Conducting a large, multi-site survey about patients’ views on broad consent: challenges and solutions

BackgroundAs biobanks play an increasing role in the genomic research that will lead to precision medicine, input from diverse and large populations of patients in a variety of health care settings will be important in order to successfully carry out such studies. One important topic is participants’ views towards consent and data sharing, especially since the 2011 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), and subsequently the 2015 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) were issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). These notices required that participants consent to research uses of their de-identified tissue samples and most clinical data, and allowing such consent be obtained in a one-time, open-ended or “broad” fashion. Conducting a survey across multiple sites provides clear advantages to either a single site survey or using a large online database, and is a potentially powerful way of understanding the views of diverse populations on this topic.MethodsA workgroup of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, a national consortium of 9 sites (13 separate institutions, 11 clinical centers) supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) that combines DNA biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for large-scale genetic research, conducted a survey to understand patients’ views on consent, sample and data sharing for future research, biobank governance, data protection, and return of research results.ResultsWorking across 9 sites to design and conduct a national survey presented challenges in organization, meeting human subjects guidelines at each institution, and survey development and implementation. The challenges were met through a committee structure to address each aspect of the project with representatives from all sites. Each committee’s output was integrated into the overall survey plan. A number of site-specific issues were successfully managed allowing the survey to be developed and implemented uniformly across 11 clinical centers.ConclusionsConducting a survey across a number of institutions with different cultures and practices is a methodological and logistical challenge. With a clear infrastructure, collaborative attitudes, excellent lines of communication, and the right expertise, this can be accomplished successfully.

[1]  J. P. Porter The federal policy for the protection of human subjects. , 1991, IRB.

[2]  D. Collins Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods , 2003, Quality of Life Research.

[3]  Stirling Bryan,et al.  Barriers to integrating personalized medicine into clinical practice: a best–worst scaling choice experiment , 2012, Genetics in Medicine.

[4]  P. Harris,et al.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[5]  Sara Chandros Hull,et al.  Patients' Views on Identifiability of Samples and Informed Consent for Genetic Research , 2008, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[6]  Stephanie M. Fullerton,et al.  Research Practice and Participant Preferences: The Growing Gulf , 2011, Science.

[7]  S. Fullerton,et al.  Genomic research and wide data sharing: Views of prospective participants , 2010, Genetics in Medicine.

[8]  G. Geller,et al.  Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. , 2009, American journal of public health.

[9]  S. Fullerton,et al.  Confronting real time ethical, legal, and social issues in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Consortium , 2010, Genetics in Medicine.

[10]  Wendy A. Wolf,et al.  Public and Biobank Participant Attitudes toward Genetic Research Participation and Data Sharing , 2010, Public Health Genomics.

[11]  Melanie S. Jefferson,et al.  Intentions to Donate to a Biobank in a National Sample of African Americans , 2014, Public Health Genomics.

[12]  Vidal Díaz de Rada,et al.  Internet, Phone, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Don A. Dillman, Jolene D. Smyth y Leah Melani Christian. (New Jersey, John Wiley and Sons, 2014) , 2016 .

[13]  D. Dillman The Design and Administration of Mail Surveys , 1991 .

[14]  Avner Schlessinger,et al.  ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI , 2012 .

[15]  Marylyn D. Ritchie,et al.  Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: experience of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network , 2012, Genetics in Medicine.

[16]  S. Fullerton,et al.  Glad You Asked: Participants' Opinions of Re-Consent for DbGap Data Submission , 2010, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[17]  Melissa L McPheeters,et al.  A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States , 2015, Genetics in Medicine.

[18]  J. Kaye The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research. , 2012, Annual review of genomics and human genetics (Print).

[19]  Hakon Hakonarson,et al.  THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA. , 1955, British medical journal.

[20]  B. Wilfond,et al.  Pediatric biobanks: approaching informed consent for continuing research after children grow up. , 2009, The Journal of pediatrics.

[21]  P. Chisnall Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method , 2007, Journal of Advertising Research.

[22]  Jodyn Platt,et al.  Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[23]  Joshua Lederberg,et al.  Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. , 1975, The Australasian nurses journal.

[24]  R. Kington,et al.  Consent for genetic research in a general population: The NHANES experience , 2003, Genetics in Medicine.

[25]  Melissa A. Basford,et al.  Ethical and practical challenges of sharing data from genome-wide association studies: the eMERGE Consortium experience. , 2011, Genome research.

[26]  E. Emanuel,et al.  The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think? , 2002, Archives of internal medicine.

[27]  P. A. Kelly,et al.  Balancing the Risks and Benefits of Genomic Data Sharing: Genome Research Participants’ Perspectives , 2011, Public Health Genomics.