The ethical value of consulting community members in non-emergency trials conducted with waivers of informed consent for research.

There is growing interest in using embedded research methods, particularly pragmatic clinical trials, to address well-known evidentiary shortcomings afflicting the health care system. Reviews of pragmatic clinical trials published between 2014 and 2019 found that 8.8% were conducted with waivers of informed consent; furthermore, the number of trials where consent is not obtained is increasing with time. From a regulatory perspective, waivers of informed consent are permissible when certain conditions are met, including that the study involves no more than minimal risk, that it could not practicably be carried out without a waiver, and that waiving consent does not violate participants' rights and welfare. Nevertheless, when research is conducted with a waiver of consent, several ethical challenges arise. We must consider how to: address empirical evidence showing that patients and members of the public generally prefer prospective consent, demonstrate respect for persons using tools other than consent, promote public trust and investigator integrity, and ensure an adequate level of participant protections. In this article, we use examples drawn from real pragmatic clinical trials to argue that prospective consultation with representatives of the target study population can address, or at least mitigate, many of the ethical challenges posed by waivers of informed consent. We also consider what consultation might involve to illustrate its feasibility and address potential objections.

Single IRB Review and Local Context Considerations: A Scoping Review.

A leading concern about single IRB (sIRB) review for multisite studies, as is now required by federal policies, is whether and how sIRBs consider local context in their review. While several types of local context considerations have been proposed, there is no shared agreement among those charged with the ethics oversight of human subjects research as to the goals and content of local context review, nor the types of research studies for which sIRB review might be inappropriate. Through a scoping review of published scholarship, public comments, and federal guidance documents, we identified five assumed goals for local context review: protecting the rights and welfare of local participants; ensuring compliance with applicable laws and policies; assessing feasibility; promoting the quality of research; and promoting procedural justice. While a variety of content was proposed to be relevant, it was largely grouped into four domains: population/participant-level characteristics; investigator and research team characteristics; institution-level characteristics; and state and local laws. Proposed characteristics for exclusion from sIRB requirements reflected both protection- and efficiency-based concerns. These findings can inform ongoing efforts to assess the implications of policies mandating sIRB review, and when exceptions to those policies might be appropriate.

Stakeholder perspectives on data sharing from pragmatic clinical trials: Unanticipated challenges for meeting emerging requirements.

Introduction: Numerous arguments have been advanced for broadly sharing de-identified, participant-level clinical trial data. However, data sharing in pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) presents ethical challenges. While prior scholarship has described aspects of PCTs that raise distinct considerations for data sharing, there have been no reports of the experiences of those at the leading edge of data-sharing efforts for PCTs, including how these particular challenges have been navigated. To address this gap, we conducted interviews with key stakeholders, with a focus on the ethical issues presented by sharing data from PCTs. Methods: We recruited respondents using purposive sampling to reflect the range of stakeholder groups affected by efforts to expand PCT data sharing. Through semi-structured interviews, we explored respondents' experiences and perceptions about sharing de-identified, individual-level data from PCTs. An integrated approach was used to identify and describe key themes. Results: We conducted 40 interviews between April and September 2022. Five overarching themes emerged through analysis: (1) challenges in sharing data collected under a waiver or alteration of consent; (2) conflicting views regarding PCT patient-subject preferences for data sharing; (3) identification of respect-promoting practices beyond consent; (4) concerns about elevated risks or burdens from sharing PCT data; and (5) diverse views about the likely benefits resulting from sharing PCT data. Conclusion: Our data indicate unresolved tensions in how to fulfill the expectation to broadly share de-identified, individual-level data from PCTs, and suggest that those promulgating and implementing data-sharing policies must be sensitive to PCT-specific considerations. Future work could inform efforts to tailor data-sharing policy and practice to reflect the challenges presented by PCTs, including sharing experiences from trials that have successfully navigated these tensions.

Hormonal Contraceptive Side Effects and Nonhormonal Alternatives on TikTok: A Content Analysis.

The use of hormonal contraceptives is decreasing in the United States alongside a growing interest in nonhormonal contraceptive options. Social media messaging may be contributing to this trend. TikTok thus offers a novel opportunity to understand how people share information about risks and alternatives for pregnancy prevention. To describe the availability and content of information about hormonal contraceptive side effects and nonhormonal contraceptive options on TikTok, we conducted a content analysis of 100 videos using the hashtags #birthcontrolsideeffects and #nonhormonalcontraception. We found that these videos were popular and often framed hormonal contraceptives and patient-provider interactions negatively, with users frequently discussing discontinuation of hormonal contraception and no plans for uptake of another contraceptive. When uptake of a new contraceptive method is mentioned, creators typically mention a fertility awareness-based method, which requires specialized knowledge to use safely and effectively. The risks and side effects of hormonal options were often overemphasized compared with the possible risks and side effects of nonhormonal options. This framing may suggest opportunities for providers and health educators to reassess how they counsel about contraceptive options. We conclude with recommendations for future research on TikTok and consider the policy implications of these findings.

