Consent2Share: an integrated broad consenting process for re-contacting potential study subjects
Background and Aim: Obtaining sufficient subjects into research studies is an ongoing barrier to conducting clinical research. Privacy rules add to the complexity of identifying qualified study subjects. The process described facilitates consent of patients coming to their clinically scheduled appointments who are asked to consent to having researchers review their electronic medical records (EHR), and if they meet study criteria for future research, being contacted by those researchers and asked if they wish to be involved in a research project.
Methods: An interdisciplinary group representing the Institutional Review Board (IRB), Information Technology (IT), Hospital, University and Research developed an initial paper then electronic method to consent all patients attending a medical subspecialty clinic. All consent data are integrated to the EHR to facilitate linking to clinical information.
Results: Although the paper consenting method resulted in over an 80% “yes” rate of consent, it was complicated by significant procedural challenges which prevented scalability. Revising the process has resulted in nearly 28,000 patients consenting in a 3 year period and in 20 IRB approved protocols using subjects who agreed to Consent2Share.
Conclusions: A multi-disciplinary effort is essential to develop a successful electronic based, integrated process to assist investigators and patients to facilitate study subject accrual.
Relevance for patients: Consent2Share more efficiently assists researchers in identifying and contacting potential study subjects that meet entrance criteria. The process provides a model to comply with the proposed Notice of Public Rule Making (NPRM) where institutions will be strongly encouraged to develop broad research consent procedures.
[1] Marks L, Power E. Using technology to address recruitment issues in the clinical trial process. Trends Biotechnol 2002; 20: 105-109.
[2] Marks RG, Conlon M, Ruberg SJ. Paradigm shifts in clinical trials enabled by information technology. Stat Med 2001; 20: 2683-2696.
[3] Harris PA, Lane L, Biaggioni I. Clinical research subject re cruitment: the Volunteer for Vanderbilt Research Program www.volunteer.mc.vanderbilt.edu. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12: 608-613.
[4] Clayton EW, Smith M, Fullerton SM, Burke W, McCarty CA, Koenig BA, McGuire AL, Beskow LM, Dressler L, Lemke AA, Ramos EM, Rodriguez LL. Confronting real time ethical, legal, and social issues in the electronic medical records and genomics (emerge) consortium. Genet Med 2010; 12: 616-620.
[5] Garrison NA, Sathe NA, Antommaria AH, Holm IA, Sander son SC, Smith ME, McPheeters ML, Clayton EW. A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States. Genet Med 2016; 18: 663-671.
[6] Pulley J, Clayton E, Bernard GR, Roden DM, Masys DR. Principles of human subjects protections applied in an opt-out, de-identified biobank. Clin Transl Sci 2010; 3: 42-48.
[7] Whiddett R, Hunter I, Engelbrecht J, Handy J. Patients’ atti tudes towards sharing their health information. Int J Med In form 2006; 75: 530-541.
[8] Kohane IS. Using electronic health records to drive discovery in disease genomics. Nat Rev Genet 2011; 12: 417-428.
[9] Byrne MM, Tannenbaum SL, Glück S, Hurley J, Antoni M. Participation in cancer clinical trials: Why are patients not participating? Med Decis Making. 2014; 34: 116-126.
[10] Kho AN1, Pacheco JA, Peissig PL, Rasmussen L, Newton KM, Weston N, Crane PK, Pathak J, Chute CG, Bielinski SJ, Kullo IJ, Li R, Manolio TA, Chisholm RL, Denny JC. Elec tronic medical records for genetic research: Results of the emerge consortium. Sci Transl Med 2011; 3: 79re1.
[11] McCarty CA, Chisolm RL, Chute CG, Kullo IJ, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Li R, Masys DR, Ritchie MD, Roden DM, Strue wing JP, Wolf WA; eMERGE Team. The emerge network: A consortium of biorepositories linked to electronic medical records data for conducting genomic studies. BMC Med Ge nomics 2011; 4: 13.
[12] Damschroder LJ, Pritts JL, Neblo MA, Kalarickal RJ, Cre swell JW, Hayward RA. Patients, privacy and trust: Patients’ willingness to allow researchers to access their medical rec ords. Soc Sci Med 2007; 64: 223-235.
[13] Beskow LM, Dean E. Informed consent for biorepositories: Assessing prospective participants' understanding and opin ions. Cancer Epidem Biomar 2008; 17: 1440-1451.
[14] Caine K, Hanania R. Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20: 7-15.
[15] Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research partic ipants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a sys tematic review. JAMA 2004; 292: 1593-1601.
[16] Willison DJ, Keshavjee K, Nair K, Goldsmith C, Holbrook AM; Computerization of Medical Practices for the Enhance ment of Therapeutic Effectiveness investigators. Patients' consent preferences for research uses of information in elec-tronic medical records: interview and survey data. BMJ 2003; 326: 373.
[17] Siminoff LA. Toward improving the informed consent process in research with humans. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2003; Suppl 25: S1-S3.
[18] Resnik DB, Patrone D, Peddada S. Evaluating the quality of information about alternatives to research participation in on cology consent forms. Contemp Clin Trials 2010; 31: 18-21.
[19] Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, Notice of Public Rule Making. Federal Register/Vol. 80, No.173/ Tuesday, September 8, 2015/Proposed Rules: 53933-54061.
[20] Breast and Colon Cancer Family Registries. Available at http://epi.grants.cancer.gov/CFR/
[21] Mosis G1, Dieleman JP, Stricker BCh, van der Lei J, Stur kenboom MC. A randomized database study in general prac tice yielded quality data but patient recruitment in routine consultation was not practical. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 497-502.
[22] Granados Moreno P, and Joly Y. Informed consent in interna tional normative texts and biobanking policies: Seeking the boundaries of broad consent. Medical Law Intl 2016; 1-30.
[23] Edwards KL, Korngiebel DM, Pfeifer L, Goodman D, Renz A, Wenzel L, Bowen DJ, Condit CM. Participant views on con sent in cancer genetics research: preparing for the precision medicine era. J Community Genet 2016; 7: 133-143.
[24] Murphy SN, Mendis ME, Berkowitz DA, Kohane I, Chueh HC. Integration of clinical and genetic data in the i2b2 archi tecture. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006:1040.
[25] Boyd AD, Saxman, PR, Hunscher DA, Smith KA, Morris TD, Kaston M, Bayoff F, Rogers B, Hayes P, Rajeev N, Kline- Rogers E, Eagle K, Clauw D, Greden JF, Green LA, Athey BD. The University of Michigan Honest Broker: A Web-based Service for Clinical and Translational Research and Practice. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16: 784-791.
[26] Dhir R, Patel AA, Winters S, Bisceglia M, Swanson D, Aamodt R, Becich MJ. A multidisciplinary approach to honest broker services for tissue banks and clinical data. Cancer 2008; 113: 1705-1715.