Patient Navigation Plus Tailored Digital Video Disc Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Low-Income and Minority Patients Who Did Not Attend a Scheduled Screening Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of people scheduled for screening colonoscopy do not complete this test and no studies have focused on minority and low-income populations. Interventions are needed to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, reduce barriers, and provide alternative screening options. Patient navigation (PN) and tailored interventions increase CRC screening uptake, however there is limited information comparing their effectiveness or the effect of combining them. PURPOSE: Compare the effectiveness of two interventions to increase CRC screening among minority and low-income individuals who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointment-a mailed tailored digital video disc (DVD) alone versus the mailed DVD plus telephone-based PN compared to usual care. METHODS: Patients (n = 371) aged 45-75 years at average risk for CRC who did not attend a screening colonoscopy appointment were enrolled and were randomized to: (i) a mailed tailored DVD; (ii) the mailed DVD plus phone-based PN; or (iii) usual care. CRC screening outcomes were from electronic medical records at 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to study intervention effects. RESULTS: Participants randomized to tailored DVD plus PN were four times more likely to complete CRC screening compared to usual care and almost two and a half times more likely than those who were sent the DVD alone. CONCLUSIONS: Combining telephone-based PN with a mailed, tailored DVD increased CRC screening among low-income and minority patients who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointments and has potential for wide dissemination.

Up to half of people scheduled for a screening colonoscopy do not complete this test. There is a need for interventions to improve knowledge about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, enhance access to screening by offering alternative test options, foster skills for completing screening, and mitigate barriers. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two interventions aimed at increasing CRC screening­a mailed tailored digital video disc (DVD) alone versus the mailed DVD plus telephone-based patient navigation (PN)­for patients who had not completed a scheduled screening colonoscopy. We enrolled 371 patients aged 45­75 years who had no CRC risk factors other than age, who were scheduled for a screening colonoscopy but did not attend their appointment. Participants were randomized to receive either: (i) a mailed tailored DVD; (ii) the mailed DVD plus phone-based PN; or (iii) usual care. Those who received the tailored DVD plus PN were four times more likely to complete CRC screening with stool test or colonoscopy compared to usual care. Combining telephone-based PN with a mailed, tailored DVD increased CRC screening among low-income and minority patients who did not attend a scheduled screening colonoscopy appointment.

Returning Clinically Relevant Research Results to Participants: Guidelines for Investigators and the IRB.

In 2019, the revised Common Rule required informed consent documents for research to include a statement about whether clinically relevant research results would be returned to research participants. While there are national discussions regarding the return of results, these do not provide specific guidance about how institutional review boards (IRBs) should address this issue. Through a year-long process involving IRB staff and leadership, science and bioethics faculty members, community IRB members, and others, Indiana University's human research protection program created a framework that offers a clear categorization of types of results for researchers to consider returning, provides language for informed consent documents, and describes an active but intentionally limited role for the IRB. In this article, we describe this framework and its rationale as a model for other universities and, more generally, as a model for balancing the need to protect human subjects with efforts to limit the burdens on researchers and the IRB.

Selling Clinical Biospecimens: Guidance for Researchers and Private Industry.

The recently revised Common Rule requires that donors of biospecimens for research be informed if their specimens might be used for commercial profit. The Common Rule, however, does not apply to sharing or selling de-identified biospecimens that are "leftover" from clinical uses. As a result, many medical researchers remain uncertain of their legal and ethical obligations when a commercial entity expresses interest in these specimens.

Patient understanding of pharmacogenomic test results in clinical care.

OBJECTIVE: Previous research has not objectively assessed patients' comprehension of their pharmacogenomic test results. In this study we assessed understanding of patients who had undergone cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) pharmacogenomic testing. METHODS: 31 semi-structured interviews with patients who underwent CYP2C19 testing after cardiac catheterization and had been sent a brochure, letter, and wallet card explaining their results. Answers to Likert and binary questions were summarized with descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach, with particular focus on categorization. RESULTS: No participants knew the name of the gene tested or their metabolizer status. Seven participants (23%) knew whether the testing identified any medications that would have lower effectiveness or increased adverse effects for them at standard doses ("Adequate Understanding"). Four participants (13%) read their results from the letter or wallet card they received but had no independent understanding ("Reliant on Written Materials"). Ten participants remembered receiving the written materials (32%). CONCLUSION: A majority of participants who had undergone CYP2C19 PGx testing did not understand their results at even a minimal level and would be unable to communicate them to future providers. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further research is necessary to improve patient understanding of PGx testing and their results, potentially through improving patient-provider communication.

