Search

This study investigates senior high school graduates' experiences, perceptions, and outcomes regarding research subjects at Gapok National School. The research employed qualitative methods to gather data from 15 participants, focusing on their reflections on the importance of research subjects, challenges faced, support from teachers and mentors, impacts on academic and career pathways, and suggestions for curriculum improvement. Key findings reveal that research subjects play a crucial role in developing critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and academic readiness among students. Participants highlighted the significant support received from teachers and mentors, which proved instrumental in overcoming challenges such as time management and resource constraints. The study underscores the profound impact of research education on shaping students' academic trajectories and preparing them for future careers. Recommendations for improving research subjects include enhancing resource accessibility, providing early exposure to research concepts, conducting hands-on workshops, and fostering diverse research topics. Practical experiences and improved time management skills are suggested to enhance student engagement and preparedness further. By implementing these recommendations, Gapok National School can enrich the effectiveness and relevance of its research subjects, better-equipping students for higher education and professional endeavors. This study contributes valuable insights into optimizing research education within secondary school settings, ensuring students are well-prepared for the challenges and opportunities ahead in their academic and career pursuits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: For the same reasons that rural telehealth has shown promise for enhancing the provision of care in underserved environments, social media recruitment may facilitate more inclusive research engagement in rural areas. However, little research has examined social media recruitment in the rural context, and few studies have evaluated the feasibility of using a free social media page to build a network of rural community members who may be interested in a research study. Here, we describe the rationale, process, and protocols of developing and implementing a social media approach to recruit rural residents to participate in an mHealth intervention. Methods: Informed by extensive formative research, we created a study Facebook page emphasizing community engagement in an mHealth behavioral intervention. We distributed the page to local networks and regularly posted recruitment and community messages. We collected data on the reach of the Facebook page, interaction with our messages, and initiations of our study intake survey. Findings: Over 21 weeks, our Facebook page gained 429 followers, and Facebook users interacted with our social media messages 3,080 times. Compared to messages that described desirable study features, messages that described community involvement resulted in higher levels of online interaction. Social media and other recruitment approaches resulted in 225 people initiating our in‐take survey, 9 enrolling in our pilot study, and 26 placing their names on a waiting list. Conclusions: A standalone social media page highlighting community involvement shows promise for recruiting in rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The role of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in human aggressive behavior is poorly characterized, though some studies report that, unlike depression, circulating or salivary levels of cortisol are low compared with controls. METHODS: In this study, we collected three salivary cortisol levels (two in the morning and one in the evening) on three separate days in 78 adult study participants with (n = 28) and without (n = 52) prominent histories of impulsive aggressive behavior. Plasma C-Reactive Protein (CRP) and Interleukin-6 (IL-6) were also collected in most study participants. Aggressive study participants meet DSM-5 criteria for Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED) while non-aggressive participants either had a history of a psychiatric disorder or no such history (Controls). RESULTS: Morning, but not evening, salivary cortisol levels were significantly lower in IED (p

The article provides a comprehensive overview of Nippon Medical School's ethical review processes for studies involving human subjects. It emphasizes the importance of adherence to legal and ethical guidelines, the establishment of ethics committees, and the necessity of thorough reviews before initiating research projects. It discusses the criteria for selecting the appropriate ethics review committee based on the nature of the research project.

Background: Research on people deprived of liberty raises serious questions, especially concerning behavioral genetic studies. Question: Does including criminally detained patients with mental disorders in genetic studies lead to a gain of new knowledge and can this be ethically and legally justified? Method: Evaluation of existing literature and interdisciplinary reflection. Results: After a review of research ethics and legal norms, we consider the benefits and risks of behavioral genetic research, taking the unique situation of test persons deprived of their liberty into account. The fundamental right to freedom of research also justifies foundational research in forensic psychiatry and psychotherapy. The possible future benefits of improving treatment plans must be weighed against the risks resulting from potential data leaks and inappropriate public reception of research results. Then we analyze possible threats to voluntary and informed consent to study participation in more detail by the ethical concept of vulnerability. Alongside problems with grasping complex issues, above all dependencies and power dynamics in the correctional system play a pivotal role. Recommendations on the ethical and legal inclusion of this study population are given. Conclusion: Including criminally detained study participants can be ethically and legally justified when autonomous consent is supported by specific organizational and legal procedures and measures, for example via a clear professional and organizational separation of correction and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the feasibility and relevancy of a systematic data collection process in characterizing factors influencing research acceptability through women during pregnancy and early postpartum. Methods: A pilot prospective observational crossover unicentric study was conducted in Est France. All the women (except language barrier and intensive care transfer) were called upon to complete a survey (33 questions). The primary endpoints were the participation rate and the completeness of the information. The secondary endpoint was the participants' sociodemographic background and preferences regarding research (bivariate analysis, P value <0.20). Results: Within the research period (February 23–March 8, 114 childbirths), 105 women fitting the criteria were called upon for the survey. The participation rate and completeness were high. The participation rate was 93% with six lost to follow‐up, and one refusal. The global filling rate was 95%. We highlighted two plausible variables of interests for research participation: women age older (P value 0.119) and level of education (P value 0.176). A sufficient cooling‐off period, the commitment of women's health providers, and the possibility to accede research results might favor women's involvement. Acceptability would appear to be decreasing when the protocol implied fetal or neonatal data collection (compared to maternal data), unless research led to a better therapeutic option. Conclusion: The data collection process is highly feasible and provide consistent data. Larger‐scale output obtention should enhance the conception and rollout of projects, first by calculating sample size based on potentials for recruitments adjusted to populations, characteristics and second by fitting the experimental design to women's expectations. Synopsis: The pilot study aims to contextualize perinatal research results, facilitate research implementation and promote evidence‐based medicine and midwifery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Over the last years there has been an increase in community pharmacy participation in research projects. Patient recruitment plays a key role in the research project success. Pharmacists’ barriers and enablers of recruitment have been identified, but little is known about the influence of research project-related factors. The aim of this paper is to explore patient participation in different studies conducted in community pharmacies and to identify study-specific factors that may be associated with it. Method: An experimental multicenter study was performed in 12 community pharmacies participating in 4 research projects. The number of patients who accepted/refused to participate was recorded. Variables related to each offered study and the project were collected. A bivariate analysis using Pearson’s Chi-Square test and a risk analysis were performed. Results: Participation rate was 90.44 % (n=558). Study type (OR=2.64; 95 % CI=1.47-4.75; cross-sectional vs pragmatic), the type of measurement applied (OR=2.47; 95 % CI=1.43-4.36), the use of a personalized care area (PCA) (OR=2.49; 95 % CI=1.44-4.39), and personal data request (OR=2.53; 95 %CI=1.47-4.42) showed association with participation in the RP (p<0.05). Conclusions: Patient participation in research projects is high and appears to rely on study-specific factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeWe examined prostate cancer patients' participation in research and associated factors by race/ethnicity in a multiethnic sample.MethodsMen with a new diagnosis of prostate cancer were identified through the California Cancer Registry. Patients completed a cross-sectional telephone interview in English, Spanish, Cantonese or Mandarin. Multivariable logistic regression models, stratified by race/ethnicity, estimated the associations of patient demographic and health characteristics with participation in (1) any research, (2) behavioral research, and (3) biological/clinical research.ResultsWe included 855 prostate cancer patients: African American (19%), Asian American (15%), Latino (24%), and White (42%). In the overall model of participation in any research, African American men (Odds Ratio (OR) = 2.54, 95% CI 1.63-3.94), and those with two or more comorbidities (OR = 2.20, 95% CI 1.27-3.80) were more likely to report participation. Men 65 years old and older (OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.47-0.91), those who were married or living with a partner (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-0.98), and those who completed the interview in Spanish (OR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.85) were less likely to report participating in any research. Stratified analyses identified racial/ethnic-specific sociodemographic characteristics associated with lower research participation, including Spanish or Chinese language, older age, and lower education.ConclusionAfrican American prostate cancer patients reported higher research participation than all other groups. However, recruitment efforts are still needed to overcome barriers to participation for Spanish and Chinese speakers, and barriers among older adults and those with lower education levels.

