Genetic Researchers' Use of and Interest in Research With Diverse Ancestral Groups.

Importance: Genetic researchers must have access to databases populated with data from diverse ancestral groups to ensure research is generalizable or targeted for historically excluded communities. Objective: To determine genetic researchers' interest in doing research with diverse ancestral populations, which database stewards offer adequate samples, and additional facilitators for use of diverse ancestral data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study was conducted from June to December 2022 and was part of an exploratory sequential mixed-methods project in which previous qualitative results informed survey design. Eligible participants included genetic researchers who held US academic affiliations and conducted research using human genetic databases. Exposure: Internet-administered survey to genetic research professionals. Main Outcomes and Measures: The survey assessed respondents' experience and interest in research with diverse ancestral data, perceptions of adequacy of diverse data across database stewards (ie, private, government, or consortia), and identified facilitators for encouraging use of diverse ancestral data. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and z tests were used to describe respondents' perspectives and experiences. Results: A total of 294 researchers (171 men [58.5%]; 121 women [41.2%]) were included in the study, resulting in a response rate of 20.4%. Across seniority level, 109 respondents (37.1%) were senior researchers, 85 (28.9%) were mid-level researchers, 71 (24.1%) were junior researchers, and 27 (9.2%) were trainees. Significantly more respondents worked with data from European ancestral populations (261 respondents [88.8%]) compared with any other ancestral population. Respondents who had not done research with Indigenous ancestral groups (210 respondents [71.4%]) were significantly more likely to report interest in doing so than not (121 respondents [41.2%] vs 89 respondents [30.3%]; P < .001). Respondents reported discrepancies in the adequacy of ancestral populations with significantly more reporting European samples as adequate across consortium (203 respondents [90.6%]), government (200 respondents [89.7%]), and private (42 respondents [80.8%]) databases, compared with any other ancestral population. There were no significant differences in reported adequacy of ancestral populations across database stewards. A majority of respondents without access to adequate diverse samples reported that increasing the ancestral diversity of existing databases (201 respondents [68.4%]) and increasing access to databases that are already diverse (166 respondents [56.5%]) would increase the likelihood of them using a more diverse sample. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of US genetic researchers, respondents reported existing databases only provide adequate ancestral samples for European populations, despite their interest in other ancestral populations. These findings suggest there are specific gaps in access to and composition of genetic databases, highlighting the urgent need to boost diversity in research samples to improve inclusivity in genetic research practices.

The Disproportionate Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Time Allocation of Recipients of NIH Career Development Awards Who Are Women or Caregivers of Dependents.

PURPOSE: To understand time allocation of a national medical faculty cohort 1.5-2 years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, compared to before. METHOD: From August 2021-April 2022, the authors conducted a retrospective survey of 1,430 clinician-researchers who received National Institutes of Health career-development awards between 2006-2009 asking about domestic and professional time allocation pre-pandemic and at the time of surveys (TOS). Of 915 respondents (64%), the 830 who remained in academic positions constituted the analytic sample. Multivariable regression models identified demographic factors associated with each time outcome and change in time between pre-pandemic and TOS, and having experienced ≥8-hour increase of total self-reported weekly professional work hours and domestic labor hours. RESULTS: Median self-reported weekly professional work hours were 55 hours/week pre- pandemic and 60 at TOS. On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of self-reported weekly professional work hours at TOS were having a non-child other dependent (+2.6 hours, P = .03), academic rank (associate -3.1 hours, assistant -9.0 hours; P < .001), and specialty (P < .001). Average self-reported TOS weekly domestic-labor hours were 23.1 among men and 30.2 among women (P < .001). Predictors of total self-reported TOS weekly domestic hours were being a woman (+5.6 hours; P < .001) and having children requiring supervision (+10.2 hours; P < .001). Overall, 9.3% of men (42/450) and 21.6% of women (88/407) experienced a ≥ 8 hour increase in domestic labor (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, women had higher odds of substantial domestic-labor increase (OR = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.47, 3.68), as did those with children requiring supervision (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.25, 2.98) or other dependents (OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.98). CONCLUSIONS: This study illuminates demands on women and faculty with dependents during the COVID-19 pandemic and suggests increased flexibility and resources are of heightened importance.

Workplace Harassment, Cyber Incivility, and Climate in Academic Medicine.

