessary invasive procedures), a 5-year National Institutes of Health-funded mixed-methods study of 280 cases of egregious wrongdoing in medicine, and an expert working group. Focus groups were conducted with 22 patients from diverse backgrounds to obtain feedback on the acceptability of the guide. Thematic analysis of the focus groups yielded 6 key themes: 1) empowering patients, 2) recognizing and responding to sexual abuse, 3) educating patients about reporting options, 4) educating patients on availability of chaperones, 5) balancing trust and mistrust, and 6) using simple language. Qualitative data from the focus groups (ie, audio files and detailed notes taken by the research team) suggested that the guide effectively informed and empowered patients to recognize and effectively respond to sexual misconduct in health care. The guide is publicly available and has been disseminated nationally to patient health advocates and public health agencies.

Ethical, regulatory, and practical barriers to COVID-19 research: A stakeholder-informed inventory of concerns.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has caused death and economic injury around the globe. The urgent need for COVID-19 research created new ethical, regulatory, and practical challenges. The next public health emergency could be worse than COVID-19. We must learn about these challenges from the experiences of researchers and Research Ethics Committee professionals responsible for these COVID-19 studies to prepare for the next emergency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an online survey to identify the ethical, oversight, and regulatory challenges of conducting COVID-19 research during the early pandemic, and proposed solutions for overcoming these barriers. Using criterion-based, convenience sampling, we invited researchers who proposed or conducted COVID-19 research to complete an anonymous, online survey about their experiences. We administered a separate but related survey to Institutional Review Board (IRB) professionals who reviewed COVID-19 research studies. The surveys included open-ended and demographic items. We performed inductive content analysis on responses to open-ended survey questions. RESULTS: IRB professionals (n = 143) and researchers (n = 211) described 19 types of barriers to COVID-19 research, related to 5 overarching categories: policy and regulatory, biases and misperceptions, institutional and inter-institutional conflicts, risks of harm, and pressure of the pandemic. Researchers and IRB professionals described 8 categories of adaptations and solutions to these challenges: enacting technological solutions; developing protocol-based solutions; disposition and team management; establishing and communicating appropriate standards; national guidance and leadership; maintaining high standards; prioritizing studies before IRB review; and identifying and incorporating experts. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This inventory of challenges represents ongoing barriers to studying the current pandemic, and they represent a risk to research during future public health emergencies. Delays in studies of a pandemic during a pandemic threatens the health and safety of the public. We urge the development of a national working group to address these issues before the next public health emergency arises.