Researching the future: scenarios to explore the future of human genome editing.

BACKGROUND: Forward-looking, democratically oriented governance is needed to ensure that human genome editing serves rather than undercuts public values. Scientific, policy, and ethics communities have recognized this necessity but have demonstrated limited understanding of how to fulfill it. The field of bioethics has long attempted to grapple with the unintended consequences of emerging technologies, but too often such foresight has lacked adequate scientific grounding, overemphasized regulation to the exclusion of examining underlying values, and failed to adequately engage the public. METHODS: This research investigates the application of scenario planning, a tool developed in the high-stakes, uncertainty-ridden world of corporate strategy, for the equally high-stakes and uncertain world of the governance of emerging technologies. The scenario planning methodology is non-predictive, looking instead at a spread of plausible futures which diverge in their implications for different communities' needs, cares, and desires. RESULTS: In this article we share how the scenario development process can further understandings of the complex and dynamic systems which generate and shape new biomedical technologies and provide opportunities to re-examine and re-think questions of governance, ethics and values. We detail the results of a year-long scenario planning study that engaged experts from the biological sciences, bioethics, social sciences, law, policy, private industry, and civic organizations to articulate alternative futures of human genome editing. CONCLUSIONS: Through sharing and critiquing our methodological approach and results of this study, we advance understandings of anticipatory methods deployed in bioethics, demonstrating how this approach provides unique insights and helps to derive better research questions and policy strategies.

Physician-Investigator, Research Coordinator, and Patient Perspectives on Dual-Role Consent in Oncology: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Classic statements of research ethics generally advise against dual-role consent in which physician-investigators seek consent for research participation from patients with whom they have preexisting treatment relationships. Yet dual-role consent is common in clinical oncology research, as studies are often conducted in close relationship with clinical care. Objective: To explore key stakeholders' perspectives on dual-role consent in clinical oncology trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study with 43 participants was conducted at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center from 2018 to 2022. Semistructured qualitative interviews of physician-investigators, research coordinators, and patients were performed. Respondents were recruited from 3 populations: (1) physician-investigators engaged in clinical oncology research; (2) research coordinators engaged in clinical oncology research; and (3) patients, with and without prior clinical trial experience, who had received a new cancer diagnosis at least 2 months prior to enrollment in this study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Interviews were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. A thematic analysis approach was used to develop a codebook that included both theory-driven, a priori codes and emergent, inductive codes. Two authors double-coded all transcripts and met regularly to compare coding, discuss discrepancies, refine the codebook, and draft memos describing relevant themes and their frequency. Results: Among the 43 respondents, 28 (65.1%) were female; 9 (20.9%) were African American, 8 (18.6%) were Asian, 6 (14.0%) were Hispanic, and 21 (48.8%) were White; 15 were physician-investigators (6 [40.0%] with 6-10 years of experience, 4 [26.7%] with at least 20 years of experience), 13 were research coordinators (5 [38.5%] with 0-5 years of experience, 5 [38.5%] with 6-10 years of experience), and 15 were patients (9 [60.0%] aged 46-64 years). Four main themes were found: interviewees (1) perceived greater potential for role synergy than for role conflict; (2) reported dual-role consent as having mixed effects on the consent process, increasing prospective participants' understanding and likelihood of agreement while also challenging voluntariness; (3) preferred a team-based approach to the consent process in which physician-investigators and research coordinators share responsibility for communicating with prospective participants and safeguarding voluntariness; and (4) offered strategies for managing tensions in dual-role consent. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study found that concerns about dual-role consent in clinical oncology, while valid, may be outweighed by corresponding advantages, particularly if appropriate mitigation strategies are in place. These findings support a team-based approach to informed consent, in which physician-investigators and research coordinators promote both the understanding and voluntariness of prospective participants.

Think Pragmatically: Investigators' Obligations to Patient-Subjects When Research is Embedded in Care.