Importance: The culture of academic medicine may foster mistreatment that disproportionately affects individuals who have been marginalized within a given society (minoritized groups) and compromises workforce vitality. Existing research has been limited by a lack of comprehensive, validated measures, low response rates, and narrow samples as well as comparisons limited to the binary gender categories of male or female assigned at birth (cisgender). Objective: To evaluate academic medical culture, faculty mental health, and their relationship. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 830 faculty members in the US received National Institutes of Health career development awards from 2006-2009, remained in academia, and responded to a 2021 survey that had a response rate of 64%. Experiences were compared by gender, race and ethnicity (using the categories of Asian, underrepresented in medicine [defined as race and ethnicity other than Asian or non-Hispanic White], and White), and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) status. Multivariable models were used to explore associations between experiences of culture (climate, sexual harassment, and cyber incivility) with mental health. Exposures: Minoritized identity based on gender, race and ethnicity, and LGBTQ+ status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three aspects of culture were measured as the primary outcomes: organizational climate, sexual harassment, and cyber incivility using previously developed instruments. The 5-item Mental Health Inventory (scored from 0 to 100 points with higher values indicating better mental health) was used to evaluate the secondary outcome of mental health. Results: Of the 830 faculty members, there were 422 men, 385 women, 2 in nonbinary gender category, and 21 who did not identify gender; there were 169 Asian respondents, 66 respondents underrepresented in medicine, 572 White respondents, and 23 respondents who did not report their race and ethnicity; and there were 774 respondents who identified as cisgender and heterosexual, 31 as having LGBTQ+ status, and 25 who did not identify status. Women rated general climate (5-point scale) more negatively than men (mean, 3.68 [95% CI, 3.59-3.77] vs 3.96 [95% CI, 3.88-4.04], respectively, P < .001). Diversity climate ratings differed significantly by gender (mean, 3.72 [95% CI, 3.64-3.80] for women vs 4.16 [95% CI, 4.09-4.23] for men, P < .001) and by race and ethnicity (mean, 4.0 [95% CI, 3.88-4.12] for Asian respondents, 3.71 [95% CI, 3.50-3.92] for respondents underrepresented in medicine, and 3.96 [95% CI, 3.90-4.02] for White respondents, P = .04). Women were more likely than men to report experiencing gender harassment (sexist remarks and crude behaviors) (71.9% [95% CI, 67.1%-76.4%] vs 44.9% [95% CI, 40.1%-49.8%], respectively, P < .001). Respondents with LGBTQ+ status were more likely to report experiencing sexual harassment than cisgender and heterosexual respondents when using social media professionally (13.3% [95% CI, 1.7%-40.5%] vs 2.5% [95% CI, 1.2%-4.6%], respectively, P = .01). Each of the 3 aspects of culture and gender were significantly associated with the secondary outcome of mental health in the multivariable analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: High rates of sexual harassment, cyber incivility, and negative organizational climate exist in academic medicine, disproportionately affecting minoritized groups and affecting mental health. Ongoing efforts to transform culture are necessary.

Health Data Sharing Perspectives of Patients Receiving Care in CancerLinQ-Participating Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: CancerLinQ seeks to use data sharing technology to improve quality of care, improve health outcomes, and advance evidence-based research. Understanding the experiences and concerns of patients is vital to ensure its trustworthiness and success. METHODS: In a survey of 1,200 patients receiving care in four CancerLinQ-participating practices, we evaluated awareness and attitudes regarding participation in data sharing. RESULTS: Of 684 surveys received (response rate 57%), 678 confirmed cancer diagnosis and constituted the analytic sample; 54% were female, and 70% were 60 years and older; 84% were White. Half (52%) were aware of the existence of nationwide databases focused on patients with cancer before the survey. A minority (27%) indicated that their doctors or staff had informed them about such databases, 61% of whom indicated that doctors or staff had explained how to opt out of data sharing. Members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely to be comfortable with research (88% v 95%; P = .002) or quality improvement uses (91% v 95%; P = .03) of shared data. Most respondents desired to know how their health information was used (70%), especially those of minority race/ethnicity (78% v 67% of non-Hispanic White respondents; P = .01). Under half (45%) felt that electronic health information was sufficiently protected by current law, and most (74%) favored an official body for data governance and oversight with representation of patients (72%) and physicians (94%). Minority race/ethnicity was associated with increased concern about data sharing (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; P < .001). Women were less concerned about data sharing than men (OR, 0.61; P = .001), and higher trust in oncologist was negatively associated with concern (OR, 0.75; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Engaging patients and respecting their perspectives is essential as systems like CancerLinQ evolve.

