Participants' Preferences and Reasons for Wanting Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results From an HIV-TB Genomic Study: A Case Study From Botswana.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ralefala D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8642165 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Participants' Preferences and Reasons for Wanting Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results From an HIV-TB Genomic Study: A Case Study From Botswana.
Ralefala Dimpho D Kasule Mary M Matshabane Olivia P OP Wonkam Ambroise A Matshaba Mogomotsi M de Vries Jantina J
Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE 20211201 5
The feedback of individual results of genomics research is an ethical issue. However, which genetic results African participants would like to receive and why, remains unclear. A qualitative study was conducted to collect data from 44 adolescents and 49 parents/caregivers of adolescents enrolled in a genomic study in Botswana. Almost all the participants wanted to receive genetic results. Parents and caregivers wanted to receive results across all categories of genetic conditions discussed in th ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background/objectiveDisclosing individual research results to participants is not standard practice. The return of individual research results to participants may increase recruitment, retention, and engagement in research. This study's objective was to explore the preferences, expectations, and experiences of research participants receiving individual research results.MethodsA mixed-methods approach, consisting of semi-structured interviews and a health literacy assessment, was used with participants enrolled in a cohort study. The interviews were analyzed to produce an understanding of current experiences. Using descriptive analyses, responses were compared to identify alignments and divergences among participants.ResultsForty-three English-speaking and 16 Spanish-speaking participants enrolled. Ninety-eight percent of participants wanted to receive their individual research results. Seventy-five percent of participants reported they shared results with their healthcare providers. More participants aged 18-65 reported the need to follow up with their provider (70%) as compared to participants > 65 (20%). Two-thirds of participants reported a positive experience receiving their research results; however, 22% reported anxiety and worry. Most participants (69%) described the electronic medical record (EMR) as their preferred method for receiving their results. Yet only 50% of Spanish speakers preferred receiving research results through the EMR compared to 77% of English speakers. Participants with low health literacy preferred receiving study results in person or by phone.ConclusionResearch participants value receiving their individual research results, and this may increase recruitment and retention within the research enterprise. While more research is needed, the lessons learned from this study lay the groundwork for developing best practices and policies around the return of individual research results.
| S-EPMC11428116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Little is known about how people living with HIV should be engaged in the decision-making process for returning individual pharmacogenomic research results. This study explored the role people living with HIV want to play in making decisions about whether and how individual results of pharmacogenomic research should be presented to them. A convergent parallel mixed methods study was conducted, comprising a survey of 221 research participants and five deliberative focus group discussions with 30 purposively selected research participants. Most participants (122, 55.2%) preferred the collaborative role, 67 (30.3%) preferred the active role and 32 (14.5%) preferred the passive role. Factors that significantly influenced preference for an active role compared with a collaborative role were marital status (OR: 0.282, p = 0.013), research experience (OR: 4.37, p = 0.028), and religion (OR: 2.346, p = 0.041). The reasons proffered for the active role included prior experience with antiretroviral treatment and increased exposure to research activities. The reasons given for preferring the passive role included limited level of awareness about the interaction between patients' genes and drugs, trust in researchers to make the right decision, and fear of making decisions with harmful implications. Overall, findings from our study show that participants want to be engaged in the decision-making process. Research teams ought to provide adequate and simple information about the pharmacogenomic research and implications of the results to support participants' informed decisions.
| S-EPMC11806758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReadability is important to consider when developing informed consent communications for prospective research participants, but not the most important consideration. Other factors to consider relate to learning preferences and literacy needs of people recruited to participate in research, as these factors can influence understanding of consent communications. To promote understanding among prospective participants, researchers should take a human-centered approach to develop consent communications.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore how factors related to readability, topic, and participant demographic characteristics play into preferences for digital health research consent material. These factors are important to consider as not attending to some details that matter to a specific subgroup of prospective participants may systematically exclude people from research.MethodsPeople eligible to participate in a digital health study were recruited to review 31 paragraph length sections of a consent form, referred to as "text snippets," for an existing institutional review board-approved digital health study. Participants (N=79) were surveyed and asked to choose between 2 variations of the text snippets, either indicating a preference for the institutional review board-approved original or a version that was modified to improve readability.ResultsA slim majority of participants provided feedback about the snippets (n=44; 55%). Our qualitative analysis of the feedback found that participants preferred shorter snippets, in general, but the snippets also elicited new questions not addressed by the original consent material. This observation is supported by our quantitative analysis, which found that when the character length of the original was longer, participants were less likely to prefer the original (P<.001) and more likely to prefer the modified text by a factor of 1.20 times (P=.04), and particularly for snippets explaining study risks (P=.03). Our analysis also found significant differences in participant demographic characteristics. For example, older participants tended to prefer the original more than younger participants, by a factor of 1.95 times (P=.004). The results present illustrative examples of how factors related to sex, age, physical activity, and ethnicity all play into preference for consent communication.ConclusionsThe findings point toward new ways of evaluating informed consent communication: (1) for responsiveness to specific prospective participant populations, and (2) effectiveness at eliciting informed questions from people considering participation. We discuss how creating partnerships with prospective participants to prototype informed consent materials, specifically study procedures and risks, can be a way to identify those details before launching a study. Furthermore, future research should go beyond "readability" to explore alternate measures of evaluating consent materials, such as the likelihood that the consent material and communication procedures will elicit "informed questions" for the research team.
