Search

PURPOSE: To test associations between health literacy and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). METHODS: English- and Spanish-speaking patients age ≥ 18 years were recruited while admitted for first allogeneic HSCT. Associations between low health literacy (Newest Vital Sign ≤ 3 or Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults ≤ 22) and HSCT outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent of 177 participants had low health literacy by Newest Vital Sign. None had low health literacy by Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults. There was no statistically significant difference between patients with low and adequate health literacy in hospital readmissions (60% v 54%, P = .4), 2-year overall survival (58% v 66%, P = .19), 2-year cumulative incidence of nonrelapse death (16% v 10%, P = .35), and acute graft-versus-host disease (53% v 44%, P = .3). In multivariable analyses, there were no significant associations between health literacy and clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients undergoing HSCT, we did not identify a relationship between health literacy and clinical outcomes. Although we did not find statistically significant associations between health literacy and HSCT outcomes, interventions to address health literacy should be considered, given complex outpatient care and evidence for adverse outcomes associated with health literacy in similar diseases.

The main goal of publicly funded biomedical research is to generate social value through the creation and application of knowledge that can improve the well-being of current and future people. Prioritising research with the greatest potential social value is crucial for good stewardship of limited public resources and ensuring ethical involvement of research participants. At the National Institutes of Health (NIH), peer reviewers hold the expertise and responsibility for social value assessment and resulting prioritisation at the project level. However, previous research has shown that peer reviewers place more emphasis on a study’s methods (‘Approach’) than on its potential social value (best approximated by the criterion of ‘Significance’). Lower weighting of Significance may be due to reviewers’ views on the relative importance of social value, their belief that social value is evaluated at other stages of the research priority-setting process or the lack of guidance on how to approach the challenging task of assessing expected social value. The NIH is currently revising its review criteria and how these criteria contribute to overall scores. To elevate the role of social value in priority setting, the agency should support empirical research on how peer reviewers approach the assessment of social value, provide more specific guidance for reviewing social value and experiment with alternative reviewer assignment strategies. These recommendations would help ensure that funding priorities align with the NIH’s mission and the obligation of taxpayer-funded research to contribute to the public good.

Given the dearth of established safe and effective interventions to respond to COVID-19, there is an urgent ethical imperative to conduct meaningful clinical research. The good news is that interventions to be tested are not in short supply. Unfortunately, the human and material resources needed to conduct these trials are finite. It is essential that trials be robust and meet enrollment targets and that lower-quality studies not be permitted to displace higher-quality studies, delaying answers to critical questions. Yet, with few exceptions, existing research review bodies and processes are not designed to ensure these conditions are satisfied. To meet this challenge, we offer guidance for research institutions about how to ethically consolidate and prioritize COVID-19 clinical trials, while recognizing that consolidation and prioritization should also take place upstream (among manufacturers and funders) and at a higher level (e.g. nationally). In our proposed three-stage process, trials must first meet threshold criteria. Those that do are evaluated in a second stage to determine whether the institution has sufficient capacity to support all proposed trials. If it does not, the third stage entails evaluating studies against two additional sets of comparative prioritization criteria: those specific to the study and those that aim to advance diversification of an institution’s research portfolio. To implement these criteria fairly, we propose that research institutions form COVID-19 research prioritization committees. We briefly discuss some important attributes of these committees, drawing on the authors’ experiences at our respective institutions. Although we focus on clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics, our guidance should prove useful for other kinds of COVID-19 research, as well as non-pandemic research, which can raise similar challenges due to the scarcity of research resources.

