Analysis of congenital heart disease research: Mapping impact, production and global collaboration

Background

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is a severe childhood health problem worldwide. This study analyzes the scientific production on CHD published in Scopus during the last decade.

Methods

This study assessed the research on CHD conducted during the 2011-2020 period. Indexed publications were identified using a list of keywords consisting of MeSH (Medical Subject Heading) and Emtree (EMBASE) terms for the category "Congenital Heart Defects." The studies obtained were analyzed using the SciVal platform, and the production, impact, and collaboration indicators were considered. Additionally, an analysis of co-occurrence between countries and keywords was carried out with the VOSviewer software.

Results

The study found 8934 articles on CHD. A growing trend was observed during the last decade. The distribution of the scientific production at the international level shows that most publications are from the United States, China, and the United Kingdom, whereas Latin American countries have the lowest production. The articles analyzed contain a total of 89,835 citations. Most studies are published in high-impact journals (Q1), with 3273 studies corresponding to 39.3% of the total production analyzed. In the keyword analysis, we found five areas investigated.

Conclusions

Scientific production has shown sustained growth in the past years. Increased scientific production in specific research areas may have helped decrease morbimortality due to CHD.

Return of individual genomic research results within the PRAEGNANT multicenter registry study

PURPOSE

The PRAEGNANT study is a registry study for metastatic breast cancer patients, focusing on biomarker detection. Recently, within this study, genetic alterations in 37 breast cancer predisposition genes were analyzed and genetic findings were detected for 396 participants. The aim of this project was to return genetic results to the physicians and to analyze actions taken (e.g., disclosure of results to patients, validation of results, clinical impact, and impact on the patient's quality of life) using a questionnaire.

METHODS

235 questionnaires were sent out to the study centers, with each questionnaire representing one patient with a genetic finding. The questionnaire consisted of twelve questions in the German language, referring to the disclosure of results, validation of test results, and their impact on treatment decisions and on the patient's quality of life.

RESULTS

135 (57.5%) questionnaires were completed. Of these, 46 (34.1%) stated that results were returned to the patients. In 80.0% (N = 36) of cases where results were returned, the patient had not been aware of the finding previously. For 27 patients (64.3%), genetic findings had not been validated beforehand. All validation procedures (N = 15) were covered by the patients' health insurance. For 11 (25.0%) patients, physicians reported that the research results influenced current or future decision-making on treatment, and for 37.8% (N = 17) the results influenced whether family members will be genetically tested.

CONCLUSION

This study provides novel insights into the return of research results and into clinical and personal benefits of disclosure of genetic findings within a German registry.

Researchers' experiences with and perceptions of returning results to participants: Study protocol

Background

Health research participants want to receive the results from research studies in which they have participated, and health research funding agencies encourage the returning of results to research participants. However, researchers rarely return results to research participants. This study protocol aims to fill the significant gap in knowledge that exists regarding experiences, perceptions, and challenges health researchers have with returning results to research participants.

Design

The study will use a mixed-methods concurrent triangulation design that will collect qualitative and quantitative data in one simultaneous phase to allow researchers to utilize each type of data to corroborate the findings from the other. The research team developed a mixed-methods survey to assess the experiences, perceptions, and challenges health researchers have with returning results to research participants.

Method

The survey includes both quantitative and qualitative (open-ended) questions and will be implemented online and will take approximately 10-15 min for respondents to complete. The survey is divided into four topics areas, which include respondents': 1) general opinion of returning results to participants in health research studies, 2) experiences with a specific study in which they did not return results to participants, 3) perceptions of specific challenges they face in returning results to participants, and 4) demographic characteristics and professional background information.

Summary

The study to be conducted will address knowledge gaps related to researchers' experiences, perceptions, and challenges with returning research results. The study is an important step toward pragmatic solutions that can improve researchers' ability to return results to participants.

