Systematic review and metasummary of attitudes toward research in emergency medical conditions

Emergency departments are challenging research settings, where truly informed consent can be difficult to obtain. A deeper understanding of emergency medical patients' opinions about research is needed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-summary of quantitative and qualitative studies on which values, attitudes, or beliefs of emergent medical research participants influence research participation. We included studies of adults that investigated opinions toward emergency medicine research participation. We excluded studies focused on the association between demographics or consent document features and participation and those focused on non-emergency research. In August 2011, we searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Scirus, PsycINFO, AgeLine and Global Health. Titles, abstracts and then full manuscripts were independently evaluated by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and adjudicated by a third author. Studies were evaluated for bias using standardised scores. We report themes associated with participation or refusal. Our initial search produced over 1800 articles. A total of 44 articles were extracted for full-manuscript analysis, and 14 were retained based on our eligibility criteria. Among factors favouring participation, altruism and personal health benefit had the highest frequency. Mistrust of researchers, feeling like a 'guinea pig' and risk were leading factors favouring refusal. Many studies noted limitations of informed consent processes in emergent conditions. We conclude that highlighting the benefits to the participant and society, mitigating risk and increasing public trust may increase research participation in emergency medical research. New methods for conducting informed consent in such studies are needed.

Ethics Standards (HRPP) and Public Partnership (PARTAKE) to Address Clinical Research Concerns in India: Moving Toward Ethical, Responsible, Culturally Sensitive, and Community-Engaging Clinical Research.

Like other emerging economies, India's quest for independent, evidence-based, and affordable healthcare has led to robust and promising growth in the clinical research sector, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20.4% between 2005 and 2010. However, while the fundamental drivers and strengths are still strong, the past few years witnessed a declining trend (CAGR -16.7%) amid regulatory concerns, activist protests, and sponsor departure. And although India accounts for 17.5% of the world's population, it currently conducts only 1% of clinical trials. Indian and international experts and public stakeholders gathered for a 2-day conference in June 2013 in New Delhi to discuss the challenges facing clinical research in India and to explore solutions. The main themes discussed were ethical standards, regulatory oversight, and partnerships with public stakeholders. The meeting was a collaboration of AAHRPP (Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs)-aimed at establishing responsible and ethical clinical research standards-and PARTAKE (Public Awareness of Research for Therapeutic Advancements through Knowledge and Empowerment)-aimed at informing and engaging the public in clinical research. The present article covers recent clinical research developments in India as well as associated expectations, challenges, and suggestions for future directions. AAHRPP and PARTAKE provide etiologically based solutions to protect, inform, and engage the public and medical research sponsors.

Development and usability testing of a Web-based decision aid for families of patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Web-based decision aids are increasingly important in medical research and clinical care. However, few have been studied in an intensive care unit setting. The objectives of this study were to develop a Web-based decision aid for family members of patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation and to evaluate its usability and acceptability. METHODS: Using an iterative process involving 48 critical illness survivors, family surrogate decision makers, and intensivists, we developed a Web-based decision aid addressing goals of care preferences for surrogate decision makers of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation that could be either administered by study staff or completed independently by family members (Development Phase). After piloting the decision aid among 13 surrogate decision makers and seven intensivists, we assessed the decision aid's usability in the Evaluation Phase among a cohort of 30 surrogate decision makers using the Systems Usability Scale (SUS). Acceptability was assessed using measures of satisfaction and preference for electronic Collaborative Decision Support (eCODES) versus the original printed decision aid. RESULTS: The final decision aid, termed 'electronic Collaborative Decision Support', provides a framework for shared decision making, elicits relevant values and preferences, incorporates clinical data to personalize prognostic estimates generated from the ProVent prediction model, generates a printable document summarizing the user's interaction with the decision aid, and can digitally archive each user session. Usability was excellent (mean SUS, 80 ± 10) overall, but lower among those 56 years and older (73 ± 7) versus those who were younger (84 ± 9); p = 0.03. A total of 93% of users reported a preference for electronic versus printed versions. CONCLUSIONS: The Web-based decision aid for ICU surrogate decision makers can facilitate highly individualized information sharing with excellent usability and acceptability. Decision aids that employ an electronic format such as eCODES represent a strategy that could enhance patient-clinician collaboration and decision making quality in intensive care.

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.

BACKGROUND: When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.

The Evolution of Chimpanzee Sanctuaries in the United States

Chimpanzees are native only to the jungles of equatorial Africa, but for the last hundred years, they have also lived in captivity in the United States, most commonly in biomedical research laboratories, but also at Air Force bases for experiments for the space program, at accredited and unaccredited zoos, at circuses, as performers in Hollywood and even in private homes and backyards as pets. But that has been gradually evolving over the last few decades, as more and more chimpanzees move to newly-established chimpanzee sanctuaries. That transition was already underway even before the announcement by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) last year that it will retire all of its remaining chimpanzees from labs to sanctuaries. By thoroughly examining the evolution of these sanctuaries leading up to that seminal decision, along with the many challenges they face, including money, medical care, conflicting philosophies on the treatment of animals and the pitfalls that have led other sanctuaries to the brink of ruin, we can take away a better understanding of why chimpanzee sanctuaries are needed and why caretakers of other animal species are now looking to the chimpanzee sanctuary movement as a model to show how animals can be cared for in retirement.

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.

Variability in frontotemporal brain structure: the importance of recruitment of African Americans in neuroscience research.