In most U.S. jurisdictions, clinicians providing informal “curbside” consults are protected from medical malpractice liability due to the absence of a doctor-patient relationship. A recent Minnesota Supreme Court case, Warren v. Dinter, offers the opportunity to reassess whether the majority rule is truly serving the best interests of patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced clinicians, policy-makers and the public to wrestle with stark choices about who should receive potentially life-saving interventions such as ventilators, ICU beds and dialysis machines if demand overwhelms capacity. Many allocation schemes face the question of whether to consider age. We offer two underdiscussed arguments for prioritising younger patients in allocation policies, which are grounded in prudence and fairness rather than purely in maximising benefits: prioritising one’s younger self for lifesaving treatments is prudent from an individual perspective, and prioritising younger patients works to narrow health disparities by giving priority to patients at risk of dying earlier in life, who are more likely to be subject to systemic disadvantage. We then identify some confusions in recent arguments against considering age.

Background Revelations that some members of Congress, including members of key health care committees, hold substantial personal investments in the health care industry have raised concerns about lawmakers’ financial conflicts of interest (COI) and their potential impact on health care legislation and oversight. Aims 1) To assess historical trends in both the number of legislators holding health care-related assets and the value and composition of those assets. 2) To compare the financial holdings of members of health care-focused committees and subcommittees to those of other members of the House and Senate. Methods We analyzed 11 years of personal financial disclosures by all members of the House and Senate. For each year, we calculated the percentage of members holding a health care-related asset (overall, by party, and by committee); the total value of all assets and health care-related assets held; the mean and median values of assets held per member; and the share of asset values attributable to 9 health asset categories. Findings During the study period, over a third of all members of Congress held health care-related assets. These assets were often substantial, with a median total value per member of over $43,000. Members of health care-focused committees and subcommittees in the House and Senate did not hold health care-related assets at a higher rate than other members of their respective chambers. Conclusions These findings suggest that lawmakers’ health care-related COI warrant the same level of attention that has been paid to the COI of other actors in the health care system.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) is a highly specialized procedure. We surveyed adult transplant centers in the United States (US) and then used data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) (2008–2010) to evaluate associations of center volume, infrastructure, and care delivery models with survival post alloHCT. Based on their 2010 alloHCT volume, centers were categorized as low-volume (≤40 alloHCTs; N = 42 centers, 1900 recipients) or high-volume (>40 alloHCTs; N = 41 centers, 9637 recipients). 100-day survival was 86% (95% CI, 85–87%) in high-volume compared with 83% (95% CI, 81–85%) in low-volume centers (difference 3%; P

Aim This study describes the reliability and concurrent validity of the Multidimensional Illness Severity Questionnaire (MISQ), a five-item measure for capturing parents' reports of their child's illness severity. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of parents of children participating in a paediatric research study (n = 20). We assessed parents' perceptions of illness severity using five measures: (i) the MISQ, (ii) the Lansky Play Performance scale, (iii) the Severity of Illness Scale, (iv) subscales of the Parent Experience of Child Illness and (v) general health. We calculated the internal reliability of the MISQ using Cronbach's alpha and assessed concurrent validity through correlations between scores on the MISQ and other measures. Results MISQ scores ranged from 6/21 to 17/21 (mean = 11.5). The MISQ had adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.76) and correlated strongly with other measures. Conclusion Preliminary evaluation suggests that the MISQ is an easy-to-administer and internally consistent multidimensional assessment of parent-reported illness severity.

Patient and family engagement has been identified as key to fulfilling Learning Healthcare Systems' (LHSs') promise as a model for improving clinical care, catalyzing research, and controlling costs. Little is known, however, about the state of patient engagement in the learning mission of these systems or about what governance structures and processes facilitate such engagement. Here, we report on an interview study of 99 patient and employee leaders in 16 systems. We found both variable levels of engagement and broad agreement that shared governance of learning remains a work in progress. We also identified a range of practices that can support or thwart development of an organizational culture conducive to shared governance, including transparency, capacity building, infrastructure investment, leadership, attention to diversity of patient partners, and committee structures. In LHSs with most sophisticated shared governance, both employees and patients contribute to building a democratic learning culture.