Background Randomised controlled trials (‘trials’) are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted. Objectives PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial. Design A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Setting Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible. Participants Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom. Interventions Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial. Main outcome measures Number of host trials funded. Results Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials. Limitations The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed (n = 2) or prematurely terminated (n = 3). Conclusions PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial. Future work Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice. Study registration All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Aims of the research A Study Within A Trial is a research study nested inside a larger ‘host trial’, promoting the use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to do Study Within A Trial routine practice in clinical trial units by funding and supporting at least 25 Studies Within A Trial. Background The best way to test health and social care treatments is to do a randomised controlled trial (‘trial’), where some patients get the treatment being tested and some do not. The results of different groups are compared to see if the treatment improves care. Recruiting patients and keeping them involved in trials is often very difficult. Research teams often do not know how best to recruit and keep patients engaged as the methods have not been tested to see if they work. The best way to test these methods is by doing a Study Within A Trial. We test a programme of Studies Within A Trial for recruiting and keeping patients engaged in trials. Methods Trial teams were able to apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from Promoting the use of Study Within A Trial team to do Studies Within A Trial. We used our experience of doing Studies Within A Trial to outline lessons learnt for doing Studies Within A Trial. Results We funded 42 Studies Within A Trial and gave teams necessary advice to do them. We significantly increased the knowledge for both recruitment and retention strategies, and found ‘pre-notifying’ before sending questionnaires, sending pens and personalised text messages were all effective for increasing responses by participants. We tested Studies Within A Trial across several different trials at the same time to find out more quickly whether their methods worked. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others doing Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient partners; picking the right strategy to test; getting ethical approvals; how to do and report Studies Within A Trial. Conclusions Promoting the use of studies within a trial was successful and supported more Studies Within A Trial than planned. We hope our experience will support those doing Studies Within A Trial in the future. Scientific summary Background Many delivery aspects of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have not been subjected to rigorous evaluation. Strategies to enhance recruitment and retention often tend to not be based on evidence. However, there is an increasing interest in embedding RCTs of such strategies. The Medical Research Council (MRC) funded systematic techniques for assisting recruitment to trials (START), which found it feasible to test two strategies for recruitment and retention across a number of trials by performing randomised ‘Studies Within A Trial (SWATs)’. Aims The aim of the PROMoting THE USE of Studies Within A Trial (PROMETHEUS) programme was to build on the START initiative and make embedding SWATs standard practice across Clinical Trials Units (CTUs). We intended to pump prime and facilitate the start of at least 25 SWATs across multiple CTUs within 30 months. The ultimate aim was to make the inclusion of SWATs routine when conducting a trial in a CTU. We share our experience of delivering the PROMETHEUS programme, along with the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised SWATs of recruitment and retention methods. Methods A network of 10 CTUs and one primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled SWATs of recruitment and/or retention interventions was established by the PROMETHEUS team. We identified promising recruitment and retention interventions from a variety of sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Northern Ireland Network for Trial Methodology Research SWAT Repository Store, and existing prioritisation exercises. Promising strategies were reviewed by our patient and public (PPI) members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. The programme allowed host trial teams to apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from the PROMETHEUS team to design, implement and report SWATs. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated SWATs, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Results The PROMETHEUS programme funded 42 SWATs, embedded within 31 host trials, across 12 CTUs. The mean cost of a funded SWAT was £3535. Of the 42 SWATs, 12 tested the same SWAT across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated SWAT design and four tested more than one strategy in a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. In the space of just 4 years, PROMETHEUS will add 18% more SWATs to the Cochrane review of global recruitment strategies, and 79% more SWATs to the Cochrane review of global retention strategies. The results from the SWATs reported to date found there was no evidence of a significant difference in recruitment for any of the strategies tested. For retention, pre-notifying participants by card prior to sending questionnaires was effective [risk difference 3.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) −3.0% to 9.6%]; as was pre-notifying participants by letter or e-mail (risk difference 3.8%, 95% CI −6.1% to 13.6%). Sending personalised text messages was more effective for improving the return of postal questionnaires compared to non-personalised text messages (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); and resulted in fewer completions via telephone compared with a non-personalised text [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.87]. Including a pen with a questionnaire probably increases retention and response rate (pooled OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.35). We highlight key lessons learnt below (see Recommendations section). Conclusions The PROMETHEUS programme significantly increased the international evidence base for both recruitment and retention strategies within RCTs. The funded SWATs evaluated a wide range of recruitment and retention strategies; however, the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five funded SWATs, with two being delayed and three prematurely terminated. Through this project, we identified that when provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented SWATs. PROMETHEUS led to an overall increase in the evidence base; however, ongoing ‘routine’ application of SWATs across RCTs employing the lessons learnt is required to ensure that efficient trial conduct strategies are identified. Recommendations Recommendations for funders All trial funders should contribute to the effort to improve the efficiency of trials. Funders should encourage the teams that they fund to undertake SWATs. Funding streams specifically designed to support SWATs must be made available to trial teams to continue building the trial process evidence base, for recruitment and retention as well as for other stages of the trial design and delivery process. This includes funding streams for undertaking specific SWATs, as well as infrastructure funding to support CTUs and other centres to undertake co-ordination activities that will support the design, conduct, reporting, and implementation of SWATs and their findings to inform the work of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the MRC, and other funders. PROMETHEUS has demonstrated that co-ordination of activity remains crucial to the delivery of SWATs. A central, national co-ordination point that provides hands-on support needs to continue and funding should be allocated for this. Additionally, CTUs should identify a lead for SWATs, to support SWAT activities and evidence-based trial conduct within the CTU, as well as links with others undertaking SWATs elsewhere to share best practice. The funding for both central and CTU-based support should be ongoing. SWAT priorities need to be identified and communicated clearly to funders, and funders should use these priorities to inform their funding decisions. Funders should develop a mechanism to promote SWAT questions that have been identified as a priority during the funding application process. The mean cost of funding requested for a standalone SWAT within PROMETHEUS was £3535 (range £500–5000). The co-ordinated SWATs cost was £10,668 (training SWAT) and £1306.40 (Christmas cards); however, these did not include costs for central co-ordination, data preparation and sharing by the host trial teams, data cleaning, analysis and write-up. These costs suggest that the £10,000 being offered by the NIHR for trial teams to include a SWAT should be sufficient for most planned SWATs. However, there may be occasions where trial teams may wish to test strategies that may be more expensive. When applying for SWAT funding, trial teams should be asked to indicate whether the question they are addressing is a priority SWAT question, and to provide a clear rationale for selecting that particular question. If teams are unable to undertake a SWAT, funders should ask that recruitment and retention methods are clearly reported to support the evidence base. Recommendations for Sponsors Our experience suggests that there is a need for clear, easily accessible information about the nature of SWATs, as well as the role of the funder in supporting SWATs. Any future changes proposed by the Health Research Authority (HRA) to the approvals process need to be communicated clearly and applied consistently to each SWAT. Recommendations for involving patient and public involvement partners in Studies Within A Trial research PPI should be considered when undertaking a SWAT, in the same way PPI is expected to be undertaken in the main trial. PPI partners should be involved to develop novel and untested recruitment and retention strategies, as well as to adapt existing strategies to the context of their specific host trial and the population being enrolled. Recommendations for oversight committees Our experience suggests that Trial Management Groups (TMGs) play a key role in decisions about whether a SWAT is undertaken and continued in the host trial or not. TMG members should encourage the uptake of SWATs in their trials. While the findings of SWATs may not always directly inform their host trial, the findings of SWATs undertaken during the early, or internal pilot, phase of the trial may inform the decisions about which strategies should be used at a later stage, such as in the main trial. Trial Steering Committees should review the SWAT activity and progress, in the same way that they review substudies in a trial. Data Monitoring Committee review is dependent on the specific host trial and SWAT strategy being evaluated. Recommendations for journals and reviewers Journal peer reviewer profiles should be updated to include methodological interests and expertise, to support evidence of suitability to undertake a peer review for a SWAT. When selecting peer reviewers, the SWAT and methodology interests as registered by reviewers should be used where possible. SWATs are a niche area and so to increase the pool of reviewers, journals should consider being more flexible when assessing reviewer credentials to review a SWAT, such as allowing relevant experience in place of a PhD. Reviewers should be advised that in many instances informed consent from participants need not be obtained when undertaking a SWAT, due to the low risk associated with the intervention and in the case of retention SWATs due to existing consent for further research being in place. This may depend on the jurisdiction. In the UK, this approach is supported by HRA guidance in relation to grading for SWAT interventions and approvals. Robust and transparent reporting is necessary, that is compliant with CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Recommendations for trial teams and methodologists undertaking SWAT research There remains a need for continually updated research priorities to allow researchers to address the questions relevant at that time. When SWAT priorities are set, methodologists need to provide enough information to enable teams to make informed decisions about evaluating the priorities set. Further work is needed to help teams identify suitable SWAT strategies for their host trials. SWAT priorities need to be communicated clearly and consistently to trial teams. Recommendation for trial conduct and using SWAT evidence As the evidence base develops for effective and cost-effective recruitment and retention strategies, it will become increasingly important for trial teams to use this evidence base to inform their recruitment and retention activities. Trial teams need to actively engage with the evidence base to inform their practice. Funders will need to actively support the trials they fund to use evidence-informed recruitment and retention strategies. Recommendations for future research There remains a substantial need for more high-quality SWAT evidence and so Chief Investigators should be encouraged to consider the embedding of a SWAT at the funding stage. Further work is therefore needed to increase the awareness of the methodological importance of SWAT research with research teams, and to develop engagement strategies to increase SWAT activity. Future research needs to focus on identifying whether further replications are needed for existing evidence. If so, the gaps in the evidence base should be targeted. More co-ordination and replication of SWAT evaluations are encouraged. A ‘real-time’ and dynamic communication strategy including a clear cost and resource breakdown for each suggested SWAT should be developed. This will alleviate the burden on trials teams to begin costing exercises and enable them to make an informed decision more quickly as to whether they can embed a given SWAT. There is a need to aid teams to identify and select a suitable SWAT for their host trial populations. Pragmatic decisions on which SWAT may be appropriate and feasible to include should be taken as required. A mechanism to communicate SWAT research priorities is needed, and this information needs to be readily accessible for all trialists to refer to. Our findings demonstrate that within an individual host trial, there is often a capacity to address more than one SWAT question, either separately, or simultaneously using a factorial design. This suggests that there is a capacity to significantly speed up and strengthen the evidence base through teams undertaking more than one SWAT in their trials where relevant. For certain strategies, co-ordinated SWATs should be encouraged. This method could be used to rapidly replicate SWAT evaluations to plug the evidence gap, as well as to evaluate more complex recruitment and retention strategies that may be more challenging to undertake using individual SWATs. Materials should be developed to advise teams on how to undertake co-ordinated SWATs, as well as a method of networking to enable teams to promote their co-ordinated SWAT and collaborate. As the evidence base develops, it will become increasingly important for trialists to utilise the evidence base in a systematic way to identify both effective and ineffective strategies to inform their practice. Future work should therefore consider issues around the dissemination and implementation of SWATs and develop guidance to enable the wider trials community to undertake, report and adopt the findings of SWATs. Implementation science, the study of methods to promote the uptake of evidence-based practice, could be used to inform any such future work. Funders can also help by questioning strategies proposed by trial teams that are known to be either ineffective or not cost-effective. Improving the knowledge of the potential ‘harms’ from implementing interventions that have no evidence of benefit is an important next step to help improve uptake. While establishing the effectiveness of recruitment or retention strategies is important, the high costs of research waste and limited public finance mean that cost considerations around SWATs are just as important. With only one retention strategy having high Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) certainty of cost effectiveness, we encourage trial teams to undertake streamlined economic evaluations alongside all their SWATs in the future, for strategies shown to be effective, as well as those that are ineffective. For cost effectiveness, trial teams should look to report the cost per additional participant recruited or retained (i.e. the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). Value of information analyses can help determine the need for further SWAT evidence where several SWATs already exist. Many trial teams wish to contribute to developing the evidence base by undertaking non-randomised SWATs. Future work that informs the development of guidance for undertaking non-randomised SWATs would be helpful. Working with trial teams to develop engagement strategies and training to undertake SWATs would be beneficial. Audience specific guidance should be developed to support SWAT research. Trial teams have expressed they want to undertake SWATs that are important and necessary to increase the evidence base. Collaboration with funders, working groups involved in priority setting, and trial teams is needed to develop a mechanism to communicate this dynamic and evolving information once priority SWATs have been identified. Work is needed to identify the barriers that teams have when undertaking a SWAT, and strategies and solutions for addressing these barriers should be identified and implemented. Continued and proactive collaboration is needed with working groups to enable networking, and collaboration with teams undertaking SWAT research. Reporting guidance is needed to support teams when writing publications to ensure sufficient information is included to GRADE evaluation can be undertaken. Study registration All SWATs in the PROMETHEUS programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository. Funding details This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

