Researcher practices on returning genetic research results.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: as genetic and genomic research proliferates, debate has ensued about returning results to participants. In addition to consideration of the benefits and harms to participants, researchers must also consider the logistical and financial feasibility of returning research results. However, little data exist of actual researcher practices. METHODS: we conducted an online survey of 446 corresponding authors of genetic/genomic studies conducted in the United States and published in 2006-2007 to assess the frequency with which they considered, offered to, or actually returned research results, what factors influenced these decisions, and the method of communicating results. RESULTS: the response rate was 24% (105/446). Fifty-four percent of respondents considered the issue of returning research results to participants, 28% offered to return individual research results, and 24% actually returned individual research results. Of those who considered the issue of returning research results during the study planning phase, the most common factors considered were whether research results were deemed clinically useful (18%) and respect for participants (13%). Researchers who had a medical degree and conducted studies on children were significantly more likely to offer to return or actually return individual results compared to those with a Ph.D. only. CONCLUSIONS: we speculate that issues associated with clinical validity and respect for participants dominated concerns of time and expense given the prominent and continuing ethical debates surrounding genetics and genomics research. The substantial number of researchers who did not consider returning research results suggests that researchers and institutional review boards need to devote more attention to a topic about which research participants are interested.

Science incubators: synthesis centers and their role in the research ecosystem.

How should funding agencies enable researchers to explore high-risk but potentially high-reward science? One model that appears to work is the NSF-funded synthesis center, an incubator for community-led, innovative science.

WriteSim TCExam--an open source text simulation environment for training novice researchers in scientific writing.

BACKGROUND: The ability to write clearly and effectively is of central importance to the scientific enterprise. Encouraged by the success of simulation environments in other biomedical sciences, we developed WriteSim TCExam, an open-source, Web-based, textual simulation environment for teaching effective writing techniques to novice researchers. We shortlisted and modified an existing open source application - TCExam to serve as a textual simulation environment. After testing usability internally in our team, we conducted formal field usability studies with novice researchers. These were followed by formal surveys with researchers fitting the role of administrators and users (novice researchers) RESULTS: The development process was guided by feedback from usability tests within our research team. Online surveys and formal studies, involving members of the Research on Research group and selected novice researchers, show that the application is user-friendly. Additionally it has been used to train 25 novice researchers in scientific writing to date and has generated encouraging results. CONCLUSION: WriteSim TCExam is the first Web-based, open-source textual simulation environment designed to complement traditional scientific writing instruction. While initial reviews by students and educators have been positive, a formal study is needed to measure its benefits in comparison to standard instructional methods.

Qualitative analysis of the interdisciplinary interaction between data analysis specialists and novice clinical researchers.

BACKGROUND: The inherent complexity of statistical methods and clinical phenomena compel researchers with diverse domains of expertise to work in interdisciplinary teams, where none of them have a complete knowledge in their counterpart's field. As a result, knowledge exchange may often be characterized by miscommunication leading to misinterpretation, ultimately resulting in errors in research and even clinical practice. Though communication has a central role in interdisciplinary collaboration and since miscommunication can have a negative impact on research processes, to the best of our knowledge, no study has yet explored how data analysis specialists and clinical researchers communicate over time. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted qualitative analysis of encounters between clinical researchers and data analysis specialists (epidemiologist, clinical epidemiologist, and data mining specialist). These encounters were recorded and systematically analyzed using a grounded theory methodology for extraction of emerging themes, followed by data triangulation and analysis of negative cases for validation. A policy analysis was then performed using a system dynamics methodology looking for potential interventions to improve this process. Four major emerging themes were found. Definitions using lay language were frequently employed as a way to bridge the language gap between the specialties. Thought experiments presented a series of "what if" situations that helped clarify how the method or information from the other field would behave, if exposed to alternative situations, ultimately aiding in explaining their main objective. Metaphors and analogies were used to translate concepts across fields, from the unfamiliar to the familiar. Prolepsis was used to anticipate study outcomes, thus helping specialists understand the current context based on an understanding of their final goal. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The communication between clinical researchers and data analysis specialists presents multiple challenges that can lead to errors.

A Qualitative Study of Contextual Factors’ Impact on the Adaptation of a Caregiver-mediated Early Autism Intervention in South Africa

Background: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a major global health challenge as the majority of individuals with ASD live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and receive little to no services or support from health or social care systems. Despite this global crisis, the development and validation of ASD interventions has almost exclusively occurred in high-income countries, leaving many unanswered questions regarding what contextual factors would need to be considered to ensure the effectiveness of interventions in LMICs. This study sought to conduct explorative research on the contextual adaptation of a caregiver-mediated early ASD intervention for use in a low-resource setting in South Africa.

Methods: Participants included 22 caregivers of children with autism, including mothers (n=16), fathers (n=4), and grandmothers (n=2). Four focus groups discussions were conducted in Cape Town, South Africa with caregivers and lasted between 1.5-3.5 hours in length. Data was recorded, translated, and transcribed by research personnel. Data was then coded for emerging themes and analyzed using the NVivo qualitative data analysis software package.

Results: Nine contextual factors were reported to be important for the adaptation process including culture, language, location of treatment, cost of treatment, type of service provider, familial needs, length of treatment, support, and parenting practices. One contextual factor, evidence-based treatment, was reported to be both important and not important for adaptation by caregivers. The contextual factor of stigma was identified as an emerging theme and a specifically relevant challenge when developing an ASD intervention for use in a South African context.

Conclusions: Eleven contextual factors were discussed in detail by caregivers and examples were given regarding the challenges, sources, and preferences related to the contextual adaptation of a parent-mediated early ASD intervention in South Africa. Caregivers reported a preference for an affordable, in-home, individualized early ASD intervention, where they have an active voice in shaping treatment goals. Distrust of community-based nurses and health workers to deliver an early ASD intervention and challenges associated with ASD-based stigma were two unanticipated findings from this data set. Implications for practice and further research are discussed.