Introduction Encouraging family communication about possible genetic risk has become among the most important avenues for achieving the full potential of genomic discovery for primary and secondary prevention. Yet, effective family-wide risk communication (i.e., conveying genetic risk status and its meaning for other family members) remains a critical gap in the field. We aim to describe the iterative process of developing a scalable population-based communication outreach intervention, Your Family Connects, to reach ovarian cancer survivors and close relatives to communicate the potential for inherited risk and to consider genetic counseling. Methods Relational-level theories (e.g., interdependence theory) suggest that interventions to promote family cancer risk communication will be most effective if they consider the qualities of specific relationships and activate motives to preserve the relationship. Informed by these theories, we collaborated with 14 citizen scientists (survivors of ovarian cancer or relatives) and collected 261 surveys and 39 structured interviews over 12 weeks of citizen science activities in 2020. Results The citizen science findings and consideration of relational-level theories informed the content and implementation of Your Family Connects (www.yourfamilyconnects.org). CS results showed survivors favor personal contact with close relatives, but relatives were open to alternative contact methods, such as through health professionals. Recognizing the need for varied approaches based on relationship dynamics, we implemented a relative contact menu to enable survivors identify at-risk relatives and provide multiple contact options (i.e., survivor contact, health professional contact, and delayed contact). In line with relational autonomy principles, we included pros and cons for each option, assisting survivors in choosing suitable contact methods for each relative. Discussion Our developed intervention represents a novel application of relational-level theories and partnership with citizen scientists to expand genetic services reach to increase the likelihood for fair distribution of cancer genomic advances. The Your Family Connects intervention as part of a randomized trial in collaboration with the Georgia Cancer Registry compared with standard outreach.

Background: Chemotherapy is the backbone of many cancer therapies; however, the terminology used to describe chemotherapy may be difficult for patients to understand, particularly in underserved populations. Studies have shown that educational videos can improve patient understanding of cancer-related terms. The goal of this study was to identify chemotherapy terms that were difficult for an underserved population to understand and then develop and test educational videos describing these terms. Methods: A word bank of 50 difficult-to-understand chemotherapy terms was developed by querying 15 providers and 50 patients at an underserved hospital. Twenty of these terms were then tested with 50 additional patients to determine rates of misunderstanding. Six pilot educational videos describing 6 important terms were created using VideoScribe and then assessed with 50 patients to see if they improved understanding. Results: Fifteen of the 20 terms tested to establish rates of misunderstanding were misunderstood by more than one third of patients, with 98% unable to define maintenance, 74% unable to define cancer, and 58% unable to define chemotherapy. Patient understanding of all 6 terms improved by at least 20% after watching the videos. Notable improvement was reported for palliative chemotherapy, where before-and-after video understanding increased from 0% to 72%. Conclusion: Chemotherapy, a backbone of cancer treatment, is described with terms that are difficult to understand. Short, animated educational videos can significantly increase patient understanding of chemotherapy terminology.

Participation in biobanking among individuals with familial risk for hereditary cancer (IFRs) and underserved/minority populations is vital for biobanking research. To address gaps in researcher knowledge regarding ethical concerns of these populations, we developed a web-based curriculum. Based on formative research and expert panel assessments, a curriculum and website was developed in an integrative, systematic manner. Researchers were recruited to evaluate the curriculum. Public health graduate students were recruited to pilot test the curriculum. All 14 researchers agreed the curriculum was easy to understand, adequately addressed the domains, and contained appropriate post-test questions. The majority evaluated the dialgoue animations as interesting and valuable. Twenty-two graduate students completed the curriculum, and 77 % improved their overall test score. A web-based curriculum is an acceptable and effective way to provide information to researchers about vulnerable populations’ biobanking concerns. Future goals are to incorporate the curriculum with larger organizations.