| S-EPMC11803319 | biostudies-literature
Project description:What research practices should be considered acceptable? Historically, scientists have set the standards for what constitutes acceptable research practices. However, there is value in considering non-scientists' perspectives, including research participants'. 1873 participants from MTurk and university subject pools were surveyed after their participation in one of eight minimal-risk studies. We asked participants how they would feel if (mostly) common research practices were applied to their data: p-hacking/cherry-picking results, selective reporting of studies, Hypothesizing After Results are Known (HARKing), committing fraud, conducting direct replications, sharing data, sharing methods, and open access publishing. An overwhelming majority of psychology research participants think questionable research practices (e.g. p-hacking, HARKing) are unacceptable (68.3-81.3%), and were supportive of practices to increase transparency and replicability (71.4-80.1%). A surprising number of participants expressed positive or neutral views toward scientific fraud (18.7%), raising concerns about data quality. We grapple with this concern and interpret our results in light of the limitations of our study. Despite the ambiguity in our results, we argue that there is evidence (from our study and others') that researchers may be violating participants' expectations and should be transparent with participants about how their data will be used.
| S-EPMC9006031 | biostudies-literature
Project description:After the devastating wildfire that destroyed most of the town of Paradise, California in 2018, volatile organic compounds were found in water distribution pipes. Approximately 11 months after the fire, we collected tap water samples from 136 homes that were still standing and tested for over 100 chemicals. Each participant received a customized report showing the laboratory findings from their sample. Our goal was to communicate individual water results and chemical information rapidly in a way that was understandable, scientifically accurate, and useful to participants. On the basis of this process, we developed a framework to illustrate considerations and priorities that draw from best practices of previous environmental results return research and crisis communication, while also addressing challenges specific to the disaster context. We also conducted a follow-up survey on participants' perceptions of the results return process. In general, participants found the results return communications to be understandable, and they felt less worried about their drinking water quality after receiving the information. Over one-third of the participants reported taking some kind of action around their water usage habits after receiving their results. Communication with participants is a critical element of environmental disaster research, and it is important to have a strategy to communicate results that achieves the goals of timeliness, clarity, and scientific accuracy, ultimately empowering people toward actions that can reduce exposure.
| S-EPMC8775780 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Newer data platforms offer increased opportunity to share multidimensional health data with research participants, but the preferences of participants for which data to receive and how is evolving. Our objective is to describe the preferences and expectations of participants for the return of individual research results within Project Baseline Health Study (PBHS). The PBHS is an ongoing, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study with data from four initial enrollment sites. PBHS participants are recruited from the general population along with groups enriched for heart disease and cancer disease risk. Cross-sectional data on return of results were collected in 2017-2018 from an (1) in-person enrollment survey (n = 1,890), (2) benchmark online survey (n = 1,059), and (3) participant interviews (n = 21). The main outcomes included (1) preferences for type of information to be added next to returned results, (2) participant plans for sharing returned results with a non-study clinician, and (3) choice to opt-out of receiving genetic results. Results were compared by sociodemographic characteristics. Enrollment and benchmark survey respondents were 57.1% and 53.5% female, and 60.0% and 66.2% white, respectively. Participants preferred the following data types be added to returned results in the future: genetics (29.9%), heart imaging, (16.4%), study watch (15.8%), and microbiome (13.3%). Older adults (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.41-0.87) were less likely to want their genetic results returned next. Forty percent of participants reported that they would not share all returned results with their non-study clinicians. Black (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95) and Asian (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.73) participants were less likely, and older participants more likely (OR 1.45-1.61), to plan to share all results with their clinician than their counterparts. At enrollment, 5.8% of participants opted out of receiving their genetics results. The study showed that substantial heterogeneity existed in participant's preferences and expectations for return of results, and variations were related to sociodemographic characteristics.
| S-EPMC8320928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is a need for multimodal strategies to keep research participants informed about study results. Our aim was to characterize preferences of genomic research participants from two institutions along four dimensions of general research result updates: content, timing, mechanism, and frequency. We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey that was administered from 25 June 2018 to 5 December 2018. 397 participants completed the survey, most of whom (96%) expressed a desire to receive research updates. Preferences with high endorsement included: update content (brief descriptions of major findings, descriptions of purpose and goals, and educational material); update timing (when the research is completed, when findings are reviewed, when findings are published, and when the study status changes); update mechanism (email with updates, and email newsletter); and update frequency (every three months). Hierarchical cluster analyses based on the four update preferences identified four profiles of participants with similar preference patterns. Very few participants in the largest profile were comfortable with budgeting less money for research activities so that researchers have money to set up services to send research result updates to study participants. Future studies may benefit from exploring preferences for research result updates, as we have in our study. In addition, this work provides evidence of a need for funders to incentivize researchers to communicate results to participants.