Measuring the Impact of Quantitative Information on Patient Understanding: Approaches for Assessing the Adequacy of Patient Knowledge about Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Background. Guidelines recommend that decision aids disclose quantitative information to patients considering colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but the impact on patient knowledge and decision making is limited. An important challenge for assessing any disclosure involves determining when an individual has "adequate knowledge" to make a decision. Methods. We analyzed data from a trial that randomized 213 patients to view a decision aid about CRC screening that contained verbal information (qualitative arm) versus one containing verbal plus quantitative information (quantitative arm). We analyzed participants' answers to 8 "qualitative knowledge" questions, which did not cover the quantitative information, at baseline (T0) and after viewing the decision aid (T1). We introduce a novel approach that defines adequate knowledge as correctly answering all of a subset of questions that are particularly relevant because of the participant's test choice ("Choice-Based Knowledge Assessment"). Results. Participants in the quantitative arm answered a higher mean number of knowledge questions correctly at T1 than did participants in the qualitative arm (7.3 v. 6.9, P < 0.05), and they more frequently had adequate knowledge at T1 based on a cutoff of 6 or 7 correct out of 8 (94% v. 83%, P < 0.05, and 86% v. 71%, P < 0.05, respectively). Members of the quantitative group also more frequently had adequate knowledge at T1 when assessed by Choice-Based Knowledge Assessment (87% v. 76%, P < 0.05). Conclusions. Patients who viewed quantitative information in addition to verbal information had greater qualitative knowledge and more frequently had adequate knowledge compared with those who viewed verbal information alone, according to most ways of defining adequate knowledge. Quantitative information may have helped participants better understand qualitative or gist concepts. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID# NCT01415479. Highlights: Patients who viewed quantitative information in a decision aid about colorectal cancer screening were more knowledgeable about nonquantitative information and were more likely to have adequate knowledge according to a variety of approaches for assessing that, compared with individuals who viewed only qualitative information. This result supports the inclusion of quantitative information in decision aids.Researchers assessing patient understanding should consider a variety of ways to define adequate knowledge when assessing decision quality.

Rethinking Decision Quality: Measures, Meaning, and Bioethics.

Studies of patient decision-making use many different measures to evaluate the quality of decisions and the decision-making process, partly to determine whether the ethical goals of informed consent, patient autonomy, and shared decision-making have been achieved. We describe these measures, grouped under three main approaches, and review their limitations, leading to three conclusions. First, no measure or combination of measures can provide a complete assessment of decision quality. Second, the quality of a decision is best characterized vaguely, for instance as "good," "satisfactory," or "poor," and these categorizations depend on qualitative judgments that go beyond quantitative measures. Third, bioethicists should focus on identifying and addressing poor or problematic decisions, rather than trying to incrementally increase decision quality, quantified by a measure. Decision-quality measures can be useful in research and in advancing important goals of bioethics, as long as the challenges of defining and measuring decision quality are recognized.

Process Evaluation of a Mailed Interactive Educational DVD in a Comparative Effectiveness Trial to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening.

A process evaluation was conducted as part of a comparative effectiveness trial of a mailed interactive educational DVD intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening among average-risk patients who did not attend a scheduled colonoscopy. Participants (n = 371) for the trial were randomized to (1) mailed DVD, (2) mailed DVD plus patient navigation, or (3) usual care. Participants (n = 243) randomized to the two DVD intervention arms were called 2 weeks after mailing materials to complete a process evaluation interview about the DVD (September 2017-February 2020). Forty-nine (20%) participants were not reached, and 194 (80%) participants watched the DVD and completed the interview. The process evaluation assessed whether (1) the DVD content was helpful, (2) any new information was learned by participants, (3) the appropriate amount of information was included in the DVD, (4) participants were engaged when watching the DVD, (5) the DVD content was relevant, (6) participants were satisfied with the DVD (7) participants would recommend the DVD to others, and (8) their opinion about colorectal cancer screening was changed by watching the DVD. Among participants who watched the DVD, 99% reported the screening information was very or somewhat helpful, 47% learned new information, 75% said the DVD included the right amount of information, they were engaged (M = 3.35 out of 4, SD = 0.49), 87% reported all or most information applied to them, they were satisfied (M = 3.42 out of 4, SD = 0.39) with DVD content, 99% would recommend the DVD to others, and 45% reported changing their opinion about screening. To understand the effects of interventions being tested in trials and to plan the dissemination of evidence-based interventions, process evaluation is critical to assess the dose received and acceptability of behavioral interventions.