BackgroundClinical genomic implementation studies pose challenges for informed consent. Consent forms often include complex language and concepts, which can be a barrier to diverse enrollment, and these studies often blur traditional research-clinical boundaries. There is a move toward self-directed, web-based research enrollment, but more evidence is needed about how these enrollment approaches work in practice. In this study, we developed and evaluated a literacy-focused, web-based consent approach to support enrollment of diverse participants in an ongoing clinical genomic implementation study. Methods: As part of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, we developed a web-based consent approach that featured plain language, multimedia, and separate descriptions of clinical care and research activities. CHARM offered clinical exome sequencing to individuals at high risk of hereditary cancer. We interviewed CHARM participants about their reactions to the consent approach. We audio recorded, transcribed, and coded interviews using a deductively and inductively derived codebook. We reviewed coded excerpts as a team to identify overarching themes. Results: We conducted 32 interviews, including 12 (38%) in Spanish. Most (69%) enrolled without assistance from study staff, usually on a mobile phone. Those who completed enrollment in one day spent an average of 12 minutes on the consent portion. Interviewees found the information simple to read but comprehensive, were neutral to positive about the multimedia support, and identified increased access to testing in the study as the key difference from clinical care. Conclusions: This study showed that interviewees found our literacy-focused, web-based consent approach acceptable; did not distinguish the consent materials from other online study processes; and valued getting access to testing in the study. Overall, conducting empirical bioethics research in an ongoing clinical trial was useful to demonstrate the acceptability of our novel consent approach but posed practical challenges.

