Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-94d59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T02:05:41.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Return of Results in Participant-Driven Research: Learning from Transformative Research Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Abstract

Participant-driven research (PDR) is a burgeoning domain of research innovation, often facilitated by mobile technologies (mHealth). Return of results and data are common hallmarks, grounded in transparency and data democracy. PDR has much to teach traditional research about these practices and successful engagement. Recommendations calling for new state laws governing research with mHealth modalities common in PDR and federal creation of review mechanisms, threaten to stifle valuable participant-driven innovation, including in return of results.

Type
Symposium Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

On participant-driven research generally, see, e.g., Eriksson, N. et al., “Web-Based, Participant-Driven Studies Yield Novel Genetic Associations for Common Traits,” PLoS Genetics 6, no. 6 (2010): e1000993; Kaye, J. et al., “From Patients to Partners: Participant-centric Initiatives in Biomedical Research,” Nature Reviews Genetics 13, no. 5 (2012): 371-376; Terry, S. F. and Terry, P. F., “Power to the People: Participant Ownership of Clinical Trial Data,” Science Translational Medicine 3, no. 69 (2011): 69cm3; Vayena, E. and Tasioulas, J., “Adapting Standards: Ethical Oversight of Participant-Led Health Research,” PLoS Medicine 10, no. 3 (2013): e1001402; McGowan, M. L. et al., “‘Let’s Pull These Technologies Out of the Ivory Tower’: The Politics, Ethos, and Ironies of Participant-Driven Genomic Research,” BioSocieties 12, no. 4 (2017): 494-519; Buyx, A. et al., “Every Participant is a PI. Citizen Science and Participatory Governance in Population Studies,” International Journal of Epidemiology 46, no. 2 (2017): 377-384; Lamas, E. et al., “The Meaning of Patient Empowerment in the Digital Age: The Role of Online Patient-Communities,” in Engelbrecht, R. et al., eds., The Practice of Patient-Centered Care: Empowering and Engaging Patients in the Digital Era (IOS Press, 2017): 43-47, available at <https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qvA-DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA43&ots=JtLNTfvNlm&sig=KlDzQVP2qjTMsbsRFS47Y7fjI28#v=onepage&q&f=false> (last visited February 17, 2020); Grant, A. D. et al., “Approaches to Governance of Participant-Led Research: A Qualitative Case Study,” BMJ Open 9, no. 4 (2018): available at <https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/4/e025633> (last visited February 17, 2020); Wiggins, A. and Wilbanks, J., “The Rise of Citizen Science in Health and Biomedical Research,” American Journal of Bioethics 19, no. 8 (2019): 3-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Department of Homeland Security et al., “Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects: Final Rule,” Federal Register 82 (2017): 7149-7258.Google Scholar
See Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH, “The Precision Medicine Initiative Cohort Program — Building a Research Foundation for 21st Century Medicine” (2015), available at <https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/research-training/initiatives/pmi/pmi-working-group-report-20150917-2.pdf> (last visited February 17, 2020); National Institutes of Health (NIH), All of Us Research Program, Participation, available at <https://allofus.nih.gov/about/participation> (last visited February 17, 2020).+(last+visited+February+17,+2020);+National+Institutes+of+Health+(NIH),+All+of+Us+Research+Program,+Participation,+available+at++(last+visited+February+17,+2020).>Google Scholar
See generally Vayena and Tasioulas, supra note 1, at first page (“These projects are described as ‘citizen driven’, ‘participant driven’, ‘crowd sourced’, or ‘participant centric’ research. What they have in common is that participants are the leading force in the initiation or conduct of research projects.” (references omitted)).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. pt. 46, subpt. A. See also U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections, Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (‘Common Rule’), available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/index.html> (last visited February 17, 2020).+(last+visited+February+17,+2020).>Google Scholar
See U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections, Federalwide Assurance (FWA) for the Protection of Human Subjects, available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/register-irbs-and-obtain-fwas/fwas/fwa-protection-of-human-subjecct/index.html> (last visited February 17, 2020).+(last+visited+February+17,+2020).>Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. pts. 50, 56. See also U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections, Food & Drug Administration, available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/fda/index.html> (last visited February 17, 2020).+(last+visited+February+17,+2020).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science Act of 2017, 15 U.S.C. § 3724.Google Scholar