Collecting Biospecimens and Obtaining Biobank Consent From Patients in an Academic Health Care Setting: Practical and Ethical Considerations.

Academic health centers and health systems increasingly ask patients to enroll in research biobanks as part of standard care, raising important practical and ethical questions for integrating biobank consent processes into health care settings. This article aims to assist academic health centers and health systems considering implementing these integrated consent processes by outlining the 5 main issues-and the key practical and ethical considerations for each issue-that Indiana University Health and the Indiana Biobank faced when integrating biobank consent into their health system, as well as the key obstacles encountered. The 5 main issues to consider include the specimen to collect (leftover, new collection, or add-ons to clinical tests), whether to use opt-in or opt-out consent, where to approach patients, how to effectively use digital tools for consent, and how to appropriately simplify consent information.

Biobank Participants' Attitudes Toward Data Sharing and Privacy: The Role of Trust in Reducing Perceived Risks.

Biobank participants are often unaware of possible uses of their genetic and health information, despite explicit descriptions of those uses in consent forms. To explore why this misunderstanding persists, we conducted semi-structured interviews and knowledge tests with 22 participants who had recently enrolled in a research biobank. Results indicated that participants lacked understanding of privacy and data-sharing topics but were mostly unconcerned about associated risks. Participants described their answers on the knowledge test as largely driven by their trust in the healthcare system, not by a close reading of the information presented to them. This finding may help explain the difficulties in increasing participant understanding of privacy-related topics, even when such information is clearly presented in biobank consent forms.

Biobank Participants' Attitudes toward Requiring Understanding for Biobank Consent.

Biobank participants often do not understand the information they are provided during the informed consent process. Ethicists and other stakeholders have disagreed, however, on the appropriate response to these failures in understanding. This paper describes an attempt to address this issue by conducting knowledge tests with 22 recent biobank enrollees, followed by in-depth, semistructured interviews about the goal of understanding in biobank consent. The interviews revealed that while biobank enrollees thought the information on the knowledge test was important, they did not think that performance on the test should affect whether individuals are permitted to enroll in a biobank. Three main themes emerged from the interviews: helping others by contributing to research is more important than understanding consent forms, less understanding is required because biobank-based research is low risk, and only a small amount of information in the consent form is really essential. These perspectives should be considered in discussing the ethics and governance of biobank consent processes.

Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation.

PURPOSE: We carried out the first public deliberation to elicit lay input regarding guidelines for the design and evaluation of decision aids, focusing on the example of colorectal ("colon") cancer screening. METHODS: A random, demographically stratified sample of 28 laypeople convened for 4 days, during which they were informed about key issues regarding colon cancer, screening tests, risk communication, and decision aids. Participants then deliberated in small and large group sessions about the following: 1) What information should be included in all decision aids for colon screening? 2) What risk information should be in a decision aid and how should risk information be presented? 3) What makes a screening decision a good one (reasonable or legitimate)? 4) What makes a decision aid and the advice it provides trustworthy? With the help of a trained facilitator, the deliberants formulated recommendations, and a vote was held on each to identify support and alternative views. RESULTS: Twenty-one recommendations ("deliberative conclusions") were strongly supported. Some conclusions matched current recommendations, such as that decision aids should be available for use with and without providers present (conclusions 1-4) and should support informed choice (conclusion 9). Some conclusions differed from current recommendations, at least in emphasis-for example, that decision aids should disclose cost of screening (conclusion 11) and should be kept simple and understandable (conclusion 14). Deliberants recommended that decision aids should disclose the baseline risk of getting colon cancer (conclusions 15, 17). LIMITATIONS: Single location and medical decision. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines for design of decision aids should consider putting a greater focus on disclosing cost and keeping decision aids simple, and they possibly should recommend disclosing less extensive amounts of quantitative information than currently recommended.

