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.

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.

Newborn Male Circumcision.

This symposium includes twelve personal narratives from parents about making the decision whether to circumcise their infant male children. The authors of the narratives include five fathers and seven mothers. Nine of the 12 parent authors opted to circumcise their infant sons, though the reasons they stated for doing so varied. Most of the parent authors relied on cultural or social beliefs, religious guidance, or a desire for sameness with the infant's father. Parents who didn't circumcise their male infants discuss their convictions about autonomy, bodily rights, and the medical benefits of circumcision versus the harm or pain caused by the procedure. The symposium includes four expert commentaries on the narratives that are informed and enriched by the commentators' expertise in pediatric bioethics, healthcare ethics, gender studies, Jewish law and tradition, and the medical and surgical techniques of circumcision.

Impact of education on APOL1 testing attitudes among prospective living kidney donors.

It is unknown how providing prospective living donors with information about APOL1, including the benefits and drawbacks of testing, influences their desire for testing. In this study, we surveyed 102 participants with self-reported African ancestry and positive family history of kidney disease, recruited from our nephrology waiting room. We assessed views on APOL1 testing before and after presentation of a set of potential benefits and drawbacks of testing and quantified the self-reported level of influence individual benefits and drawbacks had on participants' desire for testing in the proposed context of living donation. The majority of participants (92%) were aware of organ donation and more than half (56%) had considered living donation. And though we found no significant change in response following presentation of the potential benefits and the drawbacks of APOL1 testing by study end significance, across all participants, "becoming aware of the potential risk of kidney disease among your immediate family" was the benefit with the highest mean influence (3.3±1.4), while the drawback with the highest mean influence (2.9±1.5) was "some transplant centers may not allow you to donate to a loved one". This study provides insights into the priorities of prospective living donors and suggests concern for how the information affects family members may strongly influence desires for testing. It also highlights the need for greater community engagement to gain a deeper understanding of the priorities that influence decision making on APOL1 testing.

Barriers and facilitators to qualitative data sharing in the United States: A survey of qualitative researchers.

Qualitative health data are rarely shared in the United States (U.S.). This is unfortunate because gathering qualitative data is labor and time-intensive, and data sharing enables secondary research, training, and transparency. A new U.S. federal policy mandates data sharing by 2023, and is agnostic to data type. We surveyed U.S. qualitative researchers (N = 425) on the barriers and facilitators of sharing qualitative health or sensitive research data. Most researchers (96%) have never shared qualitative data in a repository. Primary concerns were lack of participant permission to share data, data sensitivity, and breaching trust. Researcher willingness to share would increase if participants agreed and if sharing increased the societal impact of their research. Key resources to increase willingness to share were funding, guidance, and de-identification assistance. Public health and biomedical researchers were most willing to share. Qualitative researchers need to prepare for this new reality as sharing qualitative data requires unique considerations.

Living with Mental Health Challenges: Personal Stories of Recovery from Across the Globe.

This symposium includes twelve personal narratives from individuals who live with serious mental health challenges that are sometimes diagnosed as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, or other conditions. Such challenges are often persistent, lead to stigma and discrimination, and can deeply affect quality of life. Serious mental health challenges are frequently approached as life-long medical conditions, given a diagnosis and treated with medications. However, some pursue non-medical treatments, peer support, use diet and exercise to promote wellness, embrace models of recovery, and function well even when symptoms persist. Approaches often differ across nations, depending upon their resources and philosophy of mental health challenges. Three commentaries on these narratives are also included, authored by experts and scholars in the fields of cultural psychiatry, refugee mental health, human rights advocacy, child's health, and global mental health. We intend this collection of stories to broaden the range of acceptable responses to mental health challenges, raise awareness of stigma and bias in mental health care, and share the wisdom and preferences of those living with mental health challenges.

Serious Ethical Violations in Medicine: A Statistical and Ethical Analysis of 280 Cases in the United States From 2008-2016.

Serious ethical violations in medicine, such as sexual abuse, criminal prescribing of opioids, and unnecessary surgeries, directly harm patients and undermine trust in the profession of medicine. We review the literature on violations in medicine and present an analysis of 280 cases. Nearly all cases involved repeated instances (97%) of intentional wrongdoing (99%), by males (95%) in nonacademic medical settings (95%), with oversight problems (89%) and a selfish motive such as financial gain or sex (90%). More than half of cases involved a wrongdoer with a suspected personality disorder or substance use disorder (51%). Despite clear patterns, no factors provide readily observable red flags, making prevention difficult. Early identification and intervention in cases requires significant policy shifts that prioritize the safety of patients over physician interests in privacy, fair processes, and proportionate disciplinary actions. We explore a series of 10 questions regarding policy, oversight, discipline, and education options. Satisfactory answers to these questions will require input from diverse stakeholders to help society negotiate effective and ethically balanced solutions.

Sexual Violation of Patients by Physicians: A Mixed-Methods, Exploratory Analysis of 101 Cases.

A mixed-method, exploratory design was used to examine 101 cases of sexual violations in medicine. The study involved content analysis of cases to characterize the physicians, patient-victims, the practice setting, kinds of sexual violations, and consequences to the perpetrator. In each case, a criminal law framework was used to examine how motives, means, and opportunity combined to generate sexual misconduct. Finally, cross-case analysis was performed to identify clusters of causal factors that explain specific kinds of sexual misconduct. Most cases involved a combination of five factors: male physicians (100%), older than the age of 39 (92%), who were not board certified (70%), practicing in nonacademic settings (94%) where they always examined patients alone (85%). Only three factors (suspected antisocial personality, physician board certification, and vulnerable patients) differed significantly across the different kinds of sexual abuse: personality disorders were suspected most frequently in cases of rape, physicians were more frequently board certified in cases of consensual sex with patients, and patients were more commonly vulnerable in cases of child molestation. Drawing on study findings and past research, we offer a series of recommendations to medical schools, medical boards, chaperones, patients, and the national practitioners database.