See Rothstein, M.A. et al., “Unregulated Health Research Using Mobile Devices: Ethical Considerations and Policy Recommendations,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 48, no. 1, Suppl. (2020): 196-226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Vayena and Tasioulas, supra note 1; Vayena, E. et al., “Research Led by Participants: A New Social Contract for a New Kind of Research,” Journal of Medical Ethics 42, no. 4 (2015): 216-219; Wiggins & Wilbanks, supra note 1; Fiske, A. et al., “Meeting the Needs of Underserved Populations: Setting the Agenda for More Inclusive Citizen Science of Medicine,” Journal of Medical Ethics 45, no. 9 (2018): 617-622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Rothstein et al., supra note 9.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Fiske et al., supra note 10, at 620 (“Claims of democratisation generally envision a world in which patients have full access to their own data….”); Terry, S.F., “The Tension Between Policy and Practice in Returning Research Results and Incidental Findings in Genomic Biobank Research,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 13, no. 2 (2012): 691-736.Google Scholar
See Rothstein et al., supra note 9, (“Unregulated research may generate novel individual findings that unregulated researchers may want to return to participants either through the app or by re-identifying app users. This situation raises a variety of issues…. Return of results is a complicated matter discussed separately in this symposium.” (footnote omitted with citation to this article)).Google Scholar
See Rothstein, M.A. et al., “Citizen Science on Your Smart-phone: An ELSI Research Agenda,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43, no. 4 (2015): 897-903, at 901 (“It is difficult to imagine that unregulated, citizen science health research containing few of the characteristics of the researcher-participant relationship would give rise to comparable ethical obligations to disclose incidental findings.”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Beskow, L.M. and Burke, W., “Offering Individual Genetic Research Results: Context Matters,” Science Translational Medicine 2, no. 38 (2010): 1-5, available at <https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/scitransmed/2/38/38cm20.full.pdf> (last visited February 17, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Evans, B.J. and Wolf, S.M., “A Faustian Bargain that Undermines Research Participants’ Privacy Rights and Return of Results,” Florida Law Review 71, no. 4 (2019): 1281-1345.Google Scholar
Richardson, H.S., “Incidental Findings and Ancillary Care Obligations,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 256-270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illes, J. et al., “Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research,” Science 311, no. 5762 (2006): 783-784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohane, I.S. et al., “Reestablishing the Researcher-Patient Compact,” Science 316, no. 5826 (2007): 836-837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Shah, S.K. et al., “What Does the Duty to Warn Require?” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 10 (2013): 62-63; Beskow and Burke, supra note 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, F.G. et al., “Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: What Do Investigators Owe Research Participants?,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 271-279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Rothstein, et al., “Citizen Science on Your Smartphone,” supra note 14; Morreim, H., “The Return of Individual-Specific Research Results from Laboratories: Perspectives and Ethical Underpinnings,” Appendix D, in National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), Returning Individual Research Results to Participants: Guidance for a New Research Paradigm (National Academies Press, 2018): 339-358.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Wolf, S.M. et al., “Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 219-24, at 242; Fabsitz, R.R. et al., “Ethical and Practical Guidelines for Reporting Genetic Research Results to Study Participants: Updated Guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group,” Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics 3, no. 6 (2010): 574-580; Wolf, S.M. et al., “Managing Incidental Findings and Research Results in Genomic Research Involving Biobanks and Archived Data Sets,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 4 (2012): 361-384; Jarvik, G.P. et al., “Return of Genomic Results to Research Participants: The Floor, the Ceiling, and the Choices in Between,” American Journal of Human Genetics 94, no. 6 (2014): 818-826; Wolf, S.M. et al., “Returning a Research Participant’s Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and Recommendations,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43, no. 3 (2015): 440-463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., sources cited in the prior endnote.Google Scholar