To speed the development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, the United States Federal Government has funded multiple phase 3 trials of candidate vaccines. A single 11-member data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) monitors all government-funded trials to ensure coordinated oversight, promote harmonized designs, and allow shared insights related to safety across trials. DSMB reviews encompass 3 domains: (1) the conduct of trials, including overall and subgroup accrual and data quality and completeness; (2) safety, including individual events of concern and comparisons by randomized group; and (3) interim analyses of efficacy when event-driven milestones are met. Challenges have included the scale and pace of the trials, the frequency of safety events related to the combined enrollment of over 100 000 participants, many of whom are older adults or have comorbid conditions that place them at independent risk of serious health events, and the politicized environment in which the trials have taken place.

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) present an opportunity to improve care for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners, but they also generate a complex constellation of ethical and regulatory challenges. These challenges begin with participant identification. Interventions may be delivered in ways that make it difficult to identify who is a human subject and therefore who needs ethical and regulatory protections. The need for informed consent, a core human subjects protection, must be considered but can be in tension with the goals of pragmatic research design. Thus it is essential to consider whether a waiver or alteration of informed consent is justifiable. If informed consent is needed, the question arises of how it should be obtained because researchers must acknowledge the vulnerability of PLWD due in part to diminished capacity and also to increased dependence on others. Further, researchers should recognize that many sites where ePCTs are conducted will be unfamiliar with human subjects research regulations and ethics. In this report, the Regulation and Ethics Core of the National Institute on Aging Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (AD/ADRD) Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory discusses key ethical and regulatory challenges for ePCTs in PLWD. A central thesis is that researchers should strive to anticipate and address these challenges early in the design of their ePCTs as a means of both ensuring compliance and advancing science. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S37-S42, 2020.

Studies demonstrate deficiencies in parents' and children's comprehension of research and lack of child engagement in research decision-making. We conducted a cross-sectional and interview-based study of 31 parent-child dyads to describe decision-making preferences, experiences, and comprehension of parents and children participating in research. Parents and children reported that parents played a greater role in decisions about research participation than either parents or children preferred. The likelihood of child participation was associated with the extent of input the parent permitted the child to have in the decision-making process, the child's comprehension, whether the study team asked the child about participation, whether the child read study-related materials, the parent's marital status, and the child's race. Children had lower comprehension than adults. Comprehension was related to age, education, verbal intelligence, and reading of study-related information. Parent understanding was associated with prospect for benefit and illness severity. Child participation may be improved by increasing parent-child communication, emphasizing important relational roles between parent and child, respecting the developing autonomy of the child, increasing engagement with the study team, providing appropriate reading materials, and assessing comprehension.

Background Exome and genome sequencing are routinely used in clinical care and research. These technologies allow for the detection of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in clinically actionable genes. However, fueled in part by a lack of empirical evidence, controversy surrounds the provision of genetic results for adult-onset conditions to minors and their parents. We have designed a mixed-methods, longitudinal cohort study to collect empirical evidence to advance this debate. Methods Pediatric participants in the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative with available exome sequence data will have their variant files assessed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in 60 genes designated as actionable by MyCode. Eight of these genes are associated with adult-onset conditions (Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome, MUTYH-associated polyposis, HFE-Associated Hereditary Hemochromatosis), while the remaining genes have pediatric onset. Prior to clinical confirmation of results, pediatric MyCode participants and their parents/legal guardians will be categorized into three study groups: 1) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with adult-onset disease, 2) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with pediatric-onset disease or with risk reduction interventions that begin in childhood, and 3) those with no apparent genomic result who are sex- and age-matched to Groups 1 and 2. Validated and published quantitative measures, semi-structured interviews, and a review of electronic health record data conducted over a 12-month period following disclosure of results will allow for comparison of psychosocial and behavioral outcomes among parents of minors (ages 0–17) and adolescents (ages 11–17) in each group. Discussion These data will provide guidance about the risks and benefits of informing minors and their family members about clinically actionable, adult-onset genetic conditions and, in turn, help to ensure these patients receive care that promotes physical and psychosocial health. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03832985. Registered 6 February 2019