"Extremely slow and capricious": A qualitative exploration of genetic researcher priorities in selecting shared data resources.

PURPOSE: Genetic researchers' selection of a database can have scientific, regulatory, and ethical implications. It is important to understand what is driving database selection such that database stewards can be responsive to user needs while balancing the interests of communities in equitably benefiting from advances. METHODS: We conducted 23 semistructured interviews with US academic genetic researchers working with private, government, and collaboratory data stewards to explore factors that they consider when selecting a genetic database. RESULTS: Interviewees used existing databases to avoid burdens of primary data collection, which was described as expensive and time-consuming. They highlighted ease of access as the most important selection factor, integrating concepts of familiarity and efficiency. Data features, such as size and available phenotype, were also important. Demographic diversity was not originally cited by any interviewee as a pivotal factor; when probed, most stated that the option to consider diversity in database selection was limited. Database features, including integrity, harmonization, and storage were also described as key components of efficient use. CONCLUSION: There is a growing market and competition between genetic data stewards. Data need to be accessible, harmonized, and administratively supported for their existence to be translated into use and, in turn, result in scientific advancements across diverse communities.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Enrollment in Precision Oncology Research: Qualitative Ethical Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The genomic frontier continues to revolutionize the practice of oncology. Advances in cancer biology from tumorigenesis to treatment resistance are driven by the molecular underpinnings of malignancy. The framing of precision oncology as both a clinical and research tool is constantly evolving and directly influences conversations between oncologists and their patients. Prior research has shown that patient-participants often have unmet or unrealistic expectations regarding the clinical utility of oncology research and genomic sequencing. This indicates the need for more in-depth investigation of how and why patients choose to participate in such research. OBJECTIVE: This study presents a qualitative ethical analysis to better understand patient and provider perspectives on enrollment in precision oncology research. METHODS: Paired semistructured interviews were conducted with patient-participants enrolled in a prospective head and neck precision oncology research platform, along with their oncology providers, at a National Cancer Institute-designated academic cancer center. RESULTS: There were three major themes that emerged from the analysis. (1) There are distinct and unique challenges with informed consent to precision medicine, chiefly involving the ability of both patient-participants and providers to effectively understand the science underlying the research. (2) The unique benefits of precision medicine enrollment are of paramount importance to patients considering enrollment. (3) Patient-participants have little concern for the risks of research enrollment, particularly in the context of a low-burden protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-participants and their providers offer complementary and nuanced perspectives on their motivation to engage in precision oncology research. This reflects both the inherent promise and enthusiasm within the field, as well as the limitations and challenges of ensuring that both patient-participants and clinicians understand the complexities of the science involved.

Patient Experiences, Trust, and Preferences for Health Data Sharing.

PURPOSE: Scholars have examined patients' attitudes toward secondary use of routinely collected clinical data for research and quality improvement. Evidence suggests that trust in health care organizations and physicians is critical. Less is known about experiences that shape trust and how they influence data sharing preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To explore learning health care system (LHS) ethics, democratic deliberations were hosted from June 2017 to May 2018. A total of 217 patients with cancer participated in facilitated group discussion. Transcripts were coded independently. Finalized codes were organized into themes using interpretive description and thematic analysis. Two previous analyses reported on patient preferences for consent and data use; this final analysis focuses on the influence of personal lived experiences of the health care system, including interactions with providers and insurers, on trust and preferences for data sharing. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis identified four domains of patients' lived experiences raised in the context of the policy discussions: (1) the quality of care received, (2) the impact of health care costs, (3) the transparency and communication displayed by a provider or an insurer to the patient, and (4) the extent to which care coordination was hindered or facilitated by the interchange between a provider and an insurer. Patients discussed their trust in health care decision makers and their opinions about LHS data sharing. CONCLUSION: Additional resources, infrastructure, regulations, and practice innovations are needed to improve patients' experiences with and trust in the health care system. Those who seek to build LHSs may also need to consider improvement in other aspects of care delivery.

Governance of a Learning Health Care System for Oncology: Patient Recommendations.

