Patient Reflections on the Consent Process for Donating Extra Bone Marrow Research Samples to a Hematology Biobank: A Qualitative Interview Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Bone marrow samples taken at the time of diagnosis are essential for early diagnosis and treatment of acute leukemia (AL) and additionally can be used to understand the underlying biology. This requires bone marrow samples to be taken for clinical purposes as well as for research. Due to the rapid onset and progression of AL, there is a narrow time frame from initial disease suspicion to diagnosis confirmation and treatment initiation. This can present challenges with consenting patients for additional, research-specific bone marrow samples to be obtained during the diagnostic procedure. While patients with cancer are generally positive towards contributing to medical research, recruitment rates for bone marrow samples are low, hindering translational research aimed at improving patients' outcomes in AL. Little is known about patient perspectives with respect to the informed consent process under these time-sensitive circumstances, or how these processes can improve research sample provision while also maintaining respect for patient autonomy and supporting their decision-making during a stressful time. The current study is aimed to better understand the experiences of patients with AL in relation to consenting to provide extra bone marrow samples for research during the diagnostic procedure. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients treated for AL between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2021 at The Ottawa Hospital. Patients were eligible if they were admitted to hospital urgently to confirm AL diagnosis, received intensive induction chemotherapy and spoke English or French. Interviews proceeded until data saturation was reached. Results: Seventeen patients were interviewed. Patient experiences centred on three key areas within the consent process: Preparation and awareness of research, logistical challenges related to obtaining consent within the limited time frame and having emotional and psychological support. Patients were supportive of increasing public knowledge about research and noted the important roles that friends and family members played in providing support and retaining information. Despite the time pressure and anxiety that came with a diagnosis of AL, the decision to give a research sample did not in itself require much deliberation. Decisions were informed by proximal factors such as impact on patient health and family, the anticipated pain associated with the bone marrow procedure and its duration, as well as distal factors such as altruism and trust in the healthcare team. Patients valued as much time as possible between the consent process and the bone marrow extraction. Further, they valued information about the level of anticipated procedure-associated pain, the purpose of ongoing research and its use of samples, and details regarding the privacy and security of the research samples. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the success of consenting for additional bone marrow samples for research may be optimised through multiple changes, such as those pertaining to the environment where the consent discussion takes place as well as a period of time for reflection on the discussion prior to the procedure, in addition to the type of information provided, the recognition of patient concerns surrounding discomfort and how it will be mitigated and, finally, the value of current and future research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,050 | 0,074 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,013 | 0,015 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».