Clinical research is critical to combatting COVID-19, but regulatory requirements for human subjects protection may sometimes pose a challenge in pandemic circumstances. Although regulators have offered some helpful guidance for research during the pandemic, we identify further compliance challenges regarding institutional review board (IRB) review and approval, informed consent, emergency research, and research involving incarcerated people. Our proposals for regulatory flexibility in these areas seek to satisfy the goals of protecting participants and promoting the development of high-quality evidence to improve patient care. These recommendations may have relevance beyond the COVID-19 pandemic to enhance the efficiency of research oversight and participant protection more broadly.

Because of the complexity of hematopoietic cell transplant trial treatments, informed consent forms are often long and difficult to read. We evaluated a 2-column easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) form that incorporates elements of health literacy and readability in participants and centers participating in Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) clinical trials. In a randomized study 198 adult patients from 25 centers potentially eligible to participate in 4 BMT CTN interventional trials were randomized to the ETRIC form or a standard consent form for that trial. Both forms were written at no more than an eighth-grade reading level. The primary endpoint was objective comprehension score on the Quality of Informed Consent, part A (QuIC-A) instrument. In a parallel evaluation study, 2 moderators conducted semistructured interviews of 49 investigators, research staff, and institutional review board (IRB) members at 9 BMT CTN trial sites. The mean QuIC-A scores were comparable in 152 patients (77%) assessable for the primary endpoint (ETRIC form, 80.5; standard form, 81.8; P = .37). In regression analysis there was no significant association between the consent type and QuIC-A score. In the evaluation study dominant themes identified on qualitative analyses included general comfort and willingness to use the ETRIC template and that its formatting and layout enhancements would offer additional value to research participants, investigators, and IRBs. IRB language preferences and requirements, length, and prior experience with alternative consent formats were perceived as barriers. Among patients considering participation in BMT CTN clinical trials, the formatting enhancements of the ETRIC form did not alter comprehension of the trial. Despite local challenges to implementation, trial sites generally viewed the ETRIC form favorably and expressed willingness to use it over standard consent form.

Background: Surveys suggest that most research participants desire access to secondary (incidental) genomic findings. However, few studies clarify whether preferences vary by the nature of the finding. Methods: We surveyed members of the JHS (Jackson Heart Study, n=960), the FHS (Framingham Heart Study; n=955), and African American members of the FHS Omni cohort (n=160) who had consented to genomic studies. Each factorial survey included 3 vignettes, randomly selected from a set of 64, that described a secondary genomic result. Vignettes varied systematically by 5 factors identified by expert panels as salient: phenotype severity, actionability (preventability), reproductive significance, and relative and absolute risk of the phenotype. Respondents indicated whether they would want to receive the result. Data were analyzed separately by cohort using generalized linear mixed models. Results: Response rates ranged from 67% to 73%. Across vignettes, 88% to 92% of respondents would definitely or probably want to learn the result. In multivariate analyses among JHS respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing, lower education, higher subjective numeracy, and younger age, but not with any of the 5 factors. Among FHS respondents, desire for results was associated with higher absolute risk, preventability, reproductive risk, and positive attitudes towards genetic testing. Among FHS Omni respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing and younger age. Conclusions: Most genetic research participants desire return of secondary genetic results. Several factors identified by expert panels as salient are associated with preferences among FHS, but not JHS or FHS Omni, participants.

There currently is debate regarding whether U.S. institutions and clinicians may or should restrict patient access to COVID-19 drugs and vaccines that have been granted emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The authors provide their views on the legal, ethical, and clinical ramifications of such restriction.