BackgroundPreclinical Alzheimer's disease clinical trials test candidate treatments in individuals with biomarker evidence but no cognitive impairment. Participants are required to co-enroll with a knowledgeable study partner, to whom biomarker information is disclosed.ObjectiveWe investigated whether reluctance to share biomarker results is associated with viewing the study partner requirement as a barrier to preclinical trial enrollment.DesignWe developed a nine-item assessment on views toward the study partner requirement and performed in-person interviews based on a hypothetical clinical trial requiring biomarker testing and disclosure.SettingWe conducted interviews on campus at the University of California, Irvine.ParticipantsTwo hundred cognitively unimpaired older adults recruited from the University of California, Irvine Consent-to-Contact Registry participated in the study.MeasurementsWe used logistic regression models, adjusting for potential confounders, to examine potential associations with viewing the study partner requirement as a barrier to preclinical trial enrollment.ResultsEighteen percent of participants reported strong agreement that the study partner requirement was a barrier to enrollment. Ten participants (5%) agreed at any level that they would be reluctant to share their biomarker result with a study partner. The estimated odds of viewing the study partner requirement as a barrier to enrollment were 26 times higher for these participants (OR=26.3, 95% CI 4.0, 172.3), compared to those who strongly disagreed that they would be reluctant to share their biomarker result. Overall, participants more frequently agreed with positive statements than negative statements about the study partner requirement, including 76% indicating they would want their study partner with them when they learned biomarker results.ConclusionsThis is one of the first studies to explore how potential preclinical Alzheimer's disease trial participants feel about sharing their personal biomarker information with a study partner. Most participants viewed the study partner as an asset to trial enrollment, including having a partner present during biomarker disclosure.

PurposeThe epithelium lining the ocular surface, which includes corneal and conjunctival epithelia, expresses the prosecretory chloride channel cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) and the proabsorptive epithelial sodium channel (ENaC). Here, methodology was established to measure the millivolt (mV) potential differences at the ocular surface, called ocular surface potential difference (OSPD), in human subjects produced by ion transport.MethodsOSPD was measured in human subjects in which a fluid-filled measuring electrode contacted a fluid pool created by eversion of the lateral lower eyelid, with a reference electrode placed subcutaneously in the forearm. Through the use of a high-impedance voltmeter, OSPD was measured continuously over 10 to 15 minutes in response to a series of perfusate fluid exchanges.ResultsBaseline OSPD (± SEM) in six normal human subjects was -21.3 ± 3.6 mV. OSPD depolarized by 1.7 ± 0.6 mV following the addition of the ENaC inhibitor amiloride, hyperpolarized by 6.8 ± 1.5 mV with a zero chloride solution, and further hyperpolarized by 15.9 ± 1.6 mV following CFTR activation by isoproterenol. The isoproterenol-induced hyperpolarization was absent in two cystic fibrosis subjects lacking functional CFTR. OSPD measurement produced minimal epithelial injury.ConclusionsOur results establish the feasibility and safety of OSPD measurement in humans and demonstrate robust CFTR activity, albeit minimal ENaC activity, at the ocular surface. OSPD measurement may be broadly applicable to investigate fluid transport mechanisms and test drug candidates to treat ocular surface disorders.Translational relevanceTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first measurement of the electrical potential generated by the ocular surface epithelium in human subjects, offering a new approach to study ocular surface function and health.

In X-linked hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia, the most frequent ectodermal dysplasia, an inherited deficiency of the signalling protein ectodysplasin A1 (EDA1) impairs the development of the skin and its appendages, various eccrine glands, and dentition. The severe hypohidrosis common to X-linked hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia patients may lead to life-threatening hyperthermia, especially during hot weather or febrile illness. Fc-EDA, an EDA1 replacement protein known to prevent the disease in newborn animals, was tested in 2 clinical trials (human adults and neonates) and additionally administered under compassionate use to 3 infants in utero. The data support the safety of Fc-EDA and efficacy if applied prenatally. Anti-drug antibodies were detected after intravenous administration in adult males and nonpregnant females, but not in pregnant women when Fc-EDA was delivered intra-amniotically. Most importantly, there was no detectable immune response to the investigational drug in neonates treated by intravenous infusions and in infants who had received Fc-EDA in utero. In conclusion, the safety profile of this drug encourages further development of prenatal EDA1 replacement therapy.

In X-linked hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia, the most frequent ectodermal dysplasia, an inherited deficiency of the signalling protein ectodysplasin A1 (EDA1) impairs the development of the skin and its appendages, various eccrine glands, and dentition. The severe hypohidrosis common to X-linked hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia patients may lead to life-threatening hyperthermia, especially during hot weather or febrile illness. Fc-EDA, an EDA1 replacement protein known to prevent the disease in newborn animals, was tested in 2 clinical trials (human adults and neonates) and additionally administered under compassionate use to 3 infants in utero. The data support the safety of Fc-EDA and efficacy if applied prenatally. Anti-drug antibodies were detected after intravenous administration in adult males and nonpregnant females, but not in pregnant women when Fc-EDA was delivered intra-amniotically. Most importantly, there was no detectable immune response to the investigational drug in neonates treated by intravenous infusions and in infants who had received Fc-EDA in utero. In conclusion, the safety profile of this drug encourages further development of prenatal EDA1 replacement therapy.

BackgroundAlcohol and cannabis are frequently co-used, as 20-50% of those who drink alcohol report co-using cannabis. This study is based on the argument that alcohol researchers should enroll cannabis users in human laboratory studies of alcohol use disorder (AUD) to strengthen generalizability. This study examines how heavy drinking cannabis users differ from non-cannabis using heavy drinkers.MethodsIn a community sample of non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (n = 551, 35% female), cannabis users were identified through: (a) self-reported cannabis use in the past 6 months and (b) positive urine toxicology test for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Cannabis users, identified as described previously, were compared with non-cannabis users on demographic and clinical characteristics.ResultsThose who endorsed cannabis use in the past 6 months reported more binge drinking days. Participants who tested positive for THC had higher Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test scores and more binge drinking days. Younger age and being a tobacco smoker were associated with an increased likelihood of cannabis use in the past 6 months, whereas male gender and being a tobacco use were associated with a greater likelihood of testing positive for THC. Individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD) endorsed more depression and anxiety and had higher AUD symptom counts than cannabis users without CUD.ConclusionsThe inclusion of cannabis users in AUD samples allows for increased clinical severity. Excluding cannabis users from AUD studies may limit representativeness and expend unnecessary study resources. Lastly, tobacco use may explain a large portion of the effects of cannabis use on sample characteristics.Short summaryAlcohol and cannabis are frequently co-used substances. In a sample of non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (n = 551, 35% female), cannabis users reported higher alcohol use and higher likelihood of tobacco use than non-cannabis users. Including cannabis users in alcohol research studies will improve representativeness and likely increase clinical severity.

BackgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials require enrollment of a participant and a study partner, whose role includes assessing participant cognitive and functional performance. AD trials now investigate early stages of the disease, when participants are not cognitively impaired. This gives rise to the question of whether study partners or participants provide more information in these trials.MethodsWe used data from the AD Cooperative Study Prevention Instrument Project (ADCS-PI) to compare participant and study partner predictions of the participant's current and future cognitive state. We used the Cognitive Function Instrument (CFI) as a measure of evaluation of the participant's cognitive status and the modified ADCS Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (mADCS-PACC) as an objective measure of cognition. Stratifying by cognitive status and study partner type and adjusting for other predictors of the participant's cognitive state, we used random forests along with estimated mean variable importance (eMVI) to assess how well each member of the dyad can predict cognitive state at current and later visits. We also fit linear regression models at each time point and for each scenario.ResultsParticipants were better at predicting future cognitive status compared to their study partners regardless of study partner type, though the difference between participants and partners was greatest for non-spousal dyads in the lowest-performing quartile. Cross-sectional assessments differed substantially by dyad type. Within the lowest cognitive performance quartile, participants having a non-spousal study partner outperformed their partners in assessing cognition at later times. Spousal partners, in contrast, outperformed participants later in the study in predicting current cognitive performance.ConclusionsThese results indicate that participants tend to be better at predicting future cognition compared to their study partners regardless of the study partner type. When assessing current cognition, however, spousal study partners perform better at later time points and non-spousal study partners do not provide as much information regarding participant cognitive state.

This article addresses ethical issues in the conduct of ethnographic research with vulnerable study participants, such as individuals with cognitive impairment. Seven ethical issues emerged from this case study, in which a participant diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease wished to pursue euthanasia in Switzerland: (a) How to protect the participant's autonomy while ensuring his decision had not resulted from untreated depression or modifiable social factors; (b) How to interpret self-harm; (c) How to protect the research team members' "mandated reporter" status; (d) How to counteract the attractive qualities of pro-euthanasia videos depicting an easy end to personal suffering; (e) How to find a better alternative to the common practice of reporting self-harm cases to Adult Protective Services and then removing these cases from studies; (f) How to leverage a participant's trust to address these issues; and (g) Whether researchers should do anything further to help address unmet needs in similar situations.

Existing scholarship has not thoroughly explored topics of ethical dilemmas faced by qualitative international relations researchers. Due to the distinctiveness of the study and the need to address ethical concerns with regard to international relations research, this article aims to elucidate the ethical dilemmas in three aspects: ethical dilemmas of research subjects (gatekeepers and vulnerable groups), ethical codes and scientific conduct, and constructing qualitative rigor in international relations. It further attempts to connect to existing opinions of social research studies critical toward the positivist methodological stances of contemporary ethical reviews and echoes the need to reflect on ethical dilemmas on a case-by-case basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although declines in cognitive capacity are assumed to be a characteristic of aging, increasing evidence shows that it is age-related disease, rather than age itself, that causes cognitive impairment. Even so, older age is a primary risk factor for cognitive decline, and with individuals living longer as a result of medical advances, cognitive impairment and dementia are increasing in prevalence. On March 26 to 27, 2018, the American Geriatrics Society convened a conference in Bethesda, MD, to explore cognitive impairment across the subspecialties. Bringing together representatives from several subspecialties, this was the third of three conferences, supported by a U13 grant from the National Institute on Aging, to aid recipients of Grants for Early Medical/Surgical Specialists' Transition to Aging Research (GEMSSTAR) in integrating geriatrics into their subspecialties. Scientific sessions focused on the impact of cognitive impairment, sensory contributors, comorbidities, links between delirium and dementia, and issues of informed consent in cognitively impaired populations. Discussions highlighted the complexity not only of cognitive health itself, but also of the bidirectional relationship between cognitive health and the health of other organ systems. Thus, conference participants noted the importance of multidisciplinary team science in future aging research. This article summarizes the full conference report, "The Impact of Cognitive Impairment Across Specialties," and notes areas where GEMSSTAR scholars can contribute to progress as they embark on their careers in aging research. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2011-2017, 2019.

Insecticide-treated bednets are among the most prevalent and cost-effective tools for preventing malaria throughout the world. Consistent bednet use is crucial for effectiveness, but assessing adherence is challenging due to limitations in current measurement tools. Recent technologies have introduced methods for remote electronic bednet use monitoring. While valuable for researchers, these monitoring tools create potential ethical concerns for study bystanders because the monitors are typically unable to discriminate between individuals who are or are not study participants. Considerations related to study bystanders, including privacy, ancillary care obligations, and community perceptions, are discussed.

Background/aimsIn this study, we compared two research consent techniques: a standardized video plus usual consent and usual consent alone.MethodsIndividuals who completed 24-month outcomes (completers) in the Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss study were invited to participate in an extended, longitudinal follow-up study (extended Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss). Potential participants who were (1) able to provide consent and (2) not in long-term care facilities were randomized 1:1 to a standardized video detailing the importance of long-term follow-up studies of pelvic floor disorders followed by the usual institutional consent process versus the usual consent process alone. Randomization, stratified by site, used randomly permuted blocks. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who enrolled in the extended study and completed data collection events 5 years after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the proportion enrolled in the extended study, completion of follow-up at each study year, completion of data collection points, completion of in-person visits, and completion of quality of life calls. Motivation and barriers to enrollment (study-level and personal-level) and satisfaction with the study consent process were measured by questionnaire prior to recruitment into extended Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss. Groups were compared using an intention-to-treat principle, using unadjusted Student's t-test (continuous) and chi-square or Fisher's exact (categorical) test. A sample size of 340 (170/group) was estimated to detect a 15% difference in enrollment and study completion between groups with p

BACKGROUND: Stagnant outcomes for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) 15-39 years of age with cancer are partly attributed to poor enrollment onto clinical trials. Initiatives have focused on increasing accrual, but changes at the population-level are unknown. We examined patterns of clinical trial participation over time in AYA patients with cancer. PROCEDURE: We utilized medical record data from AYAs in two population-based National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Studies identified through the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program. Among 3135 AYAs diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and sarcoma, we used multivariate logistic regression to evaluate patient and provider characteristics associated with clinical trial enrollment. Interaction terms evaluated variation in clinical trial enrollment across patient and provider characteristics by year of diagnosis. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2012-2013, clinical trial participation increased from 14.8% to 17.9% (P

ObjectiveTo understand women's preferences for permanent contraception by salpingectomy or tubal occlusion following standardized counseling and evaluate the practicality of a future randomized trial.Study designWe invited pregnant and non-pregnant women planning permanent contraception at the University of California, Davis (UCD) and University of Tennessee (UT) Obstetrics and Gynecology clinics to participate. We enrolled women when they received routine counseling and signed procedure consent. Participants received standardized information sheets reviewing permanent contraception options based on pregnancy status then completed an anonymous survey with questions about demographics, method preference, and willingness to participate in a hypothetical randomized trial comparing salpingectomy and tubal occlusion. We evaluated predictors for salpingectomy preference using multivariable analysis.ResultsFrom July 2015 to October 2016, we enrolled 75 women at UCD and 63 women at UT. Overall, respondents preferred salpingectomy (63.0%); among the 47 women not currently pregnant at both sites, 40 (85.1%) preferred salpingectomy, most commonly because of higher efficacy. Although population characteristics differed significantly between the sites, only UCD site (aOR 4.2; 95% CI 1.9, 9.4) and non-pregnancy status (aOR 4.2; 95% CI 1.6, 10.8) predicted preference for salpingectomy in the multivariable model. Most participants (n=84, 60.9%) would not be willing to be randomized to a theoretical trial comparing salpingectomy and tubal occlusion procedures.ConclusionAmong a diverse group of women from two different areas in the U.S. given a choice of permanent contraception methods, salpingectomy is preferred over tubal occlusion. Most women planning a permanent contraceptive procedure would not agree to a randomized comparison of these methods.Implications statementSalpingectomy, which offers theoretically higher efficacy and potentially greater ovarian cancer protection compared to tubal occlusion, is preferred by the majority of patients and should be offered to all women seeking permanent contraception. Differences in method choices less likely reflect the patient population and more likely the counseling provided.