Incorporating Biobank Consent into a Healthcare Setting: Challenges for Patient Understanding.

BACKGROUND: Biobank participants often do not understand much of the information they are provided as part of the informed consent process, despite numerous attempts at simplifying consent forms and improving their readability. We report the first assessment of biobank enrollees' comprehension under an "integrated consent" process, where patients were asked to enroll in a research biobank as part of their normal healthcare experience. A number of healthcare systems have implemented similar integrated consent processes for biobanking, but it is unknown how much patients understand after enrolling under these conditions. Methods: We recruited patients who enrolled in a biobank while in a healthcare setting when receiving ordinary care. We assessed knowledge of consent materials using 11 true/false questions drawn from a well-known biobank knowledge test. After reviewing the results from 114 participants, we revised the consent form and repeated the knowledge assessment with 144 different participants. Results: Participants scored poorly on the knowledge test in both rounds, with no significant differences in overall scores or individual items between the rounds. In Phase 1, participants answered 53% of the questions correctly, 25% incorrectly, and 22% "I don't know." In Phase 2, participants answered 53% of questions correctly, 24% incorrectly, and 23% "I don't know." Participants scored particularly poorly on questions about data sharing and accessing medical records. Conclusions: Enrollees under an integrated consent model had significant misunderstandings that persisted despite an attempt to improve information specifically about those topics in a consent form. These results raise challenges for current approaches that attribute misunderstanding to overly complex consent forms. They also suggest that the pressures of the clinic may compound other problems with patient understanding of biobank consent. As health systems increasingly blend research and care, they may need to rethink their approach to educating patients about participation in a biobank.

Genetic Data Aren't So Special: Causes and Implications of Reidentification.

Genetic information is widely thought to pose unique risks of reidentifying individuals. Genetic data reveals a great deal about who we are and, the standard view holds, should consequently be treated differently from other types of data. Contrary to this view, we argue that the dangers of reidentification for genetic and nongenetic data-including health, financial, and consumer information-are more similar than has been recognized. Before different requirements are imposed around sharing genetic information, proponents of the standard view must show that they are in fact necessary. We further argue that the similarities between genetic and nongenetic information have important implications for communicating risks during consent for health care and research. While patients and research participants need to be more aware of pervasive data-sharing practices, consent forms are the wrong place to provide this education. Instead, health systems should engage with patients throughout patient care to educate them about data-sharing practices.

Anticipatory Waivers of Consent for Pediatric Biobanking.

As pediatric biobank research grows, additional guidance will be needed about whether researchers should always obtain consent from participants when they reach the legal age of majority. Biobanks struggle with a range of practical and ethical issues related to this question. We propose a framework for the use of anticipatory waivers of consent that is empirically rooted in research that shows that children and adolescents are often developmentally capable of meaningful deliberation about the risks and benefits of participation in research. Accordingly, bright-line legal concepts of majority or competency do not accurately capture the emerging capacity for autonomous decision-making of many pediatric research participants and unnecessarily complicate the issues about contacting participants at the age of majority to obtain consent for the continued or first use of their biospecimens that were obtained during childhood. We believe the proposed framework provides an ethically sound balance between the concern for potential exploitation of vulnerable populations, the impetus for the federal regulations governing research with children, and the need to conduct valuable research in the age of genomic medicine.

Impact of including quantitative information in a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend that decision aids provide quantitative information about risks and benefits of available options. Impact of providing this information is unknown. METHODS: Randomized trial comparing two decision aids about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT). 688 primary care patients due for CRC screening viewed a decision aid that uses words only (Verbal arm) vs. one that provides quantitative information (Quantitative arm). Main outcomes included perceived CRC risk, intent to be screened, and test preference, measured before and after viewing decision aid, and screening uptake at six months. Analyses were performed with ANCOVA and logistic regression. RESULTS: Compared to the Verbal arm, those in the Quantitative arm had a larger increase in intent to undergo FIT (p = 0.011) and were more likely to switch their preferred test from non-FIT to FIT (28% vs. 19%, p = .010). There were decreases in perceived risk in the Verbal Arm but not the Quantitative Arm (p = 0.004). There was no difference in screening uptake. Numeracy did not moderate any effects. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative information had relatively minor impact and no clearly negative effects, such as reducing uptake. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Quantitative information may be useful but not essential for patients viewing decision aids.