Diane M. Korngiebel

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.

Closing the gap between knowledge and clinical application: challenges for genomic translation.

Despite early predictions and rapid progress in research, the introduction of personal genomics into clinical practice has been slow. Several factors contribute to this translational gap between knowledge and clinical application. The evidence available to support genetic test use is often limited, and implementation of new testing programs can be challenging. In addition, the heterogeneity of genomic risk information points to the need for strategies to select and deliver the information most appropriate for particular clinical needs. Accomplishing these tasks also requires recognition that some expectations for personal genomics are unrealistic, notably expectations concerning the clinical utility of genomic risk assessment for common complex diseases. Efforts are needed to improve the body of evidence addressing clinical outcomes for genomics, apply implementation science to personal genomics, and develop realistic goals for genomic risk assessment. In addition, translational research should emphasize the broader benefits of genomic knowledge, including applications of genomic research that provide clinical benefit outside the context of personal genomic risk.

Barriers and Facilitators to Evidence-based Blood Pressure Control in Community Practice

Introduction: The Electronic Communications and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring trial (e-BP) demonstrated that team care incorporating a pharmacist to manage hypertension using secure E-mail with patients resulted in almost twice the rate of blood pressure (BP) control compared with usual care. To translate e-BP into community practices, we sought to identify contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation. Methods: Interviews were conducted with medical providers, staff, pharmacists, and patients associated with community-based primary care clinics whose physician leaders had expressed interest in implementing e-BP. Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative template analysis, incorporating codes derived from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: Barriers included incorporating an unfamiliar pharmacist into the health care team, lack of information technology resources, and provider resistance to using a single BP management protocol. Facilitators included the interventions perceived potential to improve quality of care, empower patients, and save staff time. Sustainability of the intervention emerged as an overarching theme. Conclusion: A qualitative approach to planning for translation is recommended to gain an understanding of contexts and to collaborate to adapt interventions through iterative, bidirectional information gathering. Interviewees affirmed that web pharmacist care offers small primary care practices a means to expand their workforce and provide patient-centered care. Reproducing e-BP in these practices will be challenging, but our interviewees expressed eagerness to try and were optimistic that a tailored intervention could succeed.

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.

Generating a taxonomy for genetic conditions relevant to reproductive planning.

As genome or exome sequencing (hereafter genome‐scale sequencing) becomes more integrated into standard care, carrier testing is an important possible application. Carrier testing using genome‐scale sequencing can identify a large number of conditions, but choosing which conditions/genes to evaluate as well as which results to disclose can be complicated. Carrier testing generally occurs in the context of reproductive decision‐making and involves patient values in a way that other types of genetic testing may not. The Kaiser Permanente Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research program is conducting a randomized clinical trial of preconception carrier testing that allows participants to select their preferences for results from among broad descriptive categories rather than selecting individual conditions. This paper describes (1) the criteria developed by the research team, the return of results committee (RORC), and stakeholders for defining the categories; (2) the process of refining the categories based on input from patient focus groups and validation through a patient survey; and (3) how the RORC then assigned specific gene–condition pairs to taxonomy categories being piloted in the trial. The development of four categories (serious, moderate/mild, unpredictable, late onset) for sharing results allows patients to select results based on their values without separately deciding their interest in knowing their carrier status for hundreds of conditions. A fifth category, lifespan limiting, was always shared. The lessons learned may be applicable in other results disclosure situations, such as incidental findings.

Implementing Precision Medicine: The Ethical Challenges

Precision medicine aims to individualize care by understanding differences in genetics, lifestyle, and environment. Pharmacogenomics and cancer genetics represent two promising areas for this approach. Pharmacogenomic tests have the potential to direct drug prescribing to increase safety and effectiveness because individuals vary on a genetic basis in their response to many drugs. Similarly, tests to identify people with an inherited cancer risk can guide prevention. For both, a few tests have entered clinical practice and more are under development. Implementation challenges include the limited evidence base available to guide clinical use and the lack of data from diverse populations. Accordingly, ongoing research should prioritize procedures that enhance the trustworthiness of clinical practice guidelines and create decision support for clinicians and patients that address their needs and accommodate flexibility. Each step involves choices with ethical implications.

Participant views on consent in cancer genetics research: preparing for the precision medicine era.

The Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) has created considerable discussions about research participant issues including re-consent and how and when to incorporate the patient experience into clinical trials. Within the changing landscape of genetic and genomic research, the preferences of participants are lacking yet are needed to inform policy. With the growing use of biobanks intended to support studies, including the national research cohort proposed under the PMI, understanding participant preferences, including re-consent, is a pressing concern. The Participant Issues Project (PIP) addresses this gap, and here we present data on participant attitudes regarding re-consent and broad consent in research studies. PIP study participants came from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and included cancer patients, relatives, and controls. Thirty telephone interviews were conducted and analyzed using content and thematic analysis. Results indicate that in some scenarios, re-consent is needed. Most participants agreed that re-consent was necessary when the study direction changed significantly or a child participant became an adult, but not if the genetic variant changed. Most participants’ willingness to participate in research would not be affected if the researcher or institution profited or if a broad consent form were used. Participants emphasized re-consent to provide information and control of the use of their data, now relevant for tailored treatment, while also prioritizing research as important. In the era of precision medicine, it is essential that policy makers consider participant preferences with regard to use of their materials and that participants understand genetic and genomic research and its harms and benefits as well as what broad consent entails, including privacy and re-identification risks.

Identifying [ldquo]ownership[rdquo] through role descriptions to support implementing universal colorectal cancer tumor screening for Lynch syndrome

PurposeLynch syndrome cases are underidentified, and universal colorectal cancer tumor screening for Lynch syndrome (UTS) has been recommended. UTS implementation is challenging and few successful examples exist to date, and colorectal cancer patients and at-risk family members exhibit low uptake of genetic services. This study sought to identify the elements that could guide the choice of specialties to implement UTS through three main stages: initiating the screen, returning positive screen results, and providing follow-up.MethodsTo understand stakeholder views on the UTS process, 20 semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians from six medical specialties crucial for implementing UTS. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis and additional thematic analysis across content categories.ResultsSeveral clinical specialties could fill necessary roles at each of the main stages of UTS implementation. Participants suggested owners based on attributes of specialty roles, clinical settings, and the routes patients take through the system.ConclusionUTS is considered possible in a range of health-care settings, with tailoring. Health systems need to choose who best fills the role’s needs based on local resources and processes. These results offer implementation guidance based on role needs, not clinical specialty, in resolving the issue of UTS “ownership.”

Clinician-Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Using Patient Portals to Return Lynch Syndrome Screening Results

Test results for genetic conditions, such as Lynch Syndrome (LS), have traditionally been returned by genetic counselors or other providers who can explain results implications and provide psychosocial support. Returning genetic results through an Electronic Health Record’s patient portal may increase the efficiency of returning results and could activate patient follow-up; however, stakeholder input is necessary to determine acceptability and appropriate implementation for LS. Twenty interviews were conducted with clinicians from six specialties involved in LS screening that represent a range of settings. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis and thematic analysis across content categories. Participants felt that patient portals could supplement personal calls, but the potential sensitive nature of LS screening results indicated the need for caution. Others felt that LS results could be returned through portals if there were clear explanations of the result, reputable additional information available within the portal, urging follow up confirmatory testing, and a referral to a genetics specialist. Patient portals were seen as helpful for prompting patient follow-up and providing resources to notify at-risk family members. There is potential for patient portals to return LS screening and other genetic results, however we raise several issues to resolve before implementation is warranted.

Participants’ Role Expectations in Genetics Research and Re-consent: Revising the Theory and Methods of Mental Models Research Relating to Roles

The rise of large cohort-based health research that includes genetic components has increased the communication challenges for researchers. Controversies have been amplified over requirements for re-consent, return of results, and privacy protections, among other issues. This study extended research on the impact that the perceived role of “research participant” might have on communication expectations to illuminate research participants’ preferences for re-consent. The study employed an online survey of participants in a long-standing cancer genetics registry. Results confirmed previous exploratory findings that research participants endorse multiple mental models of participant roles in research (doctor–patient, collaborator, donor, legal contract, etc.). Regression analyses indicated that high and low salience of different models of the role of research participant are related to different communication expectations. However, the pattern of relationships among roles is relevant. The results of the regression analysis also indicated that preference for mandatory re-consent and its relationship to mental models of roles are related to attitudes of trust, benefits, and informational risks. The discussion identifies implications as including the use of explicit approaches to address role relationships in communication with research participants. It also points to implications for methodological approaches in mental model research.