Growing interest in embedded research approaches-where research is incorporated into clinical care-has spurred numerous studies to generate knowledge relevant to the real-world needs of patients and other stakeholders. However, it also has presented ethical challenges. An emerging challenge is how to understand the nature and extent of investigators' obligations to patient-subjects. Prior scholarship on investigator duties has generally been grounded upon the premise that research and clinical care are distinct activities, bearing distinct duties. Yet this premise-and its corresponding implications-are challenged when research and clinical care are deliberately integrated. After presenting three case studies from recent pragmatic clinical trials, we identify six differences between explanatory trials and embedded research that limit the application of existing scholarship for ascertaining investigator duties. We suggest that these limitations indicate a need to account for the implications of usual care and to move beyond a narrow focus on the investigator-subject dyad, one that better reflects the team- and institution-based nature of contemporary health systems.

A Pregnant Pause: System-Level Barriers to Perinatal Mental Health Care.

Perinatal mood and anxiety disorders, defined as mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy and the year following birth, affect one in five pregnant and postpartum individuals in the United States and are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality for both pregnant individuals and their infants. Despite this tremendous prevalence and associated disease burden, the overwhelming majority of those affected do not receive treatment. Although prior research has identified several patient-level barriers to effective treatment, the contributions of system-level factors have been underappreciated. We present a pilot study using a simulated patient approach to describe the accessibility and affordability of mental health care through the 18 clinics affiliated with U.S. reproductive psychiatry fellowship programs. Based on our experience, a prospective patient seeking care from these 18 clinics without a prior referral would only have been successful half of the time-and even then may have to wait as long as 2 months for an initial appointment. These data underscore the need for clinicians, public health professionals, and institutions to address system-level barriers that undermine effective referrals for care, including implementing "warm-handoffs" to mental health providers and ending practices that restrict appointments to existing patients within a health care system. They also reinforce the importance of contemporary federal policy efforts to address maternal health, particularly among low-income and racially minoritized communities. Key policies include expanding postpartum insurance coverage, which plays a critical role in reducing insurance disruptions that can undermine the accessibility of mental health care and other vital health services.

Do Clinicians Have a Duty to Participate in Pragmatic Clinical Trials?

Clinicians have good moral and professional reasons to contribute to pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs). We argue that clinicians have a defeasible duty to participate in this research that takes place in usual care settings and does not involve substantive deviation from their ordinary care practices. However, a variety of countervailing reasons may excuse clinicians from this duty in particular cases. Yet because there is a moral default in favor of participating, clinicians who wish to opt out of this research must justify their refusal. Reasons to refuse include that the trial is badly designed in some way, that the trial activities will violate the clinician's conscience, or that the trial will impose excessive burdens on the clinician.

Paid Leave for Fathers: Policy, Practice, and Reform.

Policy Points Government policies that secure paid leave for all parents, regardless of gender, can reduce structural inequalities, while promoting fathers' engagement in parenting. Such policies are likely to be most effective when they secure full, or almost full wage replacement, and when they provide incentives for fathers to take leave. Organizations must also participate in the culture shift, providing workplaces that encourage paternity leave rather than reinforcing the "male breadwinner" stigma.

Ethics challenges in sharing data from pragmatic clinical trials.

Numerous arguments have been advanced for broadly sharing de-identified, participant-level clinical trials data, and trial sponsors and journals are increasingly requiring it. However, data sharing in pragmatic clinical trials presents ethical challenges related to the use of waivers or alterations of informed consent for some pragmatic clinical trials and corresponding limitations of informed consent to guide sharing decisions; the potential for data sharing in pragmatic clinical trials to present risks not only for individual patient-subjects, but also for health systems and the clinicians within them; sharing of data from electronic health records instead of data newly collected for research purposes; and researchers' limited capacity to control sensitive data within an electronic health record and potential implications of such limits for meeting obligations inherent to Certificates of Confidentiality. These challenges raise questions about the extent to which traditional research ethics governance structures are capable of guiding decisions about pragmatic clinical trial data sharing. This article identifies and examines these ethical challenges for pragmatic clinical trial data sharing. We suggest several areas for future empirical scholarship, including the need to identify patient and public attitudes regarding pragmatic clinical trial data sharing as well as to assess the demand for pragmatic clinical trial data and the correspondingly likely benefit of such sharing. Further conceptual work is also needed to explore how requirements to respect patient-subjects about whom data are shared in the context of pragmatic clinical trials should be understood, particularly in the absence of informed consent for initial research activities, and the appropriate balance between promoting the generation of socially valuable knowledge and respecting autonomy.

Toward Meeting the Obligation of Respect for Persons in Pragmatic Clinical Trials.