| S-EPMC8151672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Genomic researchers face an ethical dilemma regarding feedback of individual results generated from genomic studies. In the African setting, genomic research is still not widely implemented and, coupled with this, the limited African-specific guidelines on how to feedback on individual research findings. A qualitative study was performed to assess participants' expectations and preferences regarding the feedback of secondary findings from genomic research. Participants were parents of children with a developmental disorder, enrolled in the Deciphering Developmental Disorders in Africa (DDD-Africa) research project, and were purposefully selected. Three deliberative focus group discussions were conducted with 14 participants. Each deliberative focus group consisted of two separate audio-recorded interviews and presented different case scenarios for different types of secondary findings that could be theoretically detected during genomic research. We aimed to explore participants' preferences for the extent, nature, timing, and methods for receiving individual study results, specifically pertaining to secondary findings. Thematic content analysis was done, with a deductive approach to coding. Four themes emerged which included participants' perception of readiness to receive secondary findings, queries raised around who has access to research findings and feedback of findings consent, responsibilities of the researcher, and reasons for not wanting/wanting secondary findings. Overall, participants expressed that they want to receive feedback on secondary findings irrespective of disease severity and treatment availability. Lifestyle changes, early prevention or treatment, impact on future generations, and preparedness were strong motivations for wanting feedback on results. Participants felt that when the research involved minors, it was the parents' right to receive results on behalf of their children. This study provides new insights into participants' preferences around feedback on genomic research results and could serve as an important basis for creating guidelines and recommendations for feedback on genomic results in the African context.
| S-EPMC11093881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGenetics and genomics research (GGR) is associated with several challenges including, but not limited to, methods and implications of sharing research findings with participants and their family members, issues of confidentiality, and ownership of data obtained from samples. Additionally, GGR holds significant potential risk for social and psychological harms. Considerable research has been conducted globally, and has advanced the debate on return of genetic and genomics testing results. However, such investigations are limited in the African setting, including Uganda where research ethics guidance on return of results is deficient or suboptimal at best. The objective of this study was to assess perceptions of grassroots communities on if and how feedback of individual genetics and genomics testing results should occur in Uganda with a view to improving ethics guidance.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study that employed a qualitative exploratory approach. Five deliberative focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 42 participants from grassroots communities representing three major ethnic groupings. These were rural settings and the majority of participants were subsistence farmers with limited or no exposure to GGR. Data were analysed through thematic analysis, with both deductive and inductive approaches applied to interrogate predetermined themes and to identify any emerging themes. NVivo software (QSR international 2020) was used to support data analysis and illustrative quotes were extracted.ResultsAll the respondents were willing to participate in GGR and receive feedback of results conditional upon a health benefit. The main motivation was diagnostic and therapeutic benefits as well as facilitating future health planning. Thematic analysis identified four themes and several sub-themes including 1) the need-to-know health status 2) paternity information as a benefit and risk; 3) ethical considerations for feedback of findings and 4) extending feedback of genetics findings to family and community.ConclusionParticipation in hypothetical GGR as well as feedback of results is acceptable to individuals in grassroots communities. However, the strong therapeutic and/or diagnostic misconception linked to GGR is concerning given that hopes for therapeutic and/or diagnostic benefit are unfounded. Viewing GGR as an opportunity to confirm or dispute paternity was another interesting perception. These findings carry profound implications for consent processes, genetic counselling and research ethics guidance. Privacy and confidentiality, benefits, risks as well as implications for sharing need to be considered for such feedback of results to be conducted appropriately.
| S-EPMC9674126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is ongoing debate on whether and what research genetic results to return to study participants. To date, no study in this area has focused on aortopathy populations despite known genes that are clinically actionable. Participants (n = 225, 79% male, mean age = 61 years) with an aortopathy were surveyed to assess preferences for receiving research genetic results. Participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want results for pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes with implications for family members (81%) or that would change medical management (76%). Similarly, participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want actionable secondary findings related to cancer (75%) or other cardiac diseases (70%). Significantly lower interest was observed for non-actionable findings-pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes that would not change medical management (51%) and variants of uncertain significance (38%) (p < .0001). Higher health and genomic literacy were positively associated with interest in actionable findings. Most participants (>63%) were accepting of any means of return; however, a substantial minority (18%-38%) deemed certain technological means unacceptable (e.g., patient portal). Over 90% of participants reported that a range of health professionals, including cardiovascular specialists, genetics specialists, and primary care providers, were acceptable to return results. Participants with aortopathies are highly interested in research genetic results perceived to be medically actionable for themselves or family members. Participants are accepting of a variety of means for returning results. Findings suggest that research participants should be asked what results are preferred at time of informed consent and that genetic counseling may clarify implications of results that are not personally medically actionable.
| S-EPMC8192438 | biostudies-literature