See Marchant, G. et al., “From Genetics to Genomics: Facing the Liability Implications in Clinical Care,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 48, no. 1, Suppl. (2020): 11-43. See also McGuire, A.L. et al., “Can I Be Sued for That? Liability Risk and the Disclosure of Clinically Significant Genetic Research Findings,” Genome Research 24, no. 5 (2014): 719-723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Clayton, E.W. et al., “Managing Incidental Genomic Findings: Legal Obligations of Clinicians,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 8 (2013): 624-629. For more on law, see Pike, E. R. et al., “Finding Fault? Exploring Legal Duties to Return Incidental Findings in Genomic Research,” Georgetown Law Journal 102 (2014): 795-843; Wolf, et al., “Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research,” supra note 23; Wolf, et al., “Managing Incidental Findings and Research Results in Genomic Research Involving Biobanks,” supra note 23; Wolf, S.M., “The Role of Law in the Debate over Return of Research Results and Incidental Findings: The Challenge of Developing Law for Translational Science,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 13, no. 2 (2012): 435-448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Wolf, S.M. et al., “The Law of Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Establishing Researchers’ Duties,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 361-383, at 366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See 45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (c) (8) (“one or more of the following elements of information, when appropriate, shall also be provided to each subject…: A statement regarding whether clinically relevant research results, including individual research results, will be disclosed to subjects, and if so, under what conditions….”).Google Scholar
See Wolf et al., supra note 27.Google Scholar
See Vayena, E. and Blassime, A., “Biomedical Big Data: New Models of Control Over Access, Use and Governance,” Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 14 (2017): 501-513. See also Vayena, E. and Tasioulas, J., “Adapting Standards: Ethical Oversight of Participant-Led Health Research,” PLoS Medicine 10, no. 3 (2013): e1001402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, B.J., “Barbarians at the Gate: Consumer-Driven Health Data Commons and the Transformation of Citizen Science,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 42, no. 4 (2016): 651-685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunshof, J.E. et al., “Raw Personal Data: Providing Access,” Science 343, no. 6169 (2014): 373-374, at 374. See also Evans, B.J. et al., “Regulatory Changes Raise Troubling Questions for Genomic Testing,” Genetics in Medicine 16, no. 11 (2014): 799-803, at 799–803 (discussing the individual right of access to one’s own data and implications for return of results); Thorogood, A. et al., “APPLaUD: Access for Patients and Participants to Individual Level Uninterpreted Genomic Data,” Human Genomics 12, no. 1 (2018): 7, (supporting “a default right of participants to access their own individual-level genomic data upon request”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorogood et al., supra note 32, at 4 (references omitted).Google Scholar
For further consideration of this topic and the relevance of FDA Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) requirements, see Evans, B.J., “The Perils of Parity: Should Citizen Science and Traditional Research Follow the Same Ethical and Privacy Principles?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 48, no. 1, Suppl. (2020): 74-81. Evans specifically considers the applicability of FDA requirements (such as the requirement of an IDE) when a research app developer intends to provide medical information for diagnosis. A responsible research app developer, however, should generally not aim to substitute for a clinician performing a clinical evaluation. Instead, the developer should offer a warning that RoR and data in research are no substitute for clinical evaluation and that individuals concerned by their results and data should consult a clinician and seek such an evaluation. For further discussion of the applicability of IDE requirements, see Rothstein et al., supra note 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 18, 26, 29, and 42 U.S.C. (2012)); 45 C.F.R. pts. 160, 164 (2018).Google Scholar
See Evans and Wolf, supra note 16; Evans, B.J., “HIPAA’s Individual Right of Access to Genomic Data: Reconciling Safety and Civil Rights,” American Journal of Human Genetics 102, no. 1 (2018): 5-10; Wolf, S.M. and Evans, B.J., “Return of Results and Data to Study Participants,” Science 362, no. 6411 (2018): 159-160; Wolf, S.M. and Evans, B.J., “Defending the Return of Results and Data,” Science 362, no. 6420 (2018): 1255-1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Evans and Wolf, supra note 16.Google Scholar
Rothstein et al., supra note 9.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Yu, J-H et al., “Self-Guided Management of Exome and Whole-Genome Sequencing Results: Changing the Results Return Model,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 9 (2013): 684-690. See also Kohane, I.S. et al., “Reestablishing the Researcher-Patient Compact,” Science 316, no. 5826 (2007): 836-837 (presenting a research model in which a participant can elect to receive research results by “‘tun[ing] in’ to a broadcast”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NASEM, supra note 22.Google Scholar
See Evans and Wolf, supra note 16; Wolf and Evans, “Return of Results and Data to Study Participants,” supra note 36; Wolf and Evans, “Defending the Return of Results and Data,” supra note 36.Google Scholar
See NASEM, supra note 22, at 196-98.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Thorogood et al., supra note 32; Vayena and Blassime, supra note 30.Google Scholar
See, e.g., NASEM, supra note 22, at 196-98 (environmental health studies).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Blumenthal, D.S., “Is Community-Based Participatory Research Possible?” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 40, no. 3 (2011): 386-389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Rothstein et al., supra note 9.Google Scholar