Parental consent for neuroimaging in paediatric research

Reasons for participation in a child development study: Are cases with developmental diagnoses different from controls?

BACKGROUND

Current knowledge about parental reasons for allowing child participation in research comes mainly from clinical trials. Fewer data exist on parents' motivations to enrol children in observational studies.

OBJECTIVES

Describe reasons parents of preschoolers gave for participating in the Study to Explore Early Development (SEED), a US multi-site study of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and other developmental delays or disorders (DD), and explore reasons given by child diagnostic and behavioural characteristics at enrolment.

METHODS

We included families of children, age 2-5 years, participating in SEED (n = 5696) during 2007-2016. We assigned children to groups based on characteristics at enrolment: previously diagnosed ASD; suspected ASD; non-ASD DD; and population controls (POP). During a study interview, we asked parents their reasons for participating. Two coders independently coded responses and resolved discrepancies via consensus. We fit binary mixed-effects models to evaluate associations of each reason with group and demographics, using POP as reference.

RESULTS

Participants gave 1-5 reasons for participation (mean = 1.7, SD = 0.7). Altruism (48.3%), ASD research interest (47.4%) and perceived personal benefit (26.9%) were most common. Two novel reasons were knowing someone outside the household with the study conditions (peripheral relationship; 14.1%) and desire to contribute to a specified result (1.4%). Odds of reporting interest in ASD research were higher among diagnosed ASD participants (odds ratio [OR] 2.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.49-3.35). Perceived personal benefit had higher odds among diagnosed (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.61-2.29) or suspected ASD (OR 3.67, 95% CI 2.99-4.50) and non-ASD DD (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.50-2.16) participants. Peripheral relationship with ASD/DD had lower odds among all case groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified meaningful differences between groups in parent-reported reasons for participation. Differences demonstrate an opportunity for future studies to tailor recruitment materials and increase the perceived benefit for specific prospective participants.

A comparison study of anxiety in children undergoing brain MRI vs adults undergoing brain MRI vs children undergoing an electroencephalogram

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain in children and adolescents is a well-established method in both clinical practice and in neuroscientific research. This practice is sometimes viewed critically, as MRI scans might expose minors (e.g. through scan-associated fears) to more than the legally permissible “minimal burden”. While there is evidence that a significant portion of adults undergoing brain MRI scans experience anxiety, data on anxiety in children and adolescents undergoing brain MRI scans is rare. This study therefore aimed to examine the prevalence and level of anxiety in children and adolescents who had MRI scans of the brain, and to compare the results to adults undergoing brain MRI scans, and to children and adolescents undergoing electroencephalography (EEG; which is usually regarded a “minimal burden”).

Method

Participants were 57 children and adolescents who had a brain MRI scan (MRI-C; mean age 12.9 years), 28 adults who had a brain MRI scan (MRI-A; mean age 43.7 years), and 66 children and adolescents undergoing EEG (EEG-C; mean age 12.9 years). Anxiety was assessed on the subjective (situational anxiety) and on the physiological level (arousal), before and after the respective examination.

Results

More than 98% of children and adolescents reported no or only minimal fear during the MRI scan. Both pre- and post-examination, the MRI-C and the MRI-A groups did not differ significantly with respect to situational anxiety (p = 0.262 and p = 0.374, respectively), and to physiological arousal (p = 0.050, p = 0.472). Between the MRI-C and the EEG-C group, there were also no significant differences in terms of situational anxiety (p = 0.525, p = 0.875), or physiological arousal (p = 0.535, p = 0.189). Prior MRI experience did not significantly influence subjective or physiological anxiety parameters.

Conclusions

In this study, children and adolescents undergoing a brain MRI scan did not experience significantly more anxiety than those undergoing an EEG, or adults undergoing MRI scanning. Therefore, a general exclusion of minors from MRI research studies does not appear reasonable.

Disclosing incidental findings in brain research: the rights of minors in decision-making

MRI is used routinely in research with children to generate new knowledge about brain development. The detection of unexpected brain abnormalities (incidental findings; IFs) in these studies presents unique challenges. While key issues surrounding incidence and significance, duty of care, and burden of disclosure have been addressed substantially for adults, less empirical data and normative analyses exist for minors who participate in minimal risk research. To identify ethical concerns and fill existing gaps, we conducted a comprehensive review of papers that focused explicitly on the discovery of IFs in minors. The discourse in the 21 papers retrieved for this analysis amply covered practical issues such as informed consent and screening, difficulties in ascertaining clinical significance, the economic costs and burden of responsibility on researchers, and risks (physical or psychological). However, we found little discussion about the involvement of minors in decisions about disclosure of IFs in the brain, especially for IFs of low clinical significance. In response, we propose a framework for managing IFs that integrates practical considerations with explicit appreciation of rights along the continuum of maturity. This capacity-adjusted framework emphasizes the importance of involving competent minors and respecting their right to make decisions about disclosure.

Principles of human subjects protections applied in an opt-out, de-identified biobank

BioVU, the Vanderbilt DNA Databank, is one of few biobanks that qualifies as non-human subjects research as determined by the local IRB and the federal Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP). BioVU accrues DNA samples extracted from leftover blood remaining from routine clinical testing. The resource is linked to a de-identified version of data extracted from an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) system, termed the Synthetic Device (SD), in which all personal identifiers have been removed. Thus, there is no identifiable private information attached to the records. The Belmont Report enumerates the importance of the boundary between practice and research, and three principles: Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice, which constitute the essential ethical framework by which IRBs and ethics committees judge the risks and benefits of research involving human subjects. BioVU was developed by designing and implementing new procedures, for which there were no previously established methods, which are consistent with the principles of the Belmont Report. These included special oversight and governance, new informatics technologies, provisions to accommodate patients' preferences, as well as an extensive public education and communications component. Considerations of core principles and protections in the practical implementation of BioVU is the focus of this paper.