Background: Emergent informed consent for clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke is challenging. The role and value of consent are controversial, and insufficient data exist regarding patients’ and surrogates’ experiences. Methods and Results: We conducted structured interviews with patients (or surrogates) enrolled in AMI or acute stroke trials at 6 sites between 2011 and 2016. Primary domains included trial recall, consent experiences, and preferences regarding involvement. Descriptive and test statistics were used to characterize responses and explore relationships between key domains and characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between key covariates and consent preferences. There were 176 (84 stroke, 92 AMI) completed interviews. Most stroke respondents (82%) were surrogates; all AMI respondents were patients. Average time from trial enrollment to interview was 1.9years (stroke) and 2.8years (AMI); 89% of stroke and 62% of AMI respondents remembered being in the trial, and among these respondents, 80% (stroke) and 44% (AMI) remembered reading some of the consent form. Over 90% reported not feeling pressure to enroll, being treated in a caring way, and being treated with dignity. A minority (16% stroke and 26% AMI) reported they would have preferred not to be asked for consent. Just over half (61% stroke and 53% AMI) recalled a postenrollment conversation about the study. Conclusions: Most respondents felt they were treated respectfully and were glad they had been asked for consent. Trial recall was relatively low, and many respondents recalled little postenrollment discussion. Further development of context-sensitive approaches to consent is important.

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine whether biospecimen donors believe they should receive compensation. This is the first study to report biospecimen donors' views on compensation and can potentially improve informed consent and recruitment practices. Methods: Researchers asked patients undergoing surgical removal of tissue to donate biological materials to a biobank; the request was made at their presurgical appointment or in the preoperative clinic of the Emory University Hospital. We interviewed 126 biospecimen donors within 30 days post surgery regarding their perspective on compensation for biospecimen donation. Results: In response to the question “Should you be paid for your participation in the tissue bank?,” 95 (95/126, 75%) participants answered “No.” Of these, 55 (55/95, 58%) indicated that donating biological materials should be about altruism, not gaining a monetary reward. Only 11 (11/126, 9%) participants unequivocally believed they should receive compensation, while 14 (14/126, 11%) felt entitled to compensation only under specific circumstances. Eleven (11/14) “Depends” participants indicated that donors should only be compensated when researchers perform for-profit research. Responses varied by race and income level, with whites more likely to not feel entitled to compensation and higher income participants more likely to respond “Depends.” Conclusions: The majority of biospecimen donors stated they should not be paid for tissue bank participation. However, a minority believe they should be paid for donating tissue if the tissue is used in revenue-generating projects. These results provide some support for the current biobanking practice of not providing compensation.

Molecular testing is increasingly being integrated into cancer management. Despite rapid advancements, little work has been done to explore strategies for communicating with patients undergoing molecular tumor testing. This study evaluated the impact of genetic counseling educational tools on improving patients’ understanding of key terms related to molecular testing. A genetic counseling intern designed a picture book to explain six words found in prior research to be difficult to understand (mutation, germline mutation, somatic mutation, biomarker, molecular testing, and targeted therapy). Participants who had previously discussed molecular testing with their oncologist were asked to define the terms. The same participants then received an explanation of each term either from the intern using the picture book in person or from a video presentation of the picture book. They were then asked to redefine each term afterward. The difference between the number of terms defined correctly pre- and post-intervention was compared between presentations. Sixty-three patients with melanoma, colon, lung, or breast cancer were recruited. After both interventions, correct understanding rates improved for all six terms, with significant improvement for germline mutation (p < 0.001), somatic mutation (p < 0.001), biomarker (p < 0.001), and molecular testing (p < 0.001). Understanding of targeted therapy improved significantly (p = 0.011) for the video presentation only. Mean change in knowledge scores did not differ between the two interventions (intern presentation 3.2 vs. video 2.9, p = 0.428). Our data suggest that genetic counseling educational tools can increase patient understanding of terms used to describe molecular testing.

Background: Informed consent for acute myocardial infarction and stroke research is challenging. Time for enrollment decisions is limited, patients and family are usually stressed, and being asked to participate in research is often unexpected. Despite these barriers, patients and surrogates have reported a preference for prospective involvement in research decisions and generally positive views of the consent process. It is unknown what drives positive or negative consent experiences. These data are crucial to making consent processes more context appropriate. Methods and Results: We conducted a qualitative interview study with 27 patients and surrogates enrolled in acute myocardial infarction and stroke trials in the past 5 years. Purposive sampling from the P-CARE (Patient-Centered Approaches to Research Enrollment) study was based on participant characteristics and responses to initial patient-centered interviews. In-depth interviews used open-ended questions to explore factors influencing consent experiences. Qualitative descriptive analysis was performed utilizing a multilevel coding strategy. Participants identified specific researcher behaviors as important, including expressions of respect, professionalism, and nonpressuring communication. Participants preferred consent conversations focused on risks/benefits and the trial protocol. They had varying views of consent forms and communicated several reasons the form was valuable unrelated to informational content. Participants also valued postenrollment interactions as opportunities to ask questions and learn about the study. Conclusions: Barriers to consent in acute myocardial infarction and stroke trials are unavoidable, but participants identified productive ways to demonstrate respect for patients during enrollment conversations. These include key researcher behaviors, concentrating consent discussions on what participants find most important, and structured postenrollment follow-up.

Background/Aims: All agree that informed consent is a process, but past research has focused content analyses post-consent or in one conversation in the consent series. Our aim was to identify and describe the content of different types of consent conversations. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of 38 adult oncology phase 1 consent conversations, which were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and qualitatively analyzed for type and content. Results: Four types of consent conversations were identified: 1) priming; 2) patient-centered options; 3) trial-centered; and 4) decision made. The analysis provided a robust description of the content discussed in each type of conversation. Two themes, supportive care and prognosis, were rarely mentioned. Four themes clustered in the patient-centered (type 2) conversations: affirmation of honesty, comfort, progression and offer of supportive care. Conclusion: We identified and described four types of consent conversations. Our novel findings include 1) four different types of conversations with one – priming – not mentioned before; 2) a change of focus from describing the content of one consent conversation to describing the content of different types. These in-depth descriptions provide the foundation for future research to determine if the four types of conversations occur in sequence, thus describing the structure of the consent process and providing the basis for coaching interventions to alert physicians to the appropriate content for each type of conversation. A switch from a focus on one conversation to the types of conversations in the process may better align the consent conversations with the iterative process of shared-decision making.

Commentators are concerned that broad consent may not provide biospecimen donors with sufficient information regarding possible future research uses of their tissue. We surveyed with interviews 302 cancer patients who had recently provided broad consent at four diverse academic medical centers. The majority of donors believed that the consent form provided them with sufficient information regarding future possible uses of their biospecimens. Donors expressed very positive views regarding tissue donation in general and endorsed the use of their biospecimens in future research across a wide range of contexts. Concerns regarding future uses were limited to for-profit research and research by investigators in other countries. These results support the use of broad consent to store and use biological samples in future research.

Rapid autopsy or rapid tissue donation (RTD) is a novel method of tissue procurement in which 'fresh' tissue is collected within 2-6h following the death of a patient. While the use of RTD offers many opportunities to develop new therapies for lung cancer patients, it raises ethical concerns. The purpose of this study was to examine knowledge, perceptions and ethical concerns about recruiting patients for an RTD program. To achieve research goals, we conducted six focus groups, each containing 5-10 participants (N=38). Participants were cancer patients (n=17) their caregivers (n=6), physicians (n=6) and clinic staff (n=9) from the Thoracic Oncology Program at Moffitt Cancer Center, in Tampa, Florida, USA. All focus groups were audio-recorded and conducted using a semi-structured focus group guide. The transcripts were analyzed using hand-coding methods. Data were coded independently by at least two researchers, and an inter-rater reliability rate of ≥90% was achieved. Knowledge about RTD was low among all groups, with physicians having slightly higher knowledge; all groups agreed that RTD offered major benefits to cancer research; physicians and clinic staff were mainly concerned about making a patient feel uncomfortable and reducing hope, while, patients and family members were more concerned about logistics and how the family would be affected during tissue retrieval. All groups agreed the physician was the appropriate person to begin a discussion about RTD and that recruitment should be individualized. All groups reported that physician training is necessary, as well as an awareness campaign for patients and families to be more receptive about RTD. The results of this study suggested more education is needed for all stakeholders to learn about RTD prior to the initiation of a research program. Our approach of querying all stakeholders provides a firm foundation for future training modules regarding RTD programs in lung cancer.