Demonstrating trustworthiness when collecting and sharing genomic data: public views across 22 countries

Unlocking the genomic landscape: Results of the Beyond 1 Million Genomes (B1MG) pilot in Belgium towards Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI)

Genomic medicine has great potential to offer insights into how humans' genetic variation can affect their health, prevention options and treatment responses. The Beyond 1 Million Genomes (B1MG) project was kicked off in 2020 with the aim of building a federated network of genomic data in Europe, in which Belgium took part as a piloting country. B1MG developed a framework to enable all interested countries to self-evaluate the level of maturity of national genomic medicine practices following a common matrix, called Maturity Level Model (MLM), that contained 49 indicators across eight domains: I. Governance and strategy; II. Investment and economic model; III. Ethics, legislation and policy; IV. Public awareness and acceptance; V. Workforce skills and organisation; VI. Clinical organisation, infrastructure and tools; VII. Clinical genomics guidelines and infrastructure; and VIII. Data management, standards and infrastructure. The ongoing Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI) project aims to capitalise on the experience of B1MG piloting countries and their MLM results. In this paper, we present the qualitative and quantitative outcomes of B1MG MLM assessment in Belgium and discuss their relevance to GDI. The insights gained from this study can be helpful for steering future policy directions and interventions on genomics in Belgium and beyond.

Patient and Public Willingness to Share Personal Health Data for Third-Party or Secondary Uses: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

International advances in information communication, eHealth, and other digital health technologies have led to significant expansions in the collection and analysis of personal health data. However, following a series of high-profile data sharing scandals and the emergence of COVID-19, critical exploration of public willingness to share personal health data remains limited, particularly for third-party or secondary uses.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to explore factors that affect public willingness to share personal health data for third-party or secondary uses.

METHODS

A systematic search of 6 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and SocINDEX) was conducted with review findings analyzed using inductive-thematic analysis and synthesized using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

Of the 13,949 papers identified, 135 were included. Factors most commonly identified as a barrier to data sharing from a public perspective included data privacy, security, and management concerns. Other factors found to influence willingness to share personal health data included the type of data being collected (ie, perceived sensitivity); the type of user requesting their data to be shared, including their perceived motivation, profit prioritization, and ability to directly impact patient care; trust in the data user, as well as in associated processes, often established through individual choice and control over what data are shared with whom, when, and for how long, supported by appropriate models of dynamic consent; the presence of a feedback loop; and clearly articulated benefits or issue relevance including valued incentivization and compensation at both an individual and collective or societal level.

CONCLUSIONS

There is general, yet conditional public support for sharing personal health data for third-party or secondary use. Clarity, transparency, and individual control over who has access to what data, when, and for how long are widely regarded as essential prerequisites for public data sharing support. Individual levels of control and choice need to operate within the auspices of assured data privacy and security processes, underpinned by dynamic and responsive models of consent that prioritize individual or collective benefits over and above commercial gain. Failure to understand, design, and refine data sharing approaches in response to changeable patient preferences will only jeopardize the tangible benefits of data sharing practices being fully realized.

Australian public perspectives on genomic data governance: responsibility, regulation, and logistical considerations

Genomic sequencing generates huge volumes of data, which may be collected or donated to form large genomic databases. Such information can be stored for future use, either for the data donor themselves or by researchers to help improve our understanding of the genetic basis of disease. Creating datasets of this magnitude and diversity is only possible if patients, their families, and members of the public worldwide share their data. However, there is no consensus on the best technical approach to data sharing that also minimises risks to individuals and exploration of stakeholders' views on aspects of genomic data governance models-the ways genomic data is stored, managed, shared and used-has been minimal. To address this need, we conducted focus groups with 39 members of the Australian public exploring their views and preferences for different aspects of genomic data governance models. We found that consent and control were essential to participants, as they wanted the option to choose who had access to their data and for what purposes. Critically, participants wanted a trustworthy body to enforce regulation of data storage, sharing and usage. While participants recognised the importance of data accessibility, they also expressed a strong desire for data security. Finally, financial responsibility for data storage raised concerns for inequity as well as organisations and individuals using data in ethically contentious ways to generate profit. Our findings highlight some of the trade-offs that need to be considered in the development of genomic data governance systems.

Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer

Open science ensures that research is transparently reported and freely accessible for all to assess and collaboratively build on. Psychiatric genetics has led among the health sciences in implementing some open science practices in common study designs, such as replication as part of genome-wide association studies. However, thorough open science implementation guidelines are limited and largely not specific to data, privacy, and research conduct challenges in psychiatric genetics. Here, we present a primer of open science practices, including selection of a research topic with patients/nonacademic collaborators, equitable authorship and citation practices, design of replicable, reproducible studies, preregistrations, open data, and privacy issues. We provide tips for informative figures and inclusive, precise reporting. We discuss considerations in working with nonacademic collaborators and distributing research through preprints, blogs, social media, and accessible lecture materials. Finally, we provide extra resources to support every step of the research process.

Public and Patients' Perspectives Towards Data and Sample Sharing for Research: An Overview of Empirical Findings

We aimed to review the attitudes and perspectives of the public and patients towards the sharing of data and biospecimens for research and to identify common dimensions, regardless of setting. Our review included systematic, scoping or thematic reviews of empirical studies retrieved from Medline (PubMed interface), Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane Reviews. The main themes identified and synthesised across the 14 reviews were readiness and motivations; potential risks and safeguards; trust, transparency and accountability; autonomy and preferred type of consent; and factors influencing data and biospecimen sharing and consent. Sociodemographic factors and research and individual context remain relevant influencing factors in all settings, while preferences for types of consent are highly heterogeneous. Trusted environments and adapted consent options with participant engagement are relevant to improve research participation.

Precision medicine and the problem of structural injustice

Many countries currently invest in technologies and data infrastructures to foster precision medicine (PM), which is hoped to better tailor disease treatment and prevention to individual patients. But who can expect to benefit from PM? The answer depends not only on scientific developments but also on the willingness to address the problem of structural injustice. One important step is to confront the problem of underrepresentation of certain populations in PM cohorts via improved research inclusivity. Yet, we argue that the perspective needs to be broadened because the (in)equitable effects of PM are also strongly contingent on wider structural factors and prioritization of healthcare strategies and resources. When (and before) implementing PM, it is crucial to attend to how the organisation of healthcare systems influences who will benefit, as well as whether PM may present challenges for a solidaristic sharing of costs and risks. We discuss these issues through a comparative lens of healthcare models and PM-initiatives in the United States, Austria, and Denmark. The analysis draws attention to how PM hinges on-and simultaneously affects-access to healthcare services, public trust in data handling, and prioritization of healthcare resources. Finally, we provide suggestions for how to mitigate foreseeable negative effects.

Consensus Statements on Precision Oncology in the China Greater Bay Area

BACKGROUND

Next-generation sequencing comprehensive genomic panels (NGS CGPs) have enabled the delivery of tailor-made therapeutic approaches to improve survival outcomes in patients with cancer. Within the China Greater Bay Area (GBA), territorial differences in clinical practices and health care systems and strengthening collaboration warrant a regional consensus to consolidate the development and integration of precision oncology (PO). Therefore, the Precision Oncology Working Group (POWG) formulated standardized principles for the clinical application of molecular profiling, interpretation of genomic alterations, and alignment of actionable mutations with sequence-directed therapy to deliver clinical services of excellence and evidence-based care to patients with cancer in the China GBA.

METHODS

Thirty experts used a modified Delphi method. The evidence extracted to support the statements was graded according to the GRADE system and reported according to the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines, version 2.0.

RESULTS

The POWG reached consensus in six key statements: harmonization of reporting and quality assurance of NGS; molecular tumor board and clinical decision support systems for PO; education and training; research and real-world data collection, patient engagement, regulations, and financial reimbursement of PO treatment strategies; and clinical recommendations and implementation of PO in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

POWG consensus statements standardize the clinical application of NGS CGPs, streamline the interpretation of clinically significant genomic alterations, and align actionable mutations with sequence-directed therapies. The POWG consensus statements may harmonize the utility and delivery of PO in China's GBA.

The implementation of large-scale genomic screening or diagnostic programmes: A rapid evidence review

Genomic healthcare programmes, both in a research and clinical context, have demonstrated a pivotal opportunity to prevent, diagnose, and treat rare diseases. However, implementation factors could increase overall costs and affect uptake. As well, uncertainties remain regarding effective training, guidelines and legislation. The purpose of this rapid evidence review was to draw together the available global evidence on the implementation of genomic testing programmes, particularly on population-based screening and diagnostic programmes implemented at the national level, to understand the range of factors influencing implementation. This review involved a search of terms related to genomics, implementation and health care. The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles published between 2017-2022 and found in five databases. The review included thirty articles drawing on sixteen countries. A wide range of factors was cited as critical to the successful implementation of genomics programmes. These included having policy frameworks, regulations, guidelines; clinical decision support tools; access to genetic counselling; and education and training for healthcare staff. The high costs of implementing and integrating genomics into healthcare were also often barriers to stakeholders. National genomics programmes are complex and require the generation of evidence and addressing implementation challenges. The findings from this review highlight that there is a strong emphasis on addressing genomic education and engagement among varied stakeholders, including the general public, policymakers, and governments. Articles also emphasised the development of appropriate policies and regulatory frameworks to govern genomic healthcare, with a focus on legislation that regulates the collection, storage, and sharing of personal genomic data.

Ethical Considerations in Research with Genomic Data

Our ability to generate genomic data is currently well ahead of our ability to understand what they mean, raising challenges about how best to engage with them. This article considers ethical aspects of work with such data, focussing on research contexts that are intertwined with clinical care. We discuss the identifying nature of genomic data, the medical information intrinsic within them, and their linking of people within a biological family. We go on to consider what this means for consent, the importance of thoughtful sharing of genomic data, the challenge of constructing meaningful findings, and the legacy of unequal representation in genomic datasets. We argue that the ongoing success of genomic data research relies on public trust in the enterprise: to justify this trust, we need to ensure robust stewarding, and wide engagement about the ethical issues inherent in such practices.

Fresh takes on five health data sharing domains: Quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability

As entities around the world invest in repositories and other infrastructure to facilitate health data sharing, scalable solutions to data sharing challenges are needed. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 experts to explore views on potential issues and policy options related to health data sharing. In this Perspective, we describe and contextualize unconventional insights shared by our interviewees relevant to issues in five domains: data quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability. These insights question a focus on granular quality metrics for gatekeeping; challenge enthusiasm for maximalist risk disclosure practices; call attention to power dynamics that potentially compromise the patient's voice; encourage faith in the sharing proclivities of new generations of scientists; and endorse accounting for personal disposition in the selection of long-term partners. We consider the merits of each insight with the broad goal of encouraging creative thinking to address data sharing challenges.

Australian public perspectives on genomic data storage and sharing: Benefits, concerns and access preferences

Diagnostic genomic sequencing generates unprecedented amounts of data. In addition to its primary use, this data could be used for a wide range of secondary purposes, including research and informing future healthcare for the data donor. These opportunities may require data to be shared with third parties. Although effective data sharing relies on public support, there are barriers which may prevent people from choosing to donate their genomic data and surprisingly few studies explore these barriers in depth. To address this need, this study aimed to qualitatively explore the Australian public's views and preferences for storing and sharing genomic data. Online focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive content analysis. A total of 7 focus groups were conducted with 39 members of the Australian public ranging from 18 to 67 years of age. Participants were mostly supportive of genomic data being stored and shared for secondary purposes, recognising the potential benefits for individual health and wider medical research. However, some concerns were identified. Participants felt genomic data was particularly sensitive information, and raised the potential for discrimination, stigma, and other malicious uses of such data. Concerns for privacy and security of the data were also prevalent. Trustworthiness of data users was important when considering who genomic data should be shared with. Although participants were supportive of data being freely available to health professionals and researchers, they were opposed to insurance companies and employers accessing the data. There was greater controversy around sharing data with law enforcement and pharmaceutical companies. Participants recognised both benefits and harms to sharing with law enforcement. They were also cognizant of the dual purpose of pharmaceutical companies as both research and profit-driven organisations. Finally, participants expressed varying perspectives about sharing genomic data with family members, yet most agreed that explicit consent from the data donor should be required to share their information with relatives. This study highlighted several of the Australian public's perceived barriers and motivators for the storage and sharing of genomic data. Participants recognised both the benefits of collecting, storing and sharing such data widely but also the potential for harm from data misuse. While public acceptance of such endeavours is required to maximise the volume of data made available, the concerns around data access and security need to be addressed before this can occur. These findings also highlight the nuance and ethical complexity of decisions about who we should allow to access donated genomic data. These perspectives will be essential in helping to shape the way large-scale genomic data storage and sharing is developed and implemented in Australia, and internationally.

Patients and Members of the Public’s Wishes Regarding Transparency in the Context of Secondary Use of Health Data: A Scoping Review (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Secondary use of health data has reached unequaled potential to improve health systems governance, knowledge, and clinical care. Transparency regarding this secondary use is frequently cited as necessary to address deficits in trust and conditional support and to increase patient awareness.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to review the current published literature to identify different stakeholders' perspectives and recommendations on what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how and in which situations.

METHODS

Using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review using Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases to locate a broad range of studies published in English or French until November 2022. We included articles reporting a stakeholder's perspective or recommendations of what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how or in which situations. Data were collected and analyzed with an iterative thematic approach using NVivo.

RESULTS

Overall, 178 articles were included in this scoping review. The type of information can be divided into generic and specific content. Generic content includes information on governance and regulatory frameworks, technical aspects, and scientific aims. Specific content includes updates on the use of one's data, return of results from individual tests, information on global results, information on data sharing, and how to access one's data. Recommendations on how to communicate the information focused on frequency, use of various supports, formats, and wording. Methods for communication generally favored broad approaches such as nationwide publicity campaigns, mainstream and social media for generic content, and mixed approaches for specific content including websites, patient portals, and face-to-face encounters. Content should be tailored to the individual as much as possible with regard to length, avoidance of technical terms, cultural competence, and level of detail. Finally, the review outlined 4 major situations where communication was deemed necessary: before a new use of data, when new test results became available, when global research results were released, and in the advent of a breach in confidentiality.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights how different types of information and approaches to communication efforts may serve as the basis for achieving greater transparency. Governing bodies could use the results: to elaborate or evaluate strategies to educate on the potential benefits; to provide some knowledge and control over data use as a form of reciprocity; and as a condition to engage citizens and build and maintain trust. Future work is needed to assess which strategies achieve the greatest outreach while striking a balance between meeting information needs and use of resources.

Perceptions, attitudes, and willingness of the public in low- and middle-income countries of the Arab region to participate in biobank research

Population-based genomics studies have proven successful in identifying genetic variants associated with diseases. High-quality biospecimens linked with informative health data from diverse segments of the population have made such research possible. However, the success of biobank research depends on the willingness of the public to participate in this type of research. We aimed to explore the factors associated with the willingness of the public to participate in biobank research from four low- and middle-income countries in the Arab region (Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Sudan). We used a previously validated questionnaire to assess several constructs that included the public's perceptions, attitudes, and willingness to participate in biobank research. We recruited 967 participants. More than half did not have prior awareness of biobanks. Participants' willingness to donate biospecimens and health data was less than 10%. Our results also showed that participants harbored concerns with trust, privacy, and with data-sharing involving international researchers. Predictors of willingness to participate in biobank research included no previous involvement in research and positive attitudes toward biobanks. Finally, our study showed several differences between the four countries regarding several of the investigated constructs. We conclude there should be additional efforts to raise public awareness and enhance perceptions of the public in biobanking research to enhance trust. We further recommend qualitative research to explore the underlying factors that contribute to the public's concerns with international data sharing that would enhance global health.

What influences a person's willingness to share health information for both direct care and uses beyond direct care? Findings from a focus group study in Ireland

Background: The sharing of health information is invaluable for direct care provision and reasons beyond direct care, such as for health services management. Previous studies have shown that willingness to share health information is influenced by an individual's trust in a healthcare professional or organisation, privacy and security concerns, and fear of discrimination based on sensitive information. The importance of engaging the public in policy and practice development relating to the use and sharing of health information has been identified as an essential step for countries to take. This study's aim was to examine the factors that influence the Irish public's willingness to share their health information as part of a national public engagement on health information. Methods: A qualitative study using online focus groups was conducted as part of a wider national public engagement on health information. Participants were purposively recruited from a combination of public, patient, and service user groups in Ireland. Focus group interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis. Results: In total, 85 participants took part in 14 focus groups between January and March 2021. Two major themes were identified, trust and personal and public benefits of sharing health information. The ability to exercise control over personal information, perceived transparency of the process, and the extent to which the healthcare service was viewed as confidential, all influenced the level of trust a person held. Perceived benefits were influenced by the extent to which participants believed information sharing would support improved care or provide broader public benefit, and balanced against the potential for personal harm. Conclusions: The findings allow for new insights into the views of the public on the use and sharing of personal health information and can be used to inform the development of a consent model for health information.

Concerns about the use of polygenic embryo screening for psychiatric and cognitive traits

Private companies have begun offering services to allow parents undergoing in-vitro fertilisation to screen embryos for genetic risk of complex diseases, including psychiatric disorders. This procedure, called polygenic embryo screening, raises several difficult scientific and ethical issues, as discussed in this Personal View. Polygenic embryo screening depends on the statistical properties of polygenic risk scores, which are complex and not well studied in the context of this proposed clinical application. The clinical, social, and ethical implications of polygenic embryo screening have barely been discussed among relevant stakeholders. To our knowledge, the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics is the first professional biomedical organisation to issue a statement regarding polygenic embryo screening. For the reasons discussed in this Personal View, the Society urges caution and calls for additional research and oversight on the use of polygenic embryo screening.

A concentric circles view of health data relations facilitates understanding of sociotechnical challenges for learning health systems and the role of federated data networks

The ability to use clinical and research data at scale is central to hopes for data-driven medicine. However, in using such data researchers often encounter hurdles–both technical, such as differing data security requirements, and social, such as the terms of informed consent, legal requirements and patient and public trust. Federated or distributed data networks have been proposed and adopted in response to these hurdles. However, to date there has been little consideration of how FDNs respond to both technical and social constraints on data use. In this Perspective we propose an approach to thinking about data in terms that make it easier to navigate the health data space and understand the value of differing approaches to data collection, storage and sharing. We set out a socio-technical model of data systems that we call the “Concentric Circles View” (CCV) of data-relationships. The aim is to enable a consistent understanding of the fit between the local relationships within which data are produced and the extended socio-technical systems that enable their use. The paper suggests this model can help understand and tackle challenges associated with the use of real-world data in the health setting. We use the model to understand not only how but why federated networks may be well placed to address emerging issues and adapt to the evolving needs of health research for patient benefit. We conclude that the CCV provides a useful model with broader application in mapping, understanding, and tackling the major challenges associated with using real world data in the health setting.

Gamete and embryo donation for research: what might shape the willingness to donate among gamete donors and recipients?

PURPOSE

Research using gametes and embryos donated by reproductive and third-party donors contributed to substantial, albeit contentious achievements. The views of gamete donors and recipients on donation for research and the underpinning role of attitudes towards research have been seldom explored and are yet to be incorporated into ethical, legal, and regulatory landscapes. From a cultural standpoint, this study adapts and explores psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ), and analyzes the willingness of gamete donors and recipients to donate gametes and embryos for research and its association with sociodemographic, reproductive characteristics, and attitudes towards research.

METHODS

Between July 2017 and June 2018, 71 donors and 165 recipients completed a self-administered questionnaire at the Portuguese Public Bank of Gametes. Willingness to donate and attitudes towards research were measured with a 5-point Likert scale. RAQ psychometric characteristics were explored.

RESULTS

Two RAQ components were identified: "trustworthiness of research" and "critical perspective". Most participants were willing to donate gametes and embryos: donors more willing to donate gametes and male recipients more willing to donate gametes and embryos. Higher RAQ scores, indicating a more positive attitude towards research, were observed on the component "trustworthiness of research" among those willing to donate gametes and embryos and on the component "critical perspective" among those willing to donate embryos.

CONCLUSION

These findings help foster inclusivity, diversity, and responsiveness of research and call for upstream engagement of male and female gamete donors and recipients, promoting a trustworthy, anticipatory, democratic, and people-centered approach to policies, regulations, and practices in human gamete and embryo research.

Public Views About Involvement in Decision-Making on Health Data Sharing, Access, Use and Reuse: The Importance of Trust in Science and Other Institutions

Background

Data-intensive and needs-driven research can deliver substantial health benefits. However, concerns with privacy loss, undisclosed surveillance, and discrimination are on the rise due to mounting data breaches. This can undermine the trustworthiness of data processing institutions and reduce people's willingness to share their data. Involving the public in health data governance can help to address this problem by imbuing data processing frameworks with societal values. This study assesses public views about involvement in individual-level decisions concerned with health data and their association with trust in science and other institutions.

Methods

Cross-sectional study with 162 patients and 489 informal carers followed at two reference centers for rare diseases in an academic hospital in Portugal (June 2019–March 2020). Participants rated the importance of involvement in decision-making concerning health data sharing, access, use, and reuse from “not important” to “very important”. Its association with sociodemographic characteristics, interpersonal trust, trust in national and international institutions, and the importance of trust in research teams and host institutions was tested.

Results

Most participants perceived involvement in decision-making about data sharing (85.1%), access (87.1%), use (85%) and reuse (79.9%) to be important or very important. Participants who ascribed a high degree of importance to trust in research host institutions were significantly more likely to value involvement in such decisions. A similar position was expressed by participants who valued trust in research teams for data sharing, access, and use. Participants with low levels of trust in national and international institutions and with lower levels of education attributed less importance to being involved in decisions about data use.

Conclusion

The high value attributed by participants to involvement in individual-level data governance stresses the need to broaden opportunities for public participation in health data decision-making, namely by introducing a meta consent approach. The important role played by trust in science and in other institutions in shaping participants' views about involvement highlights the relevance of pairing such a meta consent approach with the provision of transparent information about the implications of data sharing, the resources needed to make informed choices and the development of harm mitigation tools and redress.

What influences a person’s willingness to share health information for both direct care and uses beyond direct care? Findings from a focus group study in Ireland

Background: The sharing of health information is invaluable for direct care provision and reasons beyond direct care, such as for health services management. Previous studies have shown that willingness to share health information is influenced by an individual’s trust in a healthcare professional or organisation, privacy and security concerns, and fear of discrimination based on sensitive information. The importance of engaging the public in policy and practice development relating to the use and sharing of health information has been identified as an essential step for countries to take. This study’s aim was to examine the factors that influence the Irish public’s willingness to share their health information as part of a national public engagement on health information. Methods: A qualitative study using online focus groups was conducted as part of a wider national public engagement on health information. Participants were purposively recruited from a combination of public, patient, and service user groups in Ireland. Focus group interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis. Results: In total, 85 participants took part in 14 focus groups between January and March 2021. Two major themes were identified, trust and personal and public benefits of sharing health information. The ability to exercise control over personal information, perceived transparency of the process, and the extent to which the healthcare service was viewed as confidential, all influenced the level of trust a person held. Perceived benefits were influenced by the extent to which participants believed information sharing would support improved care or provide broader public benefit, and balanced against the potential for personal harm. Conclusions: The findings allow for new insights into the views of the public on the use and sharing of personal health information and can be used to inform the development of a consent model for health information.

Towards equitable and trustworthy genomics research

The representation of traditionally scientifically underserved groups in genomic research continues to be low despite concerns about equity and social justice and the scientific and clinical need. Among the factors that account for this are a lack of trust in the research community and limited diversity in this community. The success of the multiple initiatives that aim to improve representation relies on the willingness of underrepresented populations to make data and samples available for research and clinical use. In this narrative review, we propose that this requires building trust, and set out four approaches to demonstrating trustworthiness, including increasing diversity in the research workforce, and meaningful engagement with underrepresented communities in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner. Capacity building globally will ensure that actual and perceived exploitation and ‘helicopter’ research could be eliminated.

Engaged genomic science produces better and fairer outcomes: an engagement framework for engaging and involving participants, patients and publics in genomics research and healthcare implementation

Genomic science is increasingly central to the provision of health care. Producing and applying robust genomics knowledge is a complex endeavour in which no single individual, profession, discipline or community holds all the answers.  Engagement and involvement of diverse stakeholders can support alignment of societal and scientific interests, understandings and perspectives and promises better science and fairer outcomes. In this context we argue for F.A.I.R.E.R. data and data use that is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reproducible, Equitable and Responsible. Yet there is a paucity of international guidance on how to engage publics, patients and participants in genomics. To support meaningful and effective engagement and involvement we developed an Engagement Framework for involving and engaging participants, patients and publics in genomics research and health implementation.

The Engagement Framework is intended to support all those working in genomics research, medicine, and healthcare to deliberatively consider approaches to participant, patient and public engagement and involvement in their work. Through a series of questions, the Engagement Framework prompts new ways of thinking about the aims and purposes of engagement, and support reflection on the strengths, limitations, likely outcomes and impacts of choosing different approaches to engagement. To guide genomics activities, we describe four themes and associated questions for deliberative reflection: (i) fairness; (ii) context; (iii) heterogeneity, and (iv) recognising tensions and conflict.

The four key components in the Engagement provide a framework to assist those involved in genomics to reflect on decisions they make for their initiatives, including the strategies selected, the participant, patient and public stakeholders engaged, and the anticipated goals. The Engagement Framework is one step in an actively evolving process of building genomics research and implementation cultures which foster responsible leadership and are attentive to objectives which increase equality, diversity and inclusion in participation and outcomes.

Views of university students in Jordan towards Biobanking

Background

Biobanks are considered primary means+ of supporting contemporary research, in order to deliver personalized and precise diagnostics with public acceptance and participation as a cornerstone for their success.

Aims

This study aims to assess knowledge, perception, and attitudes towards biomedical research and biobanking among students at the University of Jordan.

Methodology

An online questionnaire was designed, developed, and piloted. It was divided into 5 sections that included questions related to issues of biomedical research and biobanking as well as factors influencing the decision to participate.

Results

Responses from 435 students revealed that 52.9% previously heard of biobanks. There was an overwhelming acceptance for participation in biomedical, genetic, and biobanking research. A blood sample was the most preferred for donation. Protection of privacy, informed consent prior to donation, approval of an ethics committee, and trust towards researchers were the most important factors associated with willingness to participate. On the other hand, the vagueness of the type of research performed on the biospecimens and the unavailability of general research results to the donor had a negative connotation. There was no clear agreement on the type of informed consent preferred by students, but to be contacted and informed of research results was preferred by the majority. Students also preferred the disposal of biospecimens and information when deciding to withdraw from participation.

Conclusion

There is strong enthusiasm among students to participate in biomedical research and biobanking with all rights reserved thus providing hope for a very promising future in Jordan.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00719-y.

GA4GH: International policies and standards for data sharing across genomic research and healthcare

The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) aims to accelerate biomedical advances by enabling the responsible sharing of clinical and genomic data through both harmonized data aggregation and federated approaches. The decreasing cost of genomic sequencing (along with other genome-wide molecular assays) and increasing evidence of its clinical utility will soon drive the generation of sequence data from tens of millions of humans, with increasing levels of diversity. In this perspective, we present the GA4GH strategies for addressing the major challenges of this data revolution. We describe the GA4GH organization, which is fueled by the development efforts of eight Work Streams and informed by the needs of 24 Driver Projects and other key stakeholders. We present the GA4GH suite of secure, interoperable technical standards and policy frameworks and review the current status of standards, their relevance to key domains of research and clinical care, and future plans of GA4GH. Broad international participation in building, adopting, and deploying GA4GH standards and frameworks will catalyze an unprecedented effort in data sharing that will be critical to advancing genomic medicine and ensuring that all populations can access its benefits.

Digital Mega-Studies as a New Research Paradigm: Governing the Health Research of the Future

'Digital Mega-Studies' are entirely or extensively digitised, longitudinal, population-scale initiatives, collecting, storing, and making available individual-level research data of different types and from multiple sources, shaped by technological developments and unforeseeable risks over time. The Australian 'Gen V' project exemplifies this new research paradigm. In 2019, we undertook a multidisciplinary, multi-stakeholder process to map Digital Mega-Studies' key characteristics, legal and governance challenges and likely solutions. We conducted large and small group processes within a one-day symposium and directed online synthesis and group prioritisation over subsequent weeks. We present our methods (including elicitation, affinity mapping and prioritisation processes) and findings, proposing six priority governance principles across three areas-data, participation, trust-to support future high-quality, large-scale digital research in health.

Public trust and genomic medicine in Canada and the UK

Background: Genomic medicine could improve precise risk stratification, early prevention, and personalised treatment across a broad spectrum of disease. As this reality approaches, questions on the importance of public trust arise. The success of genomic medicine initiatives is influenced by the public's trust and willingness to engage. Specific social actors influential in the public's trust have been identified by the "Your DNA, Your Say" study, including doctors, researchers, and governments. This paper aims to identify and examine which specific social actors, if any, in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK) are the most trustworthy and influential to engage the public in genomic medicine research. Methods: Using data from the 'Your DNA, Your Say' study, logistic regression models and Pearson's chi-square tests were conducted to explore trust in social actors across Canada and the UK. Results: The results demonstrate Canada and the UK significantly differ in public trust and willingness to donate. Non-profit researchers, domestic doctors, and personal doctors were identified to be the most influential and trustworthy social actors in Canada and the UK. Conclusions: The comparative results indicate that both countries would benefit from engaging the public through doctors and non-profit researchers. The UK could additionally support public trust by engaging with the public through the National Health Service. However, the results suggest that whilst public trust is significant, it may be neither necessary nor sufficient in influencing willingness to donate. Future research could do well to investigate how the importance of public trust compares in countries with lower public trust.