Background: Implementation of an LHS in cardiology departments presents itself with ethical challenges, including ethical review and informed consent. In this qualitative study, we investigated... Show moreBackground: Implementation of an LHS in cardiology departments presents itself with ethical challenges, including ethical review and informed consent. In this qualitative study, we investigated stakeholders' attitudes toward ethical issues regarding the implementation of an LHS in the cardiology department.Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using 35 semi-structured interviews and 5 focus group interviews with 34 individuals. We interviewed cardiologists, research nurses, cardiovascular patients, ethicists, health lawyers, epidemiologists/statisticians and insurance spokespersons.Results: Respondents identified different ethical obstacles for the implementation of an LHS within the cardiology department. These obstacles were mainly on ethical oversight in LHSs; in particular, informed con sent and data ownership were discussed. In addition, respondents reported on the role of patients in LHS. Respondents described the LHS as a possibility for patients to engage in both research and care. While the LHS can promote patient engagement, patients might also be reduced to their data and are therefore at risk, according to respondents.Conclusions: Views on the ethical dilemmas of a LHSs within cardiology are diverse. Similar to the literary debate on oversight, there are different views on how ethical oversight should be regulated. This study adds to the literary debate on oversight by highlighting that patients wish to be informed about the learning activities within the LHS they participate in, and that they wish to actively contribute by sharing their data and identifying learning goals, provided that informed consent is obtained. Show less
Dijk, W.B. van; Schuit, E.; Graaf, R. van der; Groenwold, R.H.H.; Laurijssen, S.; Casadei, B.; ... ; Grobbee, D.E. 2022
Aims:To assess the feasibility to comply with the recommended actions of ESC guidelines on general cardiology areas in 102 countries and assess how compliance relates to the country's income level.... Show moreAims:To assess the feasibility to comply with the recommended actions of ESC guidelines on general cardiology areas in 102 countries and assess how compliance relates to the country's income level. Methods and results: All recommendations from seven ESC guidelines on general cardiology areas were extracted and labelled on recommended actions. A survey was sent to all 102 ESC national and affiliated cardiac societies (NCSs). Respondents were asked to score recommended actions on their availability in clinical practice on a four-point Likert scale (fully available, mostly/often available, mostly/often unavailable, fully unavailable), and select the top three barriers perceived as being responsible for limiting their national availability. Applicability was assessed overall, per World Bank gross national income (GNI) level, and per guideline. A total of 875 guideline recommendations on general cardiology was extracted. Responses were received from 64 of 102 (62.7%) NCSs. On average, 71 center dot 6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 68.6-74.6] of the actions were fully available, 9.9% (95% CI: 8.7-11.1) mostly/often available, 6.7% (95% CI: 5.4-8.0) mostly/often unavailable, and 11 center dot 8% (95% CI: 9.5-14.1) fully unavailable. In low-income countries (LICs), substantially more actions were fully unavailable [29 center dot 4% (95% CI: 22.6-36.3)] compared with high-income countries [HICs, countries 2.4% (95% CI: 1.2-3.7); P < 0.05]. Nevertheless, a proportion of actions with the lowest availability scores were often fully or mostly unavailable independent of GNIs. Actions were most often not available due to lack of reimbursement and other financial barriers. Conclusion: Local implementation of ESC guidelines on general cardiology is high in HICs and low in LICs , being inversely correlated with country gross national incomes. Show less
Background Treatment choices for individual patients with an inborn bleeding disorder are increasingly challenging due to increasing options and rising costs for society. We have initiated an... Show moreBackground Treatment choices for individual patients with an inborn bleeding disorder are increasingly challenging due to increasing options and rising costs for society. We have initiated an integrated interdisciplinary national research program. Objectives The SYMPHONY consortium strives to orchestrate personalized treatment in patients with an inborn bleeding disorder, by unraveling the mechanisms behind interindividual variations of bleeding phenotype. Patients The SYMPHONY consortium will investigate patients with an inborn bleeding disorder, both diagnosed and not yet diagnosed. Results Research questions are categorized under the themes: (1) diagnosis, (2) treatment, and (3) fundamental research, and consist of work packages addressing specific domains. Importantly, collaborations between patients and talented researchers from different areas of expertise promise to augment the impact of the SYMPHONY consortium, leading to unique interactions and intellectual property. Conclusions SYMPHONY will perform research on all aspects of care, treatment individualization in patients with inborn bleeding disorders, as well as diagnostic innovations and results of molecular genetics and cellular model technology with regