Susan Brown Trinidad

Choose Your Method: A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis, and Grounded Theory:

The purpose of this article is to compare three qualitative approaches that can be used in health research: phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. The authors include a model that summarizes similarities and differences among the approaches, with attention to their historical development, goals, methods, audience, and products. They then illustrate how these approaches differ by applying them to the same data set. The goal in phenomenology is to study how people make meaning of their lived experience; discourse analysis examines how language is used to accomplish personal, social, and political projects; and grounded theory develops explanatory theories of basic social processes studied in context. The authors argue that by familiarizing themselves with the origins and details of these approaches, researchers can make better matches between their research question(s) and the goals and products of the study.

Glad you asked: participants' opinions of re-consent for dbGap data submission.

No consensus exists about when researchers need additional participant consent (re-consent) to submit existing data to the federal database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP). Re-consent for submission of their data to dbGaP was sought from 1,340 study participants, 1,159 (86%) of whom agreed. We invited the first 400 of those who agreed to complete a telephone survey about their reasoning for their consent decision and their satisfaction with the re-consent process; 365 participants completed the survey. Respondents reported that it was very (69%) or somewhat (21%) important that they were asked for their permission. Many respondents considered alternatives to consent, such as notification-only or opt-out, to be unacceptable (67% and 40%, respectively). These results suggest that re-consent for dbGaP deposition may be advisable in certain cases to anticipate and honor participant preferences.

Silent loss and the clinical encounter: Parents’ and physicians’ experiences of stillbirth–a qualitative analysis

BackgroundIn the United States, an estimated 70 stillbirths occur each day, on average 25,000 each year. Research into the prevalence and causes of stillbirth is ongoing, but meanwhile, many parents suffer this devastating loss, largely in silence, due to persistent stigma and taboo; and many health providers report feeling ill equipped to support grieving parents. Interventions to address bereavement after neonatal death are increasingly common in U.S. hospitals, and there is growing data on the nature of parent bereavement after a stillbirth. However, further research is needed to evaluate supportive interventions and to investigate the parent-clinician encounter during hospitalization following a stillbirth. Qualitative inquiry offers opportunities to better understand the lived experience of parents against the backdrop of clinicians’ beliefs, intentions, and well-meaning efforts to support grieving parents.MethodsWe present a secondary qualitative analysis of transcript data from 3 semi-structured focus groups conducted with parents who had experienced a stillbirth and delivered in a hospital, and 2 focus groups with obstetrician-gynecologists. Participants were drawn from the greater Seattle region in Washington State. We examine parents’ and physicians’ experiences and beliefs surrounding stillbirth during the clinical encounter using iterative discourse analysis.ResultsWomen reported that the cheery, bustling environment of the labor and delivery setting was a painful place for parents who had had a stillbirth, and that the well-meaning attempts of physicians to offer comfort often had the opposite effect. Parents also reported that their grief is deeply felt but not socially recognized. While physicians recognized patients’ grief, they did not grasp its depth or duration. Physicians viewed stillbirth as an unexpected clinical tragedy, though several considered stillbirth less traumatic than the death of a neonate. In the months and years following a stillbirth, these parents continue to memorialize their children as part of their family.ConclusionsHospitals need to examine the physical environment for deliveries and, wherever possible, offer designated private areas with staff trained in stillbirth care. Training programs in obstetrics need to better address the bereavement needs of parents following a stillbirth, and research is needed to evaluate effective bereavement interventions, accounting for cultural variation. Critical improvements are also needed for mental health support beyond hospitalization. Finally, medical professionals and parents can play an important role in reversing the stigma that surrounds stillbirth.

Return of Incidental Findings in Genomic Medicine: Measuring What Patients Value: Development of an Instrument to Measure PReferences for Information from Next-generation Testing (IMPRINT)

Purpose:Little is known about the factors that influence patients’ preferences for the return of incidental findings from genome sequencing. This study identified attributes of incidental findings that were important to patients and developed a discrete-choice experiment instrument to quantify patient preferences.Methods:An initial set of key attributes and attribute levels was developed from a literature review and in consultation with experts. The attributes’ salience and communication were refined using focus group methodology (n = 12) and cognitive interviews (n = 6) with patients who had received conventional genetic testing for familial colorectal cancer or polyposis syndromes. The attributes and levels used in the hypothetical choices presented to participants were identified using validated experimental design techniques.Results:The final discrete-choice experiment instrument incorporates the following attributes and levels: lifetime risk of disease (5, 40, 70%); disease treatability (medical, lifestyle, none); disease severity (mild, moderate, severe); carrier status (yes, no); drug response likelihood (high, moderate, none); and test cost (

Stakeholder engagement: a key component of integrating genomic information into electronic health records

250,

Educational Needs in Genetic Medicine: Primary Care Perspectives

425,

Informed Consent in Genome-Scale Research: What Do Prospective Participants Think?

1,000,

Attitudes toward Genetic Research Review: Results from a Survey of Human Genetics Researchers

1,900).Conclusion:Patient preferences for incidental genomic findings are likely influenced by a complex set of diverse attributes. Quantification of patient preferences can inform patient–provider communication by highlighting the attributes of incidental findings that matter most to patients and warrant further discussion.Genet Med 15 11, 873–881.Genetics in Medicine (2013); 15 11, 873–881. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.63

Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a national survey of professionals involved in human subjects protection.

Integrating genomic information into clinical care and the electronic health record can facilitate personalized medicine through genetically guided clinical decision support. Stakeholder involvement is critical to the success of these implementation efforts. Prior work on implementation of clinical information systems provides broad guidance to inform effective engagement strategies. We add to this evidence-based recommendations that are specific to issues at the intersection of genomics and the electronic health record. We describe stakeholder engagement strategies employed by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network, a national consortium of US research institutions funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute to develop, disseminate, and apply approaches that combine genomic and electronic health record data. Through select examples drawn from sites of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network, we illustrate a continuum of engagement strategies to inform genomic integration into commercial and homegrown electronic health records across a range of health-care settings. We frame engagement as activities to consult, involve, and partner with key stakeholder groups throughout specific phases of health information technology implementation. Our aim is to provide insights into engagement strategies to guide genomic integration based on our unique network experiences and lessons learned within the broader context of implementation research in biomedical informatics. On the basis of our collective experience, we describe key stakeholder practices, challenges, and considerations for successful genomic integration to support personalized medicine.Genet Med 15 10, 792–801.Genetics in Medicine (2013); 15 10, 792–801. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.127

Comparative effectiveness of next generation genomic sequencing for disease diagnosis: Design of a randomized controlled trial in patients with colorectal cancer/polyposis syndromes ☆

Background/Aims: This study was performed to identify primary care physicians’ (PCPs) attitudes toward genetic medicine and their perceived needs for education in this area. Methods: Semistructured telephone interviews with 24 PCPs in the northwestern United States. Results: PCPs are interested in learning more about who should receive genetic testing and what tests are available. Training in counseling and risk communication is desired, as are ‘just-in-time’ resources to guide clinical decisions. Conclusions: PCPs are eager to learn about genetic medicine; however, their priorities may differ in emphasis from those put forward by genetics experts. Future educational efforts would do well to build on PCPs’ prior knowledge base, highlight the clinical relevance of genetic medicine to primary care practice, and emphasize ‘red flags’: cues to alert PCPs to a potential genetic contribution.