Research ethics oversight systems have traditionally emphasized the informed consent process as the primary means by which to demonstrate respect for prospective subjects. Yet how researchers can best fulfill the ethical obligations of respect for persons in pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs)-particularly those that may alter or waive informed consent-remains unknown. We propose eight dimensions of demonstrating respect in PCTs: (1) engaging patients and communities in research design and execution, (2) promoting transparency and open communication, (3) maximizing agency, (4) minimizing burdens and promoting accessibility, (5) protecting privacy and confidentiality, (6) valuing interpersonal interactions with clinicians and study team members, (7) providing compensation, and (8) maximizing social value. While what respect requires in the context of PCTs will vary based on the nature of the PCT in question, the breadth of these dimensions demonstrates that respect obligations extend beyond informed consent processes.

Streamlined versus traditional consent for low-risk comparative effectiveness trials: a randomized experimental study to measure patients' and public attitudes.

Aim: Streamlining consent for low-risk comparative effectiveness research (CER) could facilitate research, while safeguarding patients' rights. Materials & methods: 2618 adults were randomized to one of seven consent approaches (six streamlined and one traditional) for a hypothetical, low-risk CER study. A survey measured understanding, voluntariness, and feelings of respect. Results: Participants in all arms had a high understanding of the trial and positive attitudes toward the consent interaction. Highest satisfaction was with a streamlined approach showing a video before the medical appointment. Participants in streamlined were more likely to mistakenly think a signature was required. Conclusion: Streamlined consent was no less acceptable than traditional, signed consent. Streamlined and traditional approaches achieved similar levels of understanding, voluntariness and a feeling that the doctor-patient interaction was respectful.

Responding to signals of mental and behavioral health risk in pragmatic clinical trials: Ethical obligations in a healthcare ecosystem.

BACKGROUND: Ethical responsibilities for monitoring and responding to signals of behavioral and mental health risk (such as suicidal ideation, opioid use disorder, or depression) in general clinical research have been described; however, pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) raise new contextual challenges. METHODS: We use our experience with the PRISM (Pragmatic and Implementation Studies for the Management of Pain to Reduce Opioid Prescribing) program, which is a component of the Helping End Addiction Long-Term (HEAL) Initiative, to provide examples of research studying nonpharmacologic interventions for pain that collect sensitive data. Members of the PRISM Ethics and Regulatory Core and Patient-Centered Outcome Core Working Group discussed and refined considerations and recommendations. RESULTS: PCT researchers can help identify the extent of their ethical obligations to monitor and respond to signals of potential behavioral and mental health risks by understanding and aligning stakeholder expectations; considering characteristics of the trial and study population; defining triggers, thresholds, and responsibilities for action; identifying appropriate response mechanisms and capabilities; integrating responses with health systems; and addressing privacy. Based on such an assessment, researchers should proactively identify if, when, and how a response will be triggered. Doing so necessitates that stakeholders understand their roles in managing such risks. Finally, consent forms and other study disclosures should clearly state what if any responses might be taken. CONCLUSION: Early and ongoing bi-directional communication with relevant stakeholders is critical to identifying and meeting the ethical challenges for PCTs when managing and responding to behavioral and mental health data that potentially signal elevated risk to individuals.

Patients' Reactions to Letters Communicating Collateral Findings of Pragmatic Clinical Trials: a National Web-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND: Collateral findings in pragmatic clinical trials are findings that may have implications for patients' health but were not generated to address a trial's primary research questions. It is uncertain how best to communicate these collateral findings to patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine how reactions to a letter communicating collateral findings relate to who signed the letter, the type of finding, or whether the letter specified that the finding arose from a pragmatic clinical trial. RESEARCH DESIGN: Web-based survey experiment using a between-subjects design in which respondents were randomly assigned within education strata to view and respond to 1 of 16 hypothetical scenarios. SUBJECTS: Adults recruited from an online panel constructed from a probability sample of US-based postal addresses. MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the action the respondent would take next (i.e., contact a doctor immediately or something else) and the respondent's emotional reactions (i.e., all positive, all negative, mixed, or none). RESULTS: A total of 4080 respondents had analyzable data. Although some effects were statistically significant (P < .05), none exceeded a prespecified threshold for policy relevance (15 or more percentage points). Ratings of letter clarity and level of understanding were lower for letters that included a description of the clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: Signatory and level of detail about collateral findings did not substantially affect people's intentions to take the recommended action of contacting their doctor. Deciding whether to include a description of the pragmatic clinical trial requires a trade-off between transparency and more difficulty understanding the contents of the letter.