The views of ethics committee members and medical researchers on the return of individual research results and incidental findings, ownership issues and benefit sharing in biobanking research in a South Indian city

The return of individual research results and incidental findings from biobanking research is a much debated ethical issue globally but has extensive relevance in India where the burden of out of pocket health care expenses is high for the majority. The views of 21 ethics committee (EC) members and 22 researchers from Bengaluru, India, concerning the ethics of biobanking research were sought through in-depth interviews using an unfolding case vignette with probes. A shared view among most was that individual research results which are 'actionable' or have 'clinical significance' should be returned to the sample contributors through their treating physicians. This was seen as an ethical obligation and a moral duty on the side of the researcher to "give back" to the person who contributed to the research. The challenges foreseen were that of resources, both financial and personnel, for the time and counseling needed to accompany the disclosure of results. Perceptions of 'ownership' appear to influence the concept of benefit sharing. While benefit sharing in financial terms was considered ethically challenging, certain researchers and ethics committee members made a case for "two way altruism" where the researcher in return for the altruistic 'valuable contribution', shares with the contributor/ community, benefits of the research which could include research findings, improved patient care, and more affordable access to the new diagnostic tests or products arising from the research. This defines the emerging ethic of "giving back" which goes beyond individual rights and ensures reciprocity and distributive justice.

Timing and context: important considerations in the return of genetic results to research participants

General consensus exists that clinically significant germline genetic research results should be fed back to research participants. A body of literature is emerging about Australian research participants' experiences of feedback of genetic research results and factors that influence a participant's actions after receiving such information. This exploratory qualitative study conducted interviews with 11 participants from the International Sarcoma Kindred Study, four probands and seven of their relatives. They had been informed by letter of the availability of clinically significant germline TP53 mutations identified through research. We examined the participants' views about the feedback of these genetic test results. Thematic (inductive) analysis was used to analyse the data. A number of factors influenced participants' responses following notification. This included participants' understanding of the notification letter and their perception of the relevance of the information for them and/or their family. Most notably, timing of the letter in the context of an individual's current life experiences was important. Timing and context are novel factors identified that may impact on research participants' understanding or their ability to access clinically significant research results. We outline strategies for disseminating results to research participants and their next of kin that may reduce their uncertainty around the receipt of research results.

Stakeholder views on returning research results

While the disclosure of research findings is relevant to all types of biomedical research, it has garnered particular attention with respect to genetics and genomics research due to some of the unique aspects of the data and the high public profile of the field. In this chapter, we review the attitudes of stakeholders (research participants, policymakers, and researchers) to define areas of consensus regarding the issue of returning research results across and within groups. In addition to stakeholder attitudes about obligations and interest in research results, other major related issues related to returning research results, such as informed consent, communication of research results, and cost, are discussed. Given the consensus between stakeholders to return summary reports of a study's outcomes and individual research results of clinical significance, we conclude that the time has come to encourage, if not require, researchers to consider these issues in the developmental planning stages of a project and to plan and budget accordingly.

Paediatric research and the communication of not-so incidental findings

Paediatric research may well be the first field in which the ethical implications of next-generation sequencing (NGS) will be appreciated. Allowing as it does for the revelation of much more than just the disease gene being researched, the advent of NGS will require careful consideration of the return of research results and incidental findings to parents. In contrast to the choices offered to adults with regard to the return of both research results and incidental findings, the same does not hold true for children. Parents must act in their 'medical' best interests. Current policy guidance on this issue in Canada is unclear.

Disclosure of research results to research participants: A pilot study of the needs and attitudes of adolescents and parents

BACKGROUND

Researchers have a moral responsibility to offer to return research results to participants, but the needs and attitudes of parents and adolescents with cancer in paediatric oncology regarding the issue are relatively unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the needs of potential research participants or their guardians with respect to the offer of a return of research results.

METHODS

A questionnaire was used in a focus group and in telephone interviews with eight adolescents and 12 parents of children with cancer. The participants were asked to respond to the questions and to comment on the inclusiveness of the questionnaire.

RESULTS

The majority of participants (18 of 20) wished to receive research results. Two somewhat unexpected findings are described. First, all participants in the present study felt that it was the primary responsibility of the participant to retain contact with the researchers for the purpose of obtaining research results. Second, few participants (n=2) indicated that the Internet would be a satisfactory way of transmitting these results. One-half of the participants wished to have face-to-face communication of results.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide preliminary guidance for the return of research results to participants and validate the use of the questionnaire in a larger study of this issue.