Ethical Framework for FACILITATE: a Foundation for the Return of Clinical Trial Data to Participants

Overview

Journal Front Med (Lausanne)

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Aug 1

PMID 39086946

Authors

Ciara Staunton

Johanna M C Blom

Deborah Mascalzoni

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This paper discusses the importance of return of clinical trial data to patients in the context of the FACILITATE project that aims to develop a participant-centric approach for the systematic return of individual clinical trial data. It reflects on the need for an ethical framework to support the return of clinical trial data. The discussion revolves around the developing FACILITATE ethical framework, specifically focusing on the ethical principles that form the foundation of the framework and guidance on how to implement those principles into practice.

References

De Sutter E, Zace D, Boccia S, DI Pietro M, Geerts D, Borry P . Implementation of Electronic Informed Consent in Biomedical Research and Stakeholders' Perspectives: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22(10):e19129. PMC: 7582148. DOI: 10.2196/19129. View

Domecq J, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N . Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14:89. PMC: 3938901. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89. View

Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N, Edwards K, Fullerton S, Kanellopoulou N . From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet. 2012; 13(5):371-6. PMC: 3806497. DOI: 10.1038/nrg3218. View

Carman K, Dardess P, Maurer M, Sofaer S, Adams K, Bechtel C . Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013; 32(2):223-31. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1133. View

Middleton A, Milne R, Almarri M, Anwer S, Atutornu J, Baranova E . Global Public Perceptions of Genomic Data Sharing: What Shapes the Willingness to Donate DNA and Health Data?. Am J Hum Genet. 2020; 107(4):743-752. PMC: 7536612. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.08.023. View

Biasiotto R, Johansson J, Alemu M, Romano V, Bentzen H, Kaye J . Public Preferences for Digital Health Data Sharing: Discrete Choice Experiment Study in 12 European Countries. J Med Internet Res. 2023; 25:e47066. PMC: 10704315. DOI: 10.2196/47066. View

Emanuel E, Wendler D, Grady C . What makes clinical research ethical?. JAMA. 2000; 283(20):2701-11. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701. View

Emanuel E, Grady C . Four paradigms of clinical research and research oversight. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2007; 16(1):82-96. DOI: 10.1017/s0963180107070090. View

Tam N, Huy N, Thoa L, Long N, Trang N, Hirayama K . Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 2015; 93(3):186-98H. PMC: 4371493. DOI: 10.2471/BLT.14.141390. View

10.

Anderson R, Funnell M . Patient empowerment: myths and misconceptions. Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 79(3):277-82. PMC: 2879465. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.07.025. View

11.

Ohmann C, Banzi R, Canham S, Battaglia S, Matei M, Ariyo C . Sharing and reuse of individual participant data from clinical trials: principles and recommendations. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(12):e018647. PMC: 5736032. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018647. View

12.

Jamal L, Robinson J, Christensen K, Blumenthal-Barby J, Slashinski M, Perry D . When bins blur: Patient perspectives on categories of results from clinical whole genome sequencing. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2017; 8(2):82-88. PMC: 6647021. DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2017.1287786. View

13.

Blom J, Rivi V, Tascedda F, Pani L . The nexus of social alliances and diverse moral domains: a bedrock for participatory clinical research. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023; 10:1250247. PMC: 10577180. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1250247. View

14.

ONeill O . Accountability, trust and informed consent in medical practice and research. Clin Med (Lond). 2004; 4(3):269-76. PMC: 4953592. DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.4-3-269. View

15.

Hearld K, Hearld L, Hall A . Engaging patients as partners in research: Factors associated with awareness, interest, and engagement as research partners. SAGE Open Med. 2017; 5:2050312116686709. PMC: 5308537. DOI: 10.1177/2050312116686709. View

16.

Shuster E . Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg Code. N Engl J Med. 1997; 337(20):1436-40. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199711133372006. View

17.

Anderson A, Borfitz D, Getz K . Global Public Attitudes About Clinical Research and Patient Experiences With Clinical Trials. JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 1(6):e182969. PMC: 6324429. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.2969. View

18.

Mascalzoni D, Melotti R, Pattaro C, Pramstaller P, Gogele M, De Grandi A . Ten years of dynamic consent in the CHRIS study: informed consent as a dynamic process. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022; 30(12):1391-1397. PMC: 9441838. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-022-01160-4. View

19.

Forsythe L, Carman K, Szydlowski V, Fayish L, Davidson L, Hickam D . Patient Engagement In Research: Early Findings From The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019; 38(3):359-367. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05067. View

20.

Staunton C, Slokenberga S, Mascalzoni D . The GDPR and the research exemption: considerations on the necessary safeguards for research biobanks. Eur J Hum Genet. 2019; 27(8):1159-1167. PMC: 6777499. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-019-0386-5. View