A policy Delphi study to validate the key implications of data sharing (KIDS) framework for pediatric genomics in Canada.

Vasiliki Rahimzadeh, Gillian Bartlett, Bartha Maria Knoppers
Author Information
  1. Vasiliki Rahimzadeh: Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University, 1215 Welch Rd, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. vrahim@stanford.edu. ORCID
  2. Gillian Bartlett: School of Medicine, University of Missouri, 7 Hospital Drive Suite MA306N Medical Sciences Bldg, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA.
  3. Bartha Maria Knoppers: Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, 740 Ave Docteur Penfield, Suite 5200, Montreal, QC, H3A0G1, Canada.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The highly sensitive nature of genomic and associated clinical data, coupled with the consent-related vulnerabilities of children together accentuate ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) concerning data sharing. The Key Implications of Data Sharing (KIDS) framework was therefore developed to address a need for institutional guidance on genomic data governance but has yet to be validated among data sharing practitioners in practice settings. This study qualitatively explored areas of consensus and dissensus of the KIDS Framework from the perspectives of Canadian clinician-scientists, genomic researchers, IRB members, and pediatric ethicists.
METHODS: Twelve panelists participated in a three-round online policy Delphi to determine the desirability, feasibility, relative importance and confidence of twelve individual statements of the KIDS Framework. Mean and IQR were calculated from panelists' ratings to determine the strength of consensus and polarity. Qualitative content analysis of panelists' written responses was used to assess degree of support. Statements were validated when their combined ratings and qualitative rationales indicated high-moderate consensus (at least 70% agreement across two contiguous categories), low to no polarity (IQR at least 1.0) and strong support.
RESULTS: Nine original, and one new statement reached consensus. These statements outlined essential elements of the informed consent process, including a realistic evaluation of benefits and risks and assurance of future ethics oversight for secondary data use. Discrepant views on appropriate protections for anonymized and coded i.e. de-identified genomic data were primary sources of dissensus.
CONCLUSIONS: The validated statements provide institutions with empirically supported best practices for sharing genomic and associated clinical data involving children from the perspectives of key stakeholders. Concerted efforts to quantify informational risks that can be conveyed to patients and families are further needed to align data sharing policy with stakeholder priorities.

Keywords

References

  1. EMBO Mol Med. 2015 Mar 09;7(5):507-9 [PMID: 25759363]
  2. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Jul 1;26(7):610-619 [PMID: 30938756]
  3. Biopreserv Biobank. 2017 Oct;15(5):469-474 [PMID: 28836815]
  4. Science. 2019 Mar 15;363(6432):1125 [PMID: 30872493]
  5. Cell. 2019 Mar 21;177(1):32-37 [PMID: 30901545]
  6. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1993 Dec;16(2):1-8 [PMID: 8311428]
  7. IRB. 2011 May-Jun;33(3):1-5 [PMID: 21736136]
  8. Am J Hum Genet. 2017 May 4;100(5):695-705 [PMID: 28475856]
  9. Genet Med. 2011 Nov;13(11):948-55 [PMID: 21785360]
  10. JAMA Pediatr. 2018 May 1;172(5):476-481 [PMID: 29554172]
  11. Appl Transl Genom. 2014 Apr 18;3(2):23-9 [PMID: 27275410]
  12. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):401-9 [PMID: 24581294]
  13. Nurse Res. 2014 Jan;21(3):32-9 [PMID: 24460564]
  14. Pediatrics. 2014 Apr;133(4):690-7 [PMID: 24616359]
  15. J Law Med Ethics. 2019 Mar;47(1):31-40 [PMID: 30994063]
  16. Science. 2016 Mar 25;351(6280):1399-400 [PMID: 27013718]
  17. Res Nurs Health. 2000 Aug;23(4):334-40 [PMID: 10940958]
  18. Genet Med. 2019 Jan;21(1):173-180 [PMID: 29765138]
  19. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2020 Oct-Dec;11(4):233-245 [PMID: 32975491]

Grants

  1. 359258/CIHR

MeSH Term

Canada
Child
Delphi Technique
Genomics
Humans
Information Dissemination
Policy

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0datasharinggenomicKIDSconsensusDatavalidatedpolicyDelphistatementsassociatedclinicalchildrenframeworkstudydissensusFrameworkperspectivespediatricdeterminepanelists'ratingspolaritysupportriskskeyBACKGROUND:highlysensitivenaturecoupledconsent-relatedvulnerabilitiestogetheraccentuateethicallegalsocialissuesELSIconcerningKeyImplicationsSharingthereforedevelopedaddressneedinstitutionalguidancegovernanceyetamongpractitionerspracticesettingsqualitativelyexploredareasCanadianclinician-scientistsresearchersIRBmembersethicistsMETHODS:Twelvepanelistsparticipatedthree-roundonlinedesirabilityfeasibilityrelativeimportanceconfidencetwelveindividualMeanIQRcalculatedstrengthQualitativecontentanalysiswrittenresponsesusedassessdegreeStatementscombinedqualitativerationalesindicatedhigh-moderateleast70%agreementacrosstwocontiguouscategorieslowIQR atleast 10strongRESULTS:NineoriginalonenewstatementreachedoutlinedessentialelementsinformedconsentprocessincludingrealisticevaluationbenefitsassurancefutureethicsoversightsecondaryuseDiscrepantviewsappropriateprotectionsanonymizedcodediede-identifiedprimarysourcesCONCLUSIONS:provideinstitutionsempiricallysupportedbestpracticesinvolvingstakeholdersConcertedeffortsquantifyinformationalcanconveyedpatientsfamiliesneededalignstakeholderprioritiesvalidateimplicationsgenomicsCanadaprotectionEthicsreviewGenomicsPediatrics

Similar Articles

Cited By