Defining Personas of People Living with Chronic Pain: An Ethnographic Research Study.

Introduction: Pain is the leading reason for which people seek medical care in the United States, and chronic pain (CP) affects approximately 50 million people in the US Pain perception is deeply personal, is highly correlated with behavioral and emotional disorders, and is greatly influenced by physiological and environmental factors. The patient-provider relationship can have profound implications for clinical outcomes within the context of treating CP. However, limited access to pain specialists, the complex nature of many CP-causing conditions, the absence of instruments for objective pain measurement, and the need to foster a trust-based patient-provider relationship throughout treatment pose unique challenges. Objective: To support a more optimal CP care delivery system that leverages a healthy therapeutic patient-provider relationship, we systematically gathered deeper knowledge of the behaviors, interpersonal dynamics, home environment, values, and mindsets of people who experience CP. Methods: We employed ethnographic research methods to collect and analyze data on views, habits, strategies, attitudes, and life circumstances of a range of participants living with CP. We aggregated, analyzed, and summarized participant data to identify trends and similarities. Results: Our findings suggest that patients can be broadly categorized into five predominant pain typologies, or "personas", which are characterized by respective symptom durations, care management preferences, values, communication styles, and behaviors. Conclusion: Identifying CP personas may enhance the ability to personalize CP care and help foster more robust therapeutic relationships, which may lead to greater trust, improved patient satisfaction, and better clinical outcomes.

Research on Medical Practices: Why Patients Consider Participating and the Investigational Misconception.

Understanding how patients decide whether to enroll in research can help improve educational materials, protocols, and recruitment rates. However, little is known about patients' willingness to participate in research on medical practices (ROMP), or studies comparing interventions within usual care. We assessed willingness to consider participating in ROMP by surveying 1095 adults in the United States, of whom 834 answered at least one open-ended question about their reasons for being willing or unwilling to consider participating in two scenarios involving ROMP. Most respondents were willing to consider participating in the research scenarios. The most commonly cited reasons for being willing to consider participating included benefit to others and oneself; the top reasons for being unwilling to consider participating included belief that the research was unsafe and an unfavorable view of experimentation. Responses also revealed misconceptions about ROMP among both those who were willing and unwilling to consider participating. Because these misconceptions may present an obstacle to recruiting participants in ROMP, there may be a need for educational initiatives to clarify the nature of these types of studies.

Adrift in the Gray Zone: IRB Perspectives on Research in the Learning Health System.

BACKGROUND: Human subjects protection in healthcare contexts rests on the premise that a principled boundary distinguishes clinical research and clinical practice. However, growing use of evidence-based clinical practices by health systems makes it increasingly difficult to disentangle research from a wide range of clinical activities that are sometimes called "research on medical practice" (ROMP), including quality improvement activities and comparative effectiveness research. The recent growth of ROMP activities has created an ethical and regulatory gray zone with significant implications for the oversight of human subjects research. METHODS: We conducted six semi-structured, open-ended focus group discussions with IRB members to understand their experiences and perspectives on ethical oversight of ROMP, including randomization of patients to standard treatments. RESULTS: Our study revealed that IRB members are unclear or divided on the central questions at stake in the current policy debate over ethical oversight of ROMP: IRB members struggle to make a clear distinction between clinical research and medical practice improvement, lack consensus on when ROMP requires IRB review and oversight, and are uncertain about what constitutes incremental risk when patients are randomized to different treatments, any of which may be offered in usual care. They characterized the central challenge as a balancing act, between, on the one hand, making information fully transparent to patients and providing adequate oversight, and on the other hand, avoiding a chilling effect on the research process or harming the physician-patient relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based guidance that supports IRB members in providing adequate and effective oversight of ROMP without impeding the research process or harming the physician-patient relationship is necessary to realize the full benefits of the learning health system.