Abstract Background The twenty-first century has witnessed an exponential increase in healthcare quality research. As such activities become more prevalent, physicians are increasingly needed to participate as subjects in research and quality improvement (QI) projects. This raises an important ethical question: how should physicians be remunerated for participating as research and/or QI subjects? Financial versus non-monetary incentives for participation Research suggests participation in research and QI is often driven by conditional altruism, the idea that although initial interest in enrolling in research is altruistic or prosocial, decisions to actually perform study tasks are cost–benefit driven. Thus, the three models commonly employed to appropriately compensate participants (in-kind compensation such as travel reimbursement, paying market rates for the subject’s time, and paying market rates for the activity asked of the participant) are a poor fit when the participant is a clinician, largely due to the asymmetry between cost and benefit or value to the participant. Non-monetary alternatives such as protected time for participation, continuing education or maintenance of certification credit, or professional development materials, can provide viable avenues for reducing this asymmetry. Conclusion Research and QI are integral to the betterment of medicine and healthcare. To increase physician participation in these activities as the subject of study, new models are needed that clarify the physician’s role in research and QI as a subject. Non-monetary approaches are recommended to successfully and ethically encourage research and QI participation, and thus incorporate these activities as a normal part of the ethical clinician’s and successful learning healthcare system’s world view.

Clinical research studies have navigated many changes throughout the COVID‐19 pandemic. We sought to describe the pandemic′s impact on research operations in the context of a clinical genomics research consortium that aimed to enroll a majority of participants from underrepresented populations. We interviewed (July to November 2020) and surveyed (May to August 2021) representatives of six projects in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence‐Generating Research (CSER) consortium, which studies the implementation of genome sequencing in the clinical care of patients from populations that are underrepresented in genomics research or are medically underserved. Questions focused on COVID′s impact on participant recruitment, enrollment, and engagement, and the transition to teleresearch. Responses were combined and thematically analyzed. Projects described factors at the project, institutional, and community levels that affected their experiences. Project factors included the project′s progress at the pandemic′s onset, the urgency of in‐person clinical care for the disease being studied, and the degree to which teleresearch procedures were already incorporated. Institutional and community factors included institutional guidance for research and clinical care and the burden of COVID on the local community. Overall, being responsive to community experiences and values was essential to how CSER navigated evolving challenges during the COVID‐19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The doctrine of informed consent sits at the intersection of law, ethics, and neuroscience, posing unique challenges for human subject research involving neurological patients. These challenges are compounded by the variegated nature of both neurological injury and the law governing research consent. This article provides a framework for investigators likely to encounter subjects with some degree of neurological impairment, whose capacity to consent requires scrupulous assessment prior to enrollment in research trials. We consider several researches and disease contexts-from emergency epilepsy research to long-term dementia research-and clarify the ethical and legal principles governing consent for participation in each. We additionally explore empirical research on consent capacity and survey several areas of emerging ethical import that will require the attention of investigators in decades to come.

The increasing complexity of human subjects research and its oversight has prompted researchers, as well as institutional review boards (IRBs), to have a forum in which to discuss challenging or novel ethical issues not fully addressed by regulations. Research ethics consultation (REC) services provide such a forum. In this article, we rely on the experiences of a national Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative that collected more than 350 research ethics consultations in a repository and published 18 challenging cases with accompanying ethical commentaries to highlight four contexts in which REC can be a valuable resource. REC assists: 1) investigators before and after the regulatory review; 2) investigators, IRBs, and other research administrators facing challenging and novel ethical issues; 3) IRBs and investigators with the increasing challenges of informed consent and risk/benefit analysis; and 4) in providing flexible and collaborative assistance to overcome study hurdles, mediate conflicts within a team, or directly engage with research participants. Institutions that have established, or plan to establish, REC services should work to raise the visibility of their service and engage in open communication with existing clinical ethics consult services as well as the IRB. While the IRB system remains the foundation for the ethical review of research, REC can be a valuable service for investigators, regulators, and research participants aligned with the goal of supporting ethical research.

Bibliometrics and content analysis approaches were adopted in this study to review the papers issued in Journal of Library and Information Sciences from 1999 to 2020 to draw the landscape of library and information science studies, including research population, research subjects, research approaches and theories used. The results showed the growth of the research population, but the high percentage of one-time authors who lacked sustainable research efforts. Classical LIS topics, such as information behavior and information organization with mixed and newly developed approaches were the center of research. Research evaluation by bibliometrics approach expanded the scope of LIS studies. The presentation of theory linkage appeared limited, but increased in later published papers.

Rigorous research and program evaluation are needed to understand the experience of dating and sexual violence among youth and the impact of prevention and intervention efforts. Our dilemma in doing this work occurred when youth disclosed dating and sexual violence on a research survey. What responsibility do researchers have to protect survivors' confidentiality as a research participant versus taking steps to ensure the student has the opportunity to access help? In our evaluation of a pilot dating violence prevention program, our protocols employed widely used procedures for providing resources to participants upon their completion of the survey and de-identifying survey data. Upon reviewing preliminary survey results, we became concerned that these established procedures were not sufficient to support research participants who were adolescent survivors of dating and sexual violence. We followed a structured ethical decision-making process to examine legal and ethical considerations, consult with colleagues, consider impacts and alternative solutions, and ultimately find a solution. Through this process, we developed procedures that balance participant confidentiality and the desire to support the welfare of survivors, which other researchers may want to employ when conducting youth sexual and dating violence research in school and community settings.

The year 2016 was a crucial time for the education system in the Philippines since it was the first facilitation year of the Senior High School in the country. The K to 12, also known as "Kindergarten to grade 12", is an education system under the Department of Education that aims to produce more competent Filipino citizens in the global market. In line with the facilitation of K to 12 in the Philippines, the problem in the teacherssubjects mismatch is very evident, especially in the research subjects of the Senior High School, namely Practical Research 1 (Qualitative Research), Practical Research 2 (Quantitative Research), and Inquiries, Investigation, and Immersion. These are new subjects to the eyes of high school faculty members in the Philippines. Research subjects from pre-K to 12 are not considered a field or a subject matter, especially in high school. However, the Senior High School program brought a new perspective to the research subjects as it aims to develop Filipino learners' critical and research skills. This paper tackles different issues and challenges faced by Filipino research teacher. Moreover, this paper proposed a faculty loading guide model for research subjects that can be used by school administrators to guide them in distributing research subjects to the faculty members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research institutions often lack policies addressing the risks and benefits of enrolling "invested parties" such as investigators, research staff, and patient, caregiver, and community representatives (groups most affected by a disease or intervention) in studies where they have direct involvement. Invested parties may have both strong motivations to study the condition or intervention and to participate as study subjects. More guidance is needed to promote appropriate access to research participation and mitigate potential risks. This article addresses the gap in guidance by presenting an ethical framework and practical guidelines for the enrollment of invested parties. Drawing from experiences with the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a large multisite observational cohort study, we argue that invested parties should not be categorically excluded from enrollment in their own research studies if certain criteria are met and appropriate safeguards are in place. We underscore the need to balance inclusion with fairness, promote valid voluntary informed consent, ensure data privacy, protect scientific validity, and mitigate unique risks to invested parties as participants. Additionally, we recommend regular reporting and empirical assessment to evaluate the impact of enrolling invested parties on participants and study outcomes., (© 2024 The Authors. Ethics & Human Research, published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Hastings Center.)

A complex network of ethico-legal rules makes it difficult for health researchers in South Africa to lawfully recruit adolescents to the kinds of sensitive studies where it may be ethically appropriate to proceed without notifying parents or obtaining parental consent. This article responds to a recent proposal to amend the blanket requirement for mandatory parental consent presently contained in section 71 the South African National Health Act 61 of 2003 [NHA]. The proposed amendment is intended to bring the NHA into alignment with South Africa's 2015 Department of Health Guidelines on Ethics in Health Research by permitting greater flexibility for a health research ethics committee to waive parental consent, and permit adolescents to consent independently. A lacuna in this proposal is highlighted with reference to the requirements of South Africa's Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 [POPIA]: Even if the NHA is amended as proposed, the goal of aligning South African law with prevailing ethics norms in South Africa would not necessarily be attained, as parental consent may still be required by POPIA. This article investigates whether this goal (of aligning the law with ethics) can be attained in a way that is compliant with POPIA. It is concluded that this is indeed possible in a number of ways, and that the best way to attain this goal is by requesting the South African Information Regulator to issue a guidance note to the effect that all health research projects that are approved by institutional health research ethics committees are to be regarded as being in the public interest, which would qualify such health research projects to be exempted from POPIA's consent requirements., (© 2023 The Authors. Developing World Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The twenty-first century has witnessed an exponential increase in healthcare quality research. As such activities become more prevalent, physicians are increasingly needed to participate as subjects in research and quality improvement (QI) projects. This raises an important ethical question: how should physicians be remunerated for participating as research and/or QI subjects?Financial Versus Non-monetary Incentives For Participation: Research suggests participation in research and QI is often driven by conditional altruism, the idea that although initial interest in enrolling in research is altruistic or prosocial, decisions to actually perform study tasks are cost-benefit driven. Thus, the three models commonly employed to appropriately compensate participants (in-kind compensation such as travel reimbursement, paying market rates for the subject's time, and paying market rates for the activity asked of the participant) are a poor fit when the participant is a clinician, largely due to the asymmetry between cost and benefit or value to the participant. Non-monetary alternatives such as protected time for participation, continuing education or maintenance of certification credit, or professional development materials, can provide viable avenues for reducing this asymmetry.Conclusion: Research and QI are integral to the betterment of medicine and healthcare. To increase physician participation in these activities as the subject of study, new models are needed that clarify the physician's role in research and QI as a subject. Non-monetary approaches are recommended to successfully and ethically encourage research and QI participation, and thus incorporate these activities as a normal part of the ethical clinician's and successful learning healthcare system's world view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Well before patient-centered or patient-controlled research became trendy, and earlier than calls to preferentially refer to research subjects as participants, Bob Veatch wrote "The Patient as Partner" Veatch presciently argued that research patients should not be thought of as passive subjects nor material from which to obtain data, but rather as partners in discovery. In this manuscript, I will explore Veatch's conception of patient as partner in research and how that idea has evolved and been implemented over time and consider some of the remaining challenges. Complexities of patient partnership include: clarifying the types of research in which patient partnership is most appropriate, recognizing the various possible levels of patient engagement in each case, avoiding tokenism and striving for respectful partnership, and keeping in mind the appropriate implementation of protections and safeguards. Bob Veatch would be pleased with the progress that has been made in creating research partnerships with patients, while also undoubtedly pushing us to continue to do better. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The managerial function of communication and PR requires the use of a scientific method for decision-making that makes it possible to correctly define the starting problem of strategic programming through an effective diagnosis, establish the objective to be achieved and, subsequently, evaluate correctly the success achieved, taking into account that the final strategic objective is to establish relationships of trust with the publics. In this article we seek to identify the contents that form competencies and research capacities in strategic planning within the study plans of the own (unofficial) master's degrees directly linked to the function of communication management, offered in Spain during the 2019-2020, to determine if the graduates have been prepared, as future managers, to investigate properly. Matilla (2018) proposes a series of information and research techniques and methods -basic and applied- that should be worked on in the first stage of the strategic planning process and that will serve as a guide for the contents that should be worked on at the training level. Through content analysis, a total of 38 unofficial master's degrees were identified that met the first search requirements in the 2019-2020 academic year, of which, after carefully reading their subjects, competencies and professional opportunities, it was seen that only 13 were directly linked to the communication management function, both from an integrated department of an organization, as well as from agencies and consultancies. The final sample unit showed that the word "research" literally appeared in 7 subject titles of 6 different master's degrees. Likewise, the descriptions or contents of another 26 subjects included at least one concept linked to the initial stage of research, such as "audit", "diagnosis", "analysis" (psychosocial, of publics, of data, of insight, executive...), "measurement", "monitoring", "metrics", "evaluation", "audience map", "information search", "issues management", "research of futures", "interpretation of results" or "social trends". A third of the Spanish master's degrees directly linked to the function of communication management do not offer any type of training in strategic research, despite its importance at a professional level, and only half of them offer at least one specialized subject in research. There is no master's degree that literally includes all the necessary contents identified by Matilla (2018) to correctly carry out the first stage of research, although there are some universities that show a high interest in training professionals capable of empirical research. Reliable proof of this interest is the Carlos III University of Madrid, which offers more than 50% of its ECTS with some mention of research techniques, methods or typologies. In short, it can be seen that depending on the postgraduate training in question, future communication and PR professionals will be trained -or not- to conduct scientific research, so that a third of postgraduates will not have received specific training in strategic research and will not be able to acquire the research skills necessary to adequately exercise the management function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Patients with advanced disease may not be invited to participate in research based on the assumption that participation would be too burdensome for them. The aim of this study was to explore how patients with advanced disease and their relatives evaluate their experience with research participation. Method This study used data from two parts of a larger project. The first dataset was a cross-sectional questionnaire study focused on priorities at the end of life. The second dataset used a longitudinal design with structured interviews on prognostic awareness. In both studies, participants evaluated their experience on a 5-point Likert scale and specified their motivation in an open-ended question. Data were collected in 6 hospitals in the Czech Republic with patients with advanced disease and life expectancy less than 1 year and their relatives. Data were analysed using non-parametric tests and thematic analysis. Results First dataset consisted of 167 patients and 102 relatives, and second dataset consisted of 135 patients and 92 relatives (in total, 496 respondents). Results were similar in both datasets, with half of the sample (53%, 48%) scoring neutral, and over 30% of the sample identified their experience as interesting. The most significant factors associated with the evaluation were religiosity (p = 0.001) and the type of diagnosis (p = 0.04). Motivation for participation was to improve care, support research, express own opinion, opportunity to talk and trusting relationship. Conclusions Patients with advanced disease and relatives do not mind participating in palliative care research, and it can be even a positive experience for them.