Background: Although genomic changes identified by clinical tumor sequencing may be present in the germline, precision oncology trials have generally not incorporated germline testing and reporting. We describe our experience with clinical reporting of matched tumor and germline results from the NCI-COG Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) trial (NCT03155620). Design/Method: Patients age 1 to 21 years old with treatment-refractory solid tumors, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, or histiocytic disorders were eligible. DNA and RNA extracted from FFPE tumors were sequenced using Oncomine Assay v.3 with reporting of potentially actionable fusions, amplifications, and mutations, including loss of function variants in tumor suppressor genes. Germline reporting focused on 36 genes from the same DNA panel that convey adult or pediatric cancer susceptibility but does not include all cancer susceptibility genes (e.g. APC, DICER1). Deletions and splice site variants were not reported. Results: As of June 2020, 1009 patients had been enrolled from 132 COG sites, with tumor and germline testing complete for 868 patients to date. Overall, 62 (7.1%) germline reports included a pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variant (termed germline findings) in 18 cancer susceptibility genes. This frequency was similar in patients with solid tumors (46/633, 7.3%), CNS tumors (14/204, 6.9%), and lymphomas/histiocytoses (2/31, 6.5%). Variant(s) of potential germline significance were identified in 25% of tumor reports; of these, 74% (163/221) had no germline findings. The proportion of germline findings for genes with >10 reported tumor variants varied: 32% (7/22) in NF1, 25% (3/12) in RB1, 16% (17/108) in TP53 and 0% in ALK (0/21) and PTEN (0/12). Of note, 82% (14/17) of tumor variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA1/2, CHEK2 and PALB2) had germline findings. On study intake forms, 25% of patients with germline findings had a “known genetic disease” reported. Oncologists caring for patients with a germline finding were then queried about prior knowledge of a genetic diagnosis. Of 24 respondents, 13 (54%) reported no prior molecular diagnosis of the identified condition. Conclusions: Coordinated germline and tumor testing revealed clinically relevant cancer susceptibility variants across a spectrum of genes in 7% of pediatric patients with treatment-refractory cancers. This is likely an underestimate of germline findings given test limitations. The parallel tumor/normal reporting approach minimized the need for targeted reflex genetic testing in 19% of study participants and provided new information on cancer susceptibility in germline positive patients to half of the responding oncologists. The NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH trial reporting process can serve as a model for precision oncology trials and clinical tumor profiling. Citation Format: Sarah Scollon, Sharon E. Plon, Steven Joffe, Jaclyn A. Biegel, Shashikant Kulkarni, George Miles, David Patton, Brent Coffey, Paul M. Williams, Gregory J. Tsongalis, Mark J. Routbort, Julie M. Gastier-Foster, Lauren Saguilig, Jin Piao, Todd A. Alonzo, Katherine A. Janeway, Peter C. Adamson, Margaret Mooney, James V. Tricoli, Nita L. Seibel, Donald W. Parsons. Germline cancer predisposition results from the National Cancer Institute - Children's Oncology Group (NCI-COG) Pediatric MATCH Trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 631.

Although informed consent is important in clinical research, questions persist regarding when it is necessary, what it requires, and how it should be obtained. The standard view in research ethics is that the function of informed consent is to respect individual autonomy. However, consent processes are multidimensional and serve other ethical functions as well. These functions deserve particular attention when barriers to consent exist. We argue that consent serves seven ethically important and conceptually distinct functions. The first four functions pertain principally to individual participants: (1) providing transparency; (2) allowing control and authorization; (3) promoting concordance with participants' values; and (4) protecting and promoting welfare interests. Three other functions are systemic or policy focused: (5) promoting trust; (6) satisfying regulatory requirements; and (7) promoting integrity in research. Reframing consent around these functions can guide approaches to consent that are context sensitive and that maximize achievable goals.

