Stuart G. Nicholls

The REporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement: Methods for Arriving at Consensus and Developing Reporting Guidelines

Objective Routinely collected health data, collected for administrative and clinical purposes, without specific a priori research questions, are increasingly used for observational, comparative effectiveness, health services research, and clinical trials. The rapid evolution and availability of routinely collected data for research has brought to light specific issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines. The aim of the present project was to determine the priorities of stakeholders in order to guide the development of the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. Methods Two modified electronic Delphi surveys were sent to stakeholders. The first determined themes deemed important to include in the RECORD statement, and was analyzed using qualitative methods. The second determined quantitative prioritization of the themes based on categorization of manuscript headings. The surveys were followed by a meeting of RECORD working committee, and re-engagement with stakeholders via an online commentary period. Results The qualitative survey (76 responses of 123 surveys sent) generated 10 overarching themes and 13 themes derived from existing STROBE categories. Highest-rated overall items for inclusion were: Disease/exposure identification algorithms; Characteristics of the population included in databases; and Characteristics of the data. In the quantitative survey (71 responses of 135 sent), the importance assigned to each of the compiled themes varied depending on the manuscript section to which they were assigned. Following the working committee meeting, online ranking by stakeholders provided feedback and resulted in revision of the final checklist. Conclusions The RECORD statement incorporated the suggestions provided by a large, diverse group of stakeholders to create a reporting checklist specific to observational research using routinely collected health data. Our findings point to unique aspects of studies conducted with routinely collected health data and the perceived need for better reporting of methodological issues.

A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review

Background To date there is no established consensus of assessment criteria for evaluating research ethics review. Methods We conducted a scoping review of empirical research assessing ethics review processes in order to identify common elements assessed, research foci, and research gaps to aid in the development of assessment criteria. Electronic searches of Ovid Medline, PsychInfo, and the Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CCTR, CMR, HTA, and NHSEED, were conducted. After de-duplication, 4234 titles and abstracts were reviewed. Altogether 4036 articles were excluded following screening of titles, abstracts and full text. A total of 198 articles included for final data extraction. Results Few studies originated from outside North America and Europe. No study reported using an underlying theory or framework of quality/effectiveness to guide study design or analyses. We did not identify any studies that had involved a controlled trial - randomised or otherwise – of ethics review procedures or processes. Studies varied substantially with respect to outcomes assessed, although tended to focus on structure and timeliness of ethics review. Discussion Our findings indicate a lack of consensus on appropriate assessment criteria, exemplified by the varied study outcomes identified, but also a fragmented body of research. To date research has been largely quantitative, with little attention given to stakeholder experiences, and is largely cross sectional. A lack of longitudinal research to date precludes analyses of change or assessment of quality improvement in ethics review.

The Human Genome Project, and recent advances in personalized genomics

The language of “personalized medicine” and “personal genomics” has now entered the common lexicon. The idea of personalized medicine is the integration of genomic risk assessment alongside other clinical investigations. Consistent with this approach, testing is delivered by health care professionals who are not medical geneticists, and where results represent risks, as opposed to clinical diagnosis of disease, to be interpreted alongside the entirety of a patient’s health and medical data. In this review we consider the evidence concerning the application of such personalized genomics within the context of population screening, and potential implications that arise from this. We highlight two general approaches which illustrate potential uses of genomic information in screening. The first is a narrowly targeted approach in which genetic profiling is linked with standard population-based screening for diseases; the second is a broader targeting of variants associated with multiple single gene disorders, performed opportunistically on patients being investigated for unrelated conditions. In doing so we consider the organization and evaluation of tests and services, the challenge of interpretation with less targeted testing, professional confidence, barriers in practice, and education needs. We conclude by discussing several issues pertinent to health policy, namely: avoiding the conflation of genetics with biological determinism, resisting the “technological imperative”, due consideration of the organization of screening services, the need for professional education, as well as informed decision making and public understanding.