PURPOSE: The learning health care system (LHS) was designed to enable real-time learning and research by harnessing data generated during patients' clinical encounters. This novel approach begets ethical questions regarding the oversight of users and uses of patient data. Understanding patients' perspectives is vitally important. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted democratic deliberation sessions focused on CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS. Experts presented educational content, and then small group discussions were held to elicit viewpoints. The deliberations centered around whether policies should permit or deny certain users and uses of secondary data. De-identified transcripts of the discussions were examined by using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Analysis identified two thematic clusters: expectations and concerns, which seemed to inform LHS governance recommendations. Participants expected to benefit from the LHS through the advancement of medical knowledge, which they hoped would improve treatments and the quality of their care. They were concerned that profit-driven users might manipulate the data in ways that could burden or exploit patients, hinder medical decisions, or compromise patient-provider communication. It was recommended that restricted access, user fees, and penalties should be imposed to prevent users, especially for-profit entities, from misusing data. Another suggestion was that patients should be notified of potential ethical issues and included on diverse, unbiased governing boards. CONCLUSION: If patients are to trust and support LHS endeavors, their concerns about for-profit users must be addressed. The ethical implementation of such systems should consist of patient representation on governing boards, transparency, and strict oversight of for-profit users.

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

BACKGROUND: In response to the development of highly effective but expensive new medications, policymakers, payors, and health systems are considering novel and pragmatic ways to provide these medications to patients. One approach is to target these treatments to those most likely to benefit. However, to maximize the fairness of these policies, and the acceptance of their implementation, the values and beliefs of patients should be considered. The provision of treatments for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) in the resource-constrained context of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) offered a real-world example of this situation, providing the opportunity to test the value of using Democratic Deliberation (DD) methods to solicit the informed opinions of laypeople on this complex issue. METHODS: We recruited Veterans (n = 30) from the VHA to attend a DD session. Following educational presentations from content experts, participants engaged in facilitated small group discussions to: 1) identify strategies to overcome CHC treatment barriers and 2) evaluate, vote on, and modify/improve two CHC treatment policies - "first come, first served" (FCFS) and "sickest first" (SF). We used transcripts and facilitators' notes to identify key themes from the small group discussions. Additionally, participants completed pre- and post-DD surveys. RESULTS: Most participants endorsed the SF policy over the FCFS policy, emphasizing the ethical and medical appropriateness of treating the sickest first. Concerns about SF centered on the difficulty of implementation (e.g., how is "sickest" determined?) and unfairness to other Veterans. Proposed modifications focused on: 1) the need to consider additional health factors, 2) taking behavior and lifestyle into account, 3) offering education and support, 4) improving access, and 5) facilitating better decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: DD offered a robust and useful method for addressing the allocation of the scarce resource of CHC treatment. Participants were able to develop a modified version of the SF policy and offered diverse recommendations to promote fairness and improve quality of care for Veterans. DD is an effective approach for incorporating patient preferences and gaining valuable insights for critical healthcare policy decisions in resource-limited environments.

Patient Preferences Regarding Informed Consent Models for Participation in a Learning Health Care System for Oncology.

PURPOSE: The expansion of learning health care systems (LHSs) promises to bolster research and quality improvement endeavors. Stewards of patient data have a duty to respect the preferences of the patients from whom, and for whom, these data are being collected and consolidated. METHODS: We conducted democratic deliberations with a diverse sample of 217 patients treated at 4 sites to assess views about LHSs, using the example of CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS, to stimulate discussion. In small group discussions, participants deliberated about different policies for how to provide information and to seek consent regarding the inclusion of patient data. These discussions were recorded, transcribed, and de-identified for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of participants, 67% were female, 61% were non-Hispanic Whites, and the mean age was 60 years. Patients' opinions about sharing their data illuminated 2 spectra: trust/distrust and individualism/collectivism. Positions on these spectra influenced the weight placed on 3 priorities: promoting societal altruism, ensuring respect for persons, and protecting themselves. In turn, consideration of these priorities seemed to inform preferences regarding patient choices and system transparency. Most advocated for a policy whereby patients would receive notification and have the opportunity to opt out of including their medical records in the LHS. Participants reasoned that such a policy would balance personal protections and societal welfare. CONCLUSION: System transparency and patient choice are vital if patients are to feel respected and to trust LHS endeavors. Those responsible for LHS implementation should ensure that all patients receive an explanation of their options, together with standardized, understandable, comprehensive materials.

From Stigma to Validation: A Qualitative Assessment of a Novel National Program to Improve Retention of Physician-Scientists with Caregiving Responsibilities.