Implementing cancer precision medicine in the clinic requires assessing the therapeutic relevance of genomic alterations. A main challenge is the systematic interpretation of whole-exome sequencing (WES) data for clinical care. One hundred sixty-five adults with metastatic colorectal and lung adenocarcinomas were prospectively enrolled in the CanSeq study. WES was performed on DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor biopsy samples and matched blood samples. Somatic and germ-line alterations were ranked according to therapeutic or clinical relevance. Results were interpreted using an integrated somatic and germ-line framework and returned in accordance with patient preferences. At the time of this analysis, WES had been performed and results returned to the clinical team for 165 participants. Of 768 curated somatic alterations, only 31% were associated with clinical evidence and 69% with preclinical or inferential evidence. Of 806 curated germ-line variants, 5% were clinically relevant and 56% were classified as variants of unknown significance. The variant review and decision-making processes were effective when the process was changed from that of a Molecular Tumor Board to a protocol-based approach. The development of novel interpretive and decision-support tools that draw from scientific and clinical evidence will be crucial for the success of cancer precision medicine in WES studies. Genet Med advance online publication 26 January 2017

A discussion of return of genetic research results requires a common understanding of how final results are generated and what the scope of potential results may be. To this end, we provide a brief overview of the steps by which human genomic data, whether in the clinical or research setting, are generated and interpreted. We cover (1) DNA targeting methods, (2) sequencing, (3) mapping, (4) variant calling, (5) annotation, and (6) interpretation. As powerful as this technology is, we point out technical, scientific, and clinical limitations that inject uncertainty into interpretations based on genotypic data alone. Given these considerations, we then discuss ethical issues that arise as decisions are made regarding how human genomic data are generated and interpreted in the research setting, and we propose an ethical framework by which researchers can assert policies at the points of control that maximize rewards, while minimizing risks.

The shift away from paternalistic decision-making and toward patient-centered, shared decision-making has stemmed from the recognition that in order to practice medicine ethically, health care professionals must take seriously the values and preferences of their patients. At the same time, there is growing recognition that minor and seemingly irrelevant features of how choices are presented can substantially influence the decisions people make. Behavioral economists have identified striking ways in which trivial differences in the presentation of options can powerfully and predictably affect people's choices. Choice-affecting features of the decision environment that do not restrict the range of choices or significantly alter the incentives have come to be known as “nudges.” Although some have criticized conscious efforts to influence choice, we believe that clinical nudges may often be morally justified. The most straightforward justification for nudge interventions is that they help people bypass their cognitive limitations—for example, the tendency to choose the first option presented even when that option is not the best for them—thereby allowing people to make choices that best align with their rational preferences or deeply held values. However, we argue that this justification is problematic. We argue that, if physicians wish to use nudges to shape their patients’ choices, the justification for doing so must appeal to an ethical and professional standard, not to patients’ preferences. We demonstrate how a standard with which clinicians and bioethicists already are quite familiar—the best-interest standard—offers a robust justification for the use of nudges.

The random]ized clinical trial is widely accepted as the optimal approach to evaluating the safety and efficacy of medical treatments. Resistance to randomized treatment assignment arises regularly, most commonly in situations where the disease is life-threatening and treatments are either unavailable or unsatisfactory. Historical control designs, in which all participants receive the experimental treatment with results compared to a prior cohort, are advocated by some as more ethical in such circumstances; however, such studies are often highly biased in favor of the new treatment and frequently yield misleading results. Alternative controlled designs motivated by the desire to maximize the number of patients with the treatment ultimately determined to be superior have been proposed, but have been challenged on both methodological and ethical grounds. Debates about appropriate and ethical study designs recurred during the recent Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) epidemic in West Africa. Despite its devastating nature, the EVD epidemic showed the ongoing necessity of conducting randomized trials to obtain convincing evidence of the safety and efficacy of therapeutic interventions.

A bill passed by the Senate would sharply curtail the FDA’s oversight of access to investigational drugs. Although its impact would probably be limited, the motivation behind it threatens to weaken the FDA’s ability to pursue its public health mission.