A comparison of institutional review board professionals' and patients' views on consent for research on medical practices.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In the context of research on medical practices, which includes comparative effectiveness research and pragmatic clinical trials, empirical studies have begun to raise questions about the extent to which institutional review boards' interpretations and applications of research regulations align with patients' values. To better understand the similarities and differences between these stakeholder groups, we compare and contrast two surveys: one of institutional review board professionals and one of patients, which examine views on consent for research on medical practices. METHODS: We conducted online surveys of two target populations between July 2014 and March 2015. We surveyed 601 human subjects research professionals out of 1500 randomly selected from the Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research membership list (40.1% response rate), limiting analysis to 537 respondents who reported having had institutional review board experience. We also surveyed 120 adult patients out of 225 approached at subspecialty clinics in Spokane, Washington (53.3% response rate). Our survey questions probed attitudes about consent in the context of research on medical practices using medical record review and randomization. The patient survey included three embedded animated videos to explain these concepts. RESULTS: A majority of institutional review board professionals distinguished between consent preferences for medical record review and randomization, ranked clinicians as the least preferred person to obtain participant consent (54.6%), and viewed written or verbal permission as the minimum acceptable consent approach for research on medical practices using randomization (87.3%). In contrast, most patients had similar consent preferences for research on medical practices using randomization and medical record review, most preferred to have consent conversations with their doctors rather than with researchers for studies using randomization (72.6%) and medical record review (67.0%), and only a few preferred to see research involving randomization (16.8%) or medical record review (13.8%) not take place if obtaining written or verbal permission would make the research too difficult to conduct. Limitations of our post hoc analysis include differences in framing, structure, and language between the two surveys and possible response bias. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight a need to identify appropriate ways to integrate patient preferences into prevailing regulatory interpretations as institutional review boards increasingly apply research regulations in the context of research on medical practices. Dialogue between institutional review boards and research participants will be an important part of this process and should inform future regulatory guidance.

Patient Perspectives on the Learning Health System: The Importance of Trust and Shared Decision Making.

We conducted focus groups to assess patient attitudes toward research on medical practices in the context of usual care. We found that patients focus on the implications of this research for their relationship with and trust in their physicians. Patients view research on medical practices as separate from usual care, demanding dissemination of information and in most cases, individual consent. Patients expect information about this research to come through their physician, whom they rely on to identify and filter associated risks. In general, patients support this research, but worry that participation in research involving randomization may undermine individualized care that acknowledges their unique medical histories. These findings suggest the need for public education on variation in practice among physicians and the need for a collaborative approach to the governance of research on medical practices that addresses core values of trust, transparency, and partnership.

Attitudes Toward Risk and Informed Consent for Research on Medical Practices: A Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Office for Human Research Protections has proposed that end points of randomized trials comparing the effectiveness of standard medical practices are risks of research that would require disclosure and written informed consent, but data are lacking on the views of potential participants. OBJECTIVE: To assess attitudes of U.S. adults about risks and preferences for notification and consent for research on medical practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted in August 2014. SETTING: Web-based questionnaire. PATIENTS: 1095 U.S. adults sampled from an online panel (n = 805) and an online convenience river sample (n = 290). MEASUREMENTS: Attitudes toward risk, informed consent, and willingness to participate in 3 research scenarios involving medical record review and randomization of usual medical practices. RESULTS: 97% of respondents agreed that health systems should evaluate standard treatments. Most wanted to be asked for permission to participate in each of 3 scenarios (range, 75.2% to 80.4%), even if it involved only medical record review, but most would accept nonwritten (oral) permission or general notification if obtaining written permission would make the research too difficult to conduct (range, 70.2% to 82.7%). Most perceived additional risk from each scenario (range, 64.0% to 81.6%). LIMITATION: Use of hypothetical scenarios and a nonprobability sample that was not fully representative of the U.S. population. CONCLUSION: Most respondents preferred to be asked for permission to participate in observational and randomized research evaluating usual medical practices, but they are willing to accept less elaborate approaches than written consent if research would otherwise be impracticable. These attitudes are not aligned with proposed regulatory guidance. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.