ObjectiveClinical trials are necessary for evaluation of novel treatments. However, concerns have been raised about the vulnerability of depressed individuals when joining clinical trials, that is, about their abilities to make good decisions about clinical trial participation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether depression compromises decisions to join clinical trials, by comparing the decisions of 3 groups: depressed individuals, individuals suffering from chronic pain, and individuals with comorbid depression and chronic pain.MethodParticipants (depressed: n = 61; chronic pain: n = 60; comorbid: n = 58) completed, via a clinical interview, common decision-making tasks from the field of judgment and decision making (time trade-off and standard gamble). The rationality of decisions was defined as the concordance between the evaluations of their health and the amount of risk participants would accept to improve health.ResultsDepressed individuals made less rational decisions than individuals with chronic pain (partial η2 = 0.075, 90% confidence interval [CI] [0.009, 0.180]); however, the discrepancy was in the direction of risk aversion, suggesting that depressed individuals were overly cautious about clinical trial participation. Furthermore, this risk aversion was not limited to clinical trials for depression, but also extended to clinical trials for chronic pain (partial η2 = 0.041, 90% CI [0.002, 0.117]), suggesting that depressed individuals may be overly cautious in their health choices more broadly.ConclusionOur findings suggest that concerns about depressed individuals making overly risky "desperate" decisions is likely unfounded, and it is more likely that depressed individuals may forgo valuable care options in an attempt to avoid risk. (PsycINFO Database Record

BackgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA)-which often involves brief surveys delivered via mobile technology-has transformed our understanding of the individual and contextual micro-processes associated with legal and illicit drug use. However, little empirical research has focused on participant's perspective on the probability and magnitude of potential risks in EMA studies.ObjectivesTo garner participant perspectives on potential risks common to EMA studies of illicit drug use.MethodsWe interviewed 38 persons who inject drugs living in San Diego (CA) and Philadelphia (PA), United States. They completed simulations of an EMA tool and then underwent a semi-structured interview that systematically explored domains of risk considered within the proposed revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects or the "Common Rule." Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded systematically to explore psychological, physical, social, legal, and informational risks from participation.ResultsParticipants perceived most risks to be minimal. Some indicated that repetitive questioning about mood or drug use could cause psychological (i.e., anxiety) or behavioral risks (i.e., drug use relapse). Ironically, the questions that were viewed as risky were considered motivational to engage in healthy behaviors. The most cited risks were legal and social risks stemming from participant concerns about data collection and security.ImportanceImproving our understanding of these issues is an essential first step to protect human participants in future EMA research. We provide a brief set of recommendations that can aid in the design and ethics review of the future EMA protocol with substance using populations.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) have expressed concerns that certain individuals or groups, such as participants who are younger, ethnic minorities, or who have certain psychological or personality traits, may be particularly distressed when participating in "sensitive topics" research. This study examined the effects of several demographic and individual difference factors (i.e., age, sex, ethnicity, religiosity, Big Five personality traits, and baseline psychological distress levels) on reactions to participation in sensitive topics research. Participants were 504 undergraduates who completed an extensive battery of either trauma/sex questionnaires or cognitive tests and rated their positive and negative emotional reactions and the perceived benefits and mental costs of participating. They also compared research participation to normal life stressors. Our findings indicated that individual difference and demographic risk factors do not increase participant distress after participating in sex/trauma research over and above that experienced after participating in traditionally minimal-risk cognitive tasks. Participants generally found research participation less distressing than normal life stressors and even enjoyable.

Existing scholarship has not thoroughly explored topics of ethical dilemmas faced by qualitative international relations researchers. Due to the distinctiveness of the study and the need to address ethical concerns with regard to international relations research, this article aims to elucidate the ethical dilemmas in three aspects: ethical dilemmas of research subjects (gatekeepers and vulnerable groups), ethical codes and scientific conduct, and constructing qualitative rigor in international relations. It further attempts to connect to existing opinions of social research studies critical toward the positivist methodological stances of contemporary ethical reviews and echoes the need to reflect on ethical dilemmas on a case-by-case basis.

• Question: Are the readability levels for COVID-19 vaccine-related fact sheets and informational materials appropriate for the general U.S. population? • Findings: This study, which analyzed fact sheets for three of the major U.S. vaccine manufacturers and other informational material, found that most of the COVID-19 vaccine-related informational materials did not meet appropriate readability levels for the U.S. population. • Meaning: Informational materials should be written at a 7th-grade reading level for the general population to fully comprehend them. More than 130 million individuals in the United States have now received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Currently, all adults in the Unites States now have access to one of three COVID-19 vaccines. As part of the vaccination procedure, Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) fact sheets, which contain information regarding the vaccine, are provided. The purpose of this study was to analyze the ease of reading (i.e., readability) of the EUA-approved fact sheets for the vaccines currently available in the United States, the V-Safe adverse event survey script, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website information on COVID-19 vaccines designed for the general public in the United States. We acquired the Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen EUA fact sheets, as well as the V-Safe survey script and the CDC website information regarding COVID-19 vaccines. These documents were analyzed for their complexity regarding the following readability factors: average length of paragraphs, sentences, and words; font size and style; use of passive voice; the Gunning-Fog index; the Flesch Reading Ease index; and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level index. Only the V-Safe adverse-event survey script met readability standards for adequate comprehension. The mean readability scores of the EUA fact sheets and the CDC website were as follows: Flesch Reading Ease score (44.35 avg); Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (10.48 avg); and Gunning-Fog index (11.8 avg). These scores indicate that at least a 10th-grade level education would be required to understand these reading materials. The average person in the United States would have difficulty understanding the information provided in the EUA fact sheets and CDC COVID-19 vaccine website documents; however, the V-Safe survey was written at an adequate reading level. To ensure that the general public fully understands information regarding COVID-19 vaccines, greater care and effort should be given to the development of simplified information material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Over the last years there has been an increase in community pharmacy participation in research projects. Patient recruitment plays a key role in the research project success. Pharmacists’ barriers and enablers of recruitment have been identified, but little is known about the influence of research project-related factors. The aim of this paper is to explore patient participation in different studies conducted in community pharmacies and to identify study-specific factors that may be associated with it. Method: An experimental multicenter study was performed in 12 community pharmacies participating in 4 research projects. The number of patients who accepted/refused to participate was recorded. Variables related to each offered study and the project were collected. A bivariate analysis using Pearson’s Chi-Square test and a risk analysis were performed. Results: Participation rate was 90.44% (n=558). Study type (OR=2.64; 95%IC=1.47-4.75; cross-sectional vs pragmatic), the type of measurement applied (OR=2.47; 95%CI=1.43-4.36), the use of a personalized care area (PCA) (OR=2.49; 95%CI=1.44-4.39), and personal data request (OR=2.53; 95%CI=1.47-4.42) showed association with participation in the RP (p<0.05). Conclusions: Patient participation in research projects is high and appears to rely on study-specific factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A central principle of bioethics is "subject autonomy," the acknowledgement of the primacy of the informed consent of the subject of research. Autonomy requires informed consent - the assurance that the research participant is informed about the possible risks and benefits of the research. In fact, informed consent is difficult when a single drug is being tested, although subjects have a baseline understanding of the testing of a pharmacological agent and the understanding that they can stop taking the drug if there were an adverse event. However, informed consent is even less easily achieved in the modern arena of complex new molecular and cellular therapies. In this article, we argue that as science confronts new issues such as transplantation of stem cell products, which may live within the participant for the rest of their lives, researchers must carefully consider and constantly re-examine how they properly inform subjects considering participation trials of these novel therapeutic strategies.For example, the manufacture of a vial of a cell product that consists of a collection of growing cells is very different than the production of a vial of identical pills, which can be presumed to be identical. The scientific concepts on which these cellular approaches are based may seem alien and incomprehensible to a research subject, who thinks of a clinical trial as simply the selection and testing of the most efficacious pharmaceutical agent already proven to work in preclinical animal studies. The research subject would be wrong.

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.