BACKGROUND: Variation in brain structure is both genetically and environmentally influenced. The question about potential differences in brain anatomy across populations of differing race and ethnicity remains a controversial issue. There are few studies specifically examining racial or ethnic differences and also few studies that test for race-related differences in context of other neuropsychiatric research, possibly due to the underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in clinical research. It is within this context that we conducted a secondary data analysis examining volumetric MRI data from healthy participants and compared the volumes of the amygdala, hippocampus, lateral ventricles, caudate nucleus, orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and total cerebral volume between Caucasian and African-American participants. We discuss the importance of this finding in context of neuroimaging methodology, but also the need for improved recruitment of African Americans in clinical research and its broader implications for a better understanding of the neural basis of neuropsychiatric disorders. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This was a case control study in the setting of an academic medical center outpatient service. Participants consisted of 44 Caucasians and 33 ethnic minorities. The following volumetric data were obtained: amygdala, hippocampus, lateral ventricles, caudate nucleus, orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and total cerebrum. Each participant completed a 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Our primary finding in analyses of brain subregions was that when compared to Caucasians, African Americans exhibited larger left OFC volumes (F (1,68) = 7.50, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The biological implications of our findings are unclear as we do not know what factors may be contributing to these observed differences. However, this study raises several questions that have important implications for the future of neuropsychiatric research.

Research Question, Study Design and Continuous Research Education and Training Exercises (CREATE) Program.

The clinical research project starts with identifying the optimal research question, one that is ethical, impactful, feasible, scientifically sound, novel, relevant, and interesting. The project continues with the design of the study to answer the research question. Such design should be consistent with ethical and methodological principles, and make optimal use of resources in order to have the best chances of identifying a meaningful answer to the research question. Physicians and other healthcare providers are optimally positioned to identify meaningful research questions the answer to which could make significant impact on healthcare delivery. The typical medical education curriculum, however, lacks solid training in clinical research. We propose CREATE (Continuous Research Education And Training Exercises) as a peer- and group-based, interactive, analytical, customized, and accrediting program with didactic, training, mentoring, administrative, and professional support to enhance clinical research knowledge and skills among healthcare professionals, promote the generation of original research projects, increase the chances of their successful completion and potential for meaningful impact. The key features of the program are successive intra- and inter-group discussions and confrontational thematic challenges among participating peers aimed at capitalizing on the groups' collective knowledge, experience and skills, and combined intellectual processing capabilities to optimize choice of research project elements and stakeholder decision-making.

When the library is located in prime real estate: a case study on the loss of space from the Duke University Medical Center Library and Archives.

The Duke University Medical Center Library and Archives is located in the heart of the Duke Medicine campus, surrounded by Duke Hospital, ambulatory clinics, and numerous research facilities. Its location is considered prime real estate, given its adjacency to patient care, research, and educational activities. In 2005, the Duke University Library Space Planning Committee had recommended creating a learning center in the library that would support a variety of educational activities. However, the health system needed to convert the library's top floor into office space to make way for expansion of the hospital and cancer center. The library had only five months to plan the storage and consolidation of its journal and book collections, while working with the facilities design office and architect on the replacement of key user spaces on the top floor. Library staff worked together to develop plans for storing, weeding, and consolidating the collections and provided input into renovation plans for users spaces on its mezzanine level. The library lost 15,238 square feet (29%) of its net assignable square footage and a total of 16,897 (30%) gross square feet. This included 50% of the total space allotted to collections and over 15% of user spaces. The top-floor space now houses offices for Duke Medicine oncology faculty and staff. By storing a large portion of its collection off-site, the library was able to remove more stacks on the remaining stack level and convert them to user spaces, a long-term goal for the library. Additional space on the mezzanine level had to be converted to replace lost study and conference room spaces. While this project did not match the recommended space plans for the library, it underscored the need for the library to think creatively about the future of its facility and to work toward a more cohesive master plan.

The IGNITE network: a model for genomic medicine implementation and research.

BACKGROUND: Patients, clinicians, researchers and payers are seeking to understand the value of using genomic information (as reflected by genotyping, sequencing, family history or other data) to inform clinical decision-making. However, challenges exist to widespread clinical implementation of genomic medicine, a prerequisite for developing evidence of its real-world utility. METHODS: To address these challenges, the National Institutes of Health-funded IGNITE (Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE; www.ignite-genomics.org ) Network, comprised of six projects and a coordinating center, was established in 2013 to support the development, investigation and dissemination of genomic medicine practice models that seamlessly integrate genomic data into the electronic health record and that deploy tools for point of care decision making. IGNITE site projects are aligned in their purpose of testing these models, but individual projects vary in scope and design, including exploring genetic markers for disease risk prediction and prevention, developing tools for using family history data, incorporating pharmacogenomic data into clinical care, refining disease diagnosis using sequence-based mutation discovery, and creating novel educational approaches. RESULTS: This paper describes the IGNITE Network and member projects, including network structure, collaborative initiatives, clinical decision support strategies, methods for return of genomic test results, and educational initiatives for patients and providers. Clinical and outcomes data from individual sites and network-wide projects are anticipated to begin being published over the next few years. CONCLUSIONS: The IGNITE Network is an innovative series of projects and pilot demonstrations aiming to enhance translation of validated actionable genomic information into clinical settings and develop and use measures of outcome in response to genome-based clinical interventions using a pragmatic framework to provide early data and proofs of concept on the utility of these interventions. Through these efforts and collaboration with other stakeholders, IGNITE is poised to have a significant impact on the acceleration of genomic information into medical practice.