Background: Research is needed to improve understanding of work-life integration issues in academic medicine and to guide the implementation of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national initiative offering financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. Materials and Methods: In 2018, as part of a prospective program evaluation, the authors conducted a qualitative study to examine FRCS program participants' initial impressions, solicit descriptions of their career and caregiving experiences, and inquire how such factors might influence their professional advancement. The authors invited all 33 awardees who had been granted FRCS funding in the first year of the program to participate in the study, of whom 28 agreed to complete an interview. Analysts evaluated de-identified transcripts and explicated the data using a thematic analysis approach. Results: While participants described aspects of a culture that harbor stigma against caregivers and impede satisfactory work-life integration, they also perceived an optimistic cultural shift taking place as a result of programs like the FRCS. Their comments indicated that the FRCS has the potential to influence culture if institutional leadership simultaneously fosters a community that validates individuals both as caregivers and as scientists. Conclusions: Insights garnered from this qualitative study suggest that there is a pressing need for institutional leaders to implement programs that can foster awareness and normalization of caregiving challenges. In addition to providing funding and other tangible resources, interventions should strive to reinforce a broader culture that affirms the presence of work-life integration challenges and openly embraces solutions.

"My Research Is Their Business, but I'm Not Their Business": Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Commercialization of Precision Oncology Data.

BACKGROUND: Genetic sequencing and precision oncology have supported clinical breakthroughs but depend upon access to vast arrays of research specimens and data. One way for academic medical centers to fund such infrastructure and research is "commercialization" of access to specimens and data to industry. Here we explore patient and clinician perspectives regarding cancer specimen and data commercialization with the goal of improving such processes in the future. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative analysis was embedded within a prospective precision oncology sequencing study of adults with head and neck cancer. Via semistructured dyadic interviews with patients with cancer and their doctors, we assessed understanding and concerns regarding potential commercialization, opinions regarding investment of profits, and perspectives regarding the return of information directly to participants from industry. RESULTS: Several patient- and clinician-participants did not understand that the consent form already permitted commercialization of patient genetic data and expressed concerns regarding who would profit from the data, how profits would be used, and privacy and access. Patients were generally more comfortable with commercialization than clinicians. Many patients and clinicians were comfortable with investing profits back into research, but clinicians were more interested in investment in head and neck cancer research specifically. Patients generally supported potential return-of-results from a private entity, but their clinicians were more skeptical. CONCLUSION: Our results illustrate the limitations of mandatory disclosures in the informed consent process. The voices of both patients and their doctors are critical to mitigate violations of privacy and a degradation of trust as stakeholders negotiate the terms of academic and commercial engagement. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Further education is needed regarding how and why specimens and data in precision oncology research may be commercialized for both patients and providers alike. This process will require increased transparency, comprehension, and engagement of involved stakeholders.

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

PURPOSE: We sought to generate informed and considered opinions regarding acceptable secondary uses of deidentified health information and consent models for oncology learning health care systems. METHODS: Day-long democratic deliberation sessions included 217 patients with cancer at four geographically and sociodemographically diverse sites. Patients completed three surveys (at baseline, immediately after deliberation, and 1-month follow-up). RESULTS: Participants were 67.3% female, 21.7% black, and 6.0% Hispanic. The most notable changes in perceptions after deliberation related to use of deidentified medical-record data by insurance companies. After discussion, 72.3% of participants felt comfortable if the purpose was to make sure patients receive recommended care (v 79.5% at baseline; P = .03); 24.9% felt comfortable if the purpose was to determine eligibility for coverage or reimbursement (v 50.9% at baseline; P < .001). The most notable change about secondary research use related to believing it was important that doctors ask patients at least once whether researchers can use deidentified medical-records data for future research. The proportion endorsing high importance decreased from baseline (82.2%) to 68.7% immediately after discussion (P < .001), and remained decreased at 73.1% (P = .01) at follow-up. At follow-up, non-Hispanic whites were more likely to consider it highly important to be able to conduct medical research with deidentified electronic health records (96.8% v 87.7%; P = .01) and less likely to consider it highly important for doctors to get a patient's permission each time deidentified medical record information is used for research (23.2% v 51.6%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This research confirms that most patients wish to be asked before deidentified medical records are used for research. Policies designed to realize the potential benefits of learning health care systems can, and should be, grounded in informed and considered public opinion.

The Most Valuable Resource Is Time: Insights From a Novel National Program to Improve Retention of Physician-Scientists With Caregiving Responsibilities.