Genetic analysis has become integral to many large cohort studies. However, little is known about longitudinal cohort study participants’ attitudes towards genetics and genetic testing. We analyzed data from a survey of participants in the Jackson Heart Study (n=960), Framingham Heart Study (n=955), and Framingham Heart Study-Omni Cohort (n=160). Based on a three-question attitude scale, most participants had positive attitudes towards genetic testing (median score 4.3–5/5). Participants were also asked to select words to describe their attitudes towards genetics. More respondents endorsed the positive words “hopeful” (60–70%), “optimistic” (44–64%), “enthusiastic” (35–43%), or “excited” (28–30%) than the negative words “cautious” (35–38%), “concerned” (25–55%), “worried” (6–13%), “pessimistic” (2–5%) or “horrified” (1–5%). Characteristics associated with favorable attitudes were greater genetics knowledge, higher subjective numeracy, experience with genetic testing, less frequent religious attendance, and not being employed. These findings demonstrate variation in attitudes even among participants in long-standing cohort studies, indicating a need for ongoing participant engagement and education.

Classic statements of research ethics advise against permitting physician-investigators to obtain consent for research participation from patients with whom they have preexisting treatment relationships. Reluctance about "dual-role" consent reflects the view that distinct normative commitments govern physician-patient and investigator-participant relationships, and that blurring the research-care boundary could lead to ethical transgressions. However, several features of contemporary research demand reconsideration of the ethics of dual-role consent. Here, we examine three arguments advanced against dual-role consent: that it creates role conflict for the physician-investigator; that it can compromise the voluntariness of the patient-participant's consent; and that it promotes therapeutic misconceptions. Although these concerns have merit in some circumstances, they are not dispositive in all cases. Rather, their force-and the ethical acceptability of dual-role consent-varies with features of the particular study. As research participation more closely approximates usual care, it becomes increasingly acceptable, or even preferable, for physicians to seek consent for research from their own patients. It is time for a more nuanced approach to dual-role consent.

Importance Offers of payment for research participation are ubiquitous but may lead prospective participants to deceive about eligibility, jeopardizing study integrity and participant protection. To date, neither the rate of payment-induced deception nor the influence of payment amount has been systematically studied in a nationally representative randomized survey experiment. Objectives To estimate payment-associated deception about eligibility for an online survey and to assess whether there is an association between payment amount and deception frequency. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, 7-group survey experiment. Data were collected in March 2018 and analyzed from March to August 2018. The setting was a nationally representative online survey among US adults drawn from the GfK KnowledgePanel. Interventions Varying payment amounts for participation ($5, $10, or $20 cash equivalent) and direction of eligibility criterion (having received or not having received an influenza vaccination in the past 6 months). Main Outcomes and Measures Proportion of respondents reporting recent influenza vaccination. Results In total, 2275 individuals participated in the survey, a 59.4% (2275 of 3829) response rate; 51.8% (1108) were female, and 21.1% of respondents (399) were aged 18 to 29 years, 24.9% (532) were aged 30 to 44 years, 26.0% (601) were aged 45 to 59 years, and 28.0% (738) were 60 years or older. For participants offered a $5 incentive, the reported frequency of recent influenza vaccination was 16.6% higher (95% CI, 9.1%-24.1%) among those told that eligibility (and thus payment) required recent vaccination than among those told that eligibility required no recent vaccination. The corresponding differences were 21.0% (95% CI, 13.5%-28.5%) among those offered $10 and 15.4% (95% CI, 7.8%-23.0%) among those offered $20. Estimated proportions of ineligible individuals who responded deceptively regarding eligibility ranged from 10.5% to 22.8% across study groups. There was no evidence that higher payment was associated with higher frequency of deception. Conclusions and Relevance In a nationally representative randomized survey experiment to evaluate whether and to what extent payment is associated with participants misleading investigators about their research eligibility, this study found evidence of significant deception. However, no association was observed between payment amount and frequency of deception. Further research is needed to extend these findings to clinical research. These data suggest that, when possible, investigators should rely on objective tests of eligibility rather than self-report.