Lessons learned about harmonizing survey measures for the CSER consortium

Introduction: Implementation of genome-scale sequencing in clinical care has significant challenges: the technology is highly dimensional with many kinds of potential results, results interpretation and delivery require expertise and coordination across multiple medical specialties, clinical utility may be uncertain, and there may be broader familial or societal implications beyond the individual participant. Transdisciplinary consortia and collaborative team science are well poised to address these challenges. However, understanding the complex web of organizational, institutional, physical, environmental, technologic, and other political and societal factors that influence the effectiveness of consortia is understudied. We describe our experience working in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, a multi-institutional translational genomics consortium. Methods: A key aspect of the CSER consortium was the juxtaposition of site-specific measures with the need to identify consensus measures related to clinical utility and to create a core set of harmonized measures. During this harmonization process, we sought to minimize participant burden, accommodate project-specific choices, and use validated measures that allow data sharing. Results: Identifying platforms to ensure swift communication between teams and management of materials and data were essential to our harmonization efforts. Funding agencies can help consortia by clarifying key study design elements across projects during the proposal preparation phase and by providing a framework for data sharing data across participating projects. Conclusions: In summary, time and resources must be devoted to developing and implementing collaborative practices as preparatory work at the beginning of project timelines to improve the effectiveness of research consortia.

[1]  W. Chung,et al.  Psychological outcomes related to exome and genome sequencing result disclosure: a meta-analysis of seven Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium studies , 2019, Genetics in Medicine.

[2]  Josh Peterson,et al.  The Genomic Medicine Integrative Research Framework: A Conceptual Framework for Conducting Genomic Medicine Research. , 2019, American journal of human genetics.

[3]  N. Risch,et al.  The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating Genomic Sequencing in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations. , 2018, American journal of human genetics.

[4]  Stephen M Fiore,et al.  The Science of Team Science: A Review of the Empirical Evidence and Research Gaps on Collaboration in Science , 2018, The American psychologist.

[5]  B. Wilfond,et al.  Defining personal utility in genomics: A Delphi study , 2017, Clinical genetics.

[6]  Nancy J. Cooke,et al.  Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science , 2015 .

[7]  S. Kripalani,et al.  Validation of a Short, 3-Item Version of the Subjective Numeracy Scale , 2015, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[8]  A. McGuire,et al.  Social and behavioral research in genomic sequencing: approaches from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium Outcomes and Measures Working Group , 2014, Genetics in Medicine.

[9]  Michael Herdman,et al.  Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D , 2010, Quality of Life Research.

[10]  B. Hesse Of mice and mentors: developing cyber-infrastructure to support transdisciplinary scientific collaboration. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[11]  Robert T Croyle,et al.  The National Cancer Institute's transdisciplinary centers initiatives and the need for building a science of team science. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[12]  Mark D Thornquist,et al.  The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers findings from the National Cancer Institute's TREC Year-One evaluation study. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[13]  Kara L Hall,et al.  The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[14]  Daniel Stokols,et al.  Toward a Science of Transdisciplinary Action Research , 2006, American journal of community psychology.

[15]  Mary E Duffy,et al.  Design and psychometric evaluation of the Psychological Adaptation to Genetic Information Scale. , 2005, Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.

[16]  J. Varni,et al.  The PedsQL: measurement model for the pediatric quality of life inventory. , 1999, Medical care.

[17]  J. Ware,et al.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. , 1996, Medical care.

[18]  Ronald Czaja,et al.  Designing Surveys: A Guide to Decisions and Procedures , 1995 .

[19]  P. Rosenfield,et al.  The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. , 1992, Social science & medicine.

[20]  S. Fullerton,et al.  The Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) Questionnaire: Development and Preliminary Validation. , 2019, Journal of genetic counseling.