PURPOSE: To enhance understanding of challenges related to work-life integration in academic medicine and to inform the ongoing implementation of an existing program and the development of other interventions to promote success of physician-scientists. METHOD: This study is part of a prospective analysis of the effects of the Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national program launched by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation at 10 U.S. institutions, which provides financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. In early 2018, 28 of 33 program awardees participated in semistructured interviews. Questions were about challenges faced by physician-scientists as caregivers and their early perceptions of the FRCS. Multiple analysts reviewed deidentified transcripts, iteratively revised the coding scheme, and interpreted the data using qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants' rich descriptions illuminated 5 interconnected themes: (1) Time is a critical and limited resource, (2) timing is key, (3) limited time resources and timing conflicts may have a particularly adverse effect on women's careers, (4) flexible funds enable reclamation and repurposing of time resources, and (5) FRCS leaders should be cognizant of time and timing conflicts when developing program-related offerings. CONCLUSIONS: Programs such as the FRCS are instrumental in supporting individuals to delegate time-consuming tasks and to control how they spend their valuable time. Qualitative analysis suggests that access to and command of valuable time resources are crucial to career advancement, research productivity, and work-life flexibility, especially during critical time points along the physician-scientist trajectory.

Genetic data partnerships: academic publications with privately owned or generated genetic data.

PURPOSE: Access to large genetic data sets, many of which are privately owned, is essential to precision medicine and other research protocols. Academic researchers are increasingly capitalizing on this privately held data. Our goal is to understand these private-academic "genetic data partnerships." METHODS: We analyzed publications using human genetic data generated or held by major private genetic testing companies that were indexed in PubMed between 2011 and 2017. RESULTS: We found that (1) the number of publications using private genetic data is increasing over time (from 4 in 2011 to 57 in 2017); (2) there are two main models of data-sharing, including researchers using existing private data held by industry (n = 172) or researchers sending in new samples for analysis (n = 6); (3) 45% of the publications were supported at least in part by the National Institutes of Health; and (4) the type of contributor consent is not disclosed/unclear in the publication almost half (43%) the time. CONCLUSION: Privately held or analyzed genetic databanks offer academic researchers the opportunity to efficiently access large amounts of genetic data. But more transparency should be encouraged, if not required, to ensure the proper notification of contributors and to further understand the use of public research funds for private collaborations.

A Survey Of Americans With High-Deductible Health Plans Identifies Opportunities To Enhance Consumer Behaviors.

Most high-deductible health plan (HDHP) enrollees do not engage in consumer behaviors such as price shopping. Why not? We surveyed 1,637 Americans in HDHPs-which can be linked to health savings accounts (HSAs) but usually are not-about factors that may predict, facilitate, or impede HDHP enrollees' engagement in consumer behaviors. We found that having an HSA was associated with saving for future care, high financial literacy was associated with comparing prices and quality, and high confidence in talking with providers about costs and trying to negotiate prices was associated with engaging in these behaviors. Employer HSA contributions were the most frequent facilitator of saving, websites were the most frequent facilitators of comparing prices and quality, and "someone at the doctor's office" was the most frequent facilitator of discussing costs with providers and trying to negotiate prices. The most frequent impediment to all of these behaviors was not having considered them when making decisions. These results suggest strategies that health plans, employers, and health systems should explore to promote greater engagement in consumer behaviors among patients in HDHPs.

Biobanks and the Moral Concerns of Donors: A Democratic Deliberation.

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

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

In this study, we evaluate the effect of education and deliberation on the willingness of members of the public to donate tissue to biobank research and on their attitudes regarding various biobank consent policies. Participants were randomly assigned to a democratic deliberation (DD) group, an education group that received only written materials, and a control group. Participants completed a survey before the deliberation and two surveys post-deliberation: one on (or just after) the deliberation day, and one 4 weeks later. Subjects were asked to rate 5 biobank consent policies as acceptable (or not) and to identify the best and worst policies. Analyses compared acceptability of different policy options and changes in attitudes across the three groups. After deliberation, subjects in the DD group were less likely to find broad consent (defined here as consent for the use of donations in an unspecified range of future research studies, subject to content and process restrictions) and study-by-study consent acceptable. The DD group was also significantly less likely to endorse broad consent as the best policy (OR = 0.34), and more likely to prefer alternative consent options. These results raise ethical challenges to the current widespread reliance on broad consent in biobank research, but do not support study-by-study consent.