Parental information use in the context of newborn bloodspot screening. An exploratory mixed methods study

The aim of this study was to investigate how parents select and use information sources when considering newborn bloodspot screening. Mixed methods approach using semi-structured interviews (n = 18) and a self-completion postal questionnaire (n = 154) conducted with parents of children who had undergone newborn bloodspot screening. Qualitative data was assessed using a thematic analysis approach with quantitative data analyzed using multinomial logistic regression. Parents used a limited range of information. In the UK, maternity services are largely delivered by the midwife and the healthcare practitioner was the main information source for parents, with only half of parents using official health service leaflets. Barriers included the provision of information post-natally and with other non-healthcare materials. Neither number of children, age group, education level, nor income were significantly associated with the number of information sources used. Nor were they associated with the information source indicated as most important. The midwife is well placed to act as a gatekeeper for parents seeking information about newborn bloodspot screening. Even when additional sources are used, the midwife remains a prominent source of information. Furthermore, the use of written materials is dependent upon appropriate delivery and consequently delivery is essential to information use.

Informed Choice for Newborn Blood Spot Screening in the United Kingdom: A Survey of Parental Perceptions

OBJECTIVE: In the United Kingdom, newborn blood spot screening proceeds on the basis of consent based on an informed choice. However, little is known about parent experiences of this process. This study was intended to explore parents’ understanding of newborn screening and their experience of the consent process using a structured survey. METHODS: A mail survey exploring key components of consent was sent to parents whose children had been screened in the year before the study. A descriptive analysis of responses together with logistic regression was performed to identify variables that predicted parental likelihood to agree that they had made an informed choice to screening. RESULTS: Most parents indicated they understood why the heel prick was done, but only a third understood how conditions would be dealt with if found. Almost a third of parents reported that they did not feel they had a choice to decline screening, yet >70% felt they had made an informed choice. Logistic regression indicated previous children, understanding why the heel prick was done, having time to make a decision, and feeling they had a choice were significant predictors of feeling an informed choice had been made. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support previous studies that screening may be seen as a fait accompli. Analyses indicated that allowing time to make a decision (eg, by providing information during pregnancy, emphasizing the decision-making aspect, and clearly articulating the reasons behind screening) may help parents feel that they have made an informed choice.

Impact of stated barriers on proposed warfarin prescription for atrial fibrillation: a survey of Canadian physicians

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia, and leading cause of ischemic stroke. Despite proven effectiveness, warfarin remains an under-used treatment in atrial fibrillation patients. We sought to study, across three physician specialties, a range of factors that have been argued to have a disproportionate effect on treatment decisions.MethodsCross-sectional survey of Canadian Family Doctors (FD: n = 500), Geriatricians (G: n = 149), and Internal Medicine specialists (IMS: n = 500). Of these, 1032 physicians were contactable, and 335 completed and usable responses were received. Survey questions and clinical vignettes asked about the frequency with which they see patients with atrial fibrillation, treatment practices, and barriers to the prescription of anticoagulants.ResultsStated prescribing practices did not significantly differ between physician groups. Falls risk, bleeding risk and poor patient adherence were all highly cited barriers to prescribing warfarin. Fewer geriatricians indicated that history of patient falls would be a reason for not treating with warfarin (G: 47%; FD: 71%; IMS: 72%), and significantly fewer changed reported practice in the presence of falls risk (χ2 (6) = 45.446, p < 0.01). Experience of a patient having a stroke whilst not on warfarin had a significant impact on vignette decisions; physicians who had had patients who experienced a stroke were more likely to prescribe warfarin (χ2 (3) =10.7, p = 0.013).ConclusionsBarriers to treatment of atrial fibrillation with warfarin affect physician specialties to different extents. Prior experience of a patient suffering a stroke when not prescribed warfarin is positively associated with intention to prescribe warfarin, even in the presence of falls risk.

Parental decision-making and acceptance of newborn bloodspot screening: an exploratory study.

Objective Newborn bloodspot screening is an internationally established public health measure. Despite this, there is a paucity of information relating to the decision-making process that parents go through when accepting newborn screening. This is important as screening panels are expanding; potentially leading to an increasing amount of complex information. This study sought to understand the factors that influence parental decisions and roles they play in the decision-making process. Patients and Methods Qualitative thematic evaluation of semi structured interviews with parents whose children had recently undergone newborn screening in the Merseyside and Cheshire region of England, UK. Results Eighteen interviews with first time parents (n = 12) and those with previous children (n = 6). Seven factors were identified as being either explicitly or implicitly related to parental decision-making: Experience, Attitudes to medicine, Information-seeking behaviour, Perceived knowledge, Attitudes to screening, and Perceived choice, all of which ultimately impact on Perceived decisional quality. Conclusions These results indicate that while content is important, other contextual factors such as personal experience, perceived choice, and general attitudes toward medicine, are also highly influential. In particular, relationships with key healthcare professionals are central to information collection, attitudes toward screening, and the level of deliberation that is invested in decisions to accept newborn bloodspot screening.

Using YouTube to Disseminate Effective Vaccination Pain Treatment for Babies

Background Infant vaccinations are necessary for public health, but are painful, causing distress to the infant and caregivers. Breastfeeding and sucrose effectively reduce infants’ pain during vaccinations, and these strategies are recommended in health care provider (HCP)-targeted education and vaccination pain guidelines. However studies show these strategies are infrequently used. YouTube is a popular medium to publicly share and watch videos, and many consumer posted YouTube videos show distressed infants being vaccinated with no pain treatment. The aims of this study were to evaluate the reach and impact of a consumer-targeted YouTube video demonstrating use of effective pain reduction strategies during infant vaccinations. Methods A brief consumer-targeted video showing two infants being vaccinated was posted onto YouTube on October 2013. One infant was breastfed and another infant received sucrose by mouth before and during the injection. A link to a viewer survey was visible on a banner near the end of the video. An intensive strategically planned knowledge dissemination strategy using the media, social media and messages to professional organizations took place to promote the video. Data analysis of the viewer survey, YouTube analytics of the reach of the video in terms of number of views, country of viewers, and comments relating to the video took place 12 months after the video was posted. Results Twelve months after posting, the video had 65,478views, 68 comments, 245 likes, 17 dislikes, and 90 shares. Average duration of viewer time was 65% of the video. The viewer survey was completed by 156 (0.24%) viewers; 90 (58%) answered as HCPs and 66 (42%) as parents. Survey results showed that the video was persuasive; intent to use or support breastfeeding or sucrose was high in both parents and HCPs after viewing the video. Comments posted were often emotional in nature, and were related to anti-vaccination (n = 26, 38%); effectiveness or positive personal experiences (n = 21, 32%); research team comments or promotion (n = 12, 18%); pro-vaccination (n = 6, 8%) and barriers to using breastfeeding or sucrose during vaccinations (n = 3, 4%). Conclusion The video posted onto YouTube demonstrating effective pain treatment during infant vaccinations was viewed by large numbers of people around the world, however the response rate to the linked survey was extremely low. Using YouTube videos for knowledge dissemination has an extensive reach, however it is difficult to evaluate impact on behaviours and practices.

Personalized medicine and genome-based treatments: Why personalized medicine ≠ individualized treatments

The sequencing of the human genome and decreasing costs of sequencing technology have led to the notion of ‘personalized medicine’. This has been taken by some authors to indicate that personalized medicine will provide individualized treatments solely based on one’s DNA sequence. We argue this is overly optimistic and misconstrues the notion of personalization. Such interpretations fail to account for economic, policy and structural constraints on the delivery of healthcare. Furthermore, notions of individualization based on genomic data potentially take us down the road of genetic reductionism obscuring the role of environmental factors in disease and ill health. We propose that one should see personalized medicine as a way of using personal genomic information to stratify individuals into subpopulations and suggest that personalized medicine be seen within a broader idea of personalized healthcare, reflecting healthcare that integrates personal genomic data into cultural, environmental and personal contexts.

Social science and ethics review: A question of practice not principle

In his article ‘The case against ethics review in the social sciences’, Schrag asserts that the social sciences should not be subject to ethical review. He recounts a number of examples where ethical review has seemingly failed. He further suggests some alternative models for dealing with ethical review in the social sciences. Finally, he concludes, and we concur, that there is a lack of empirical evidence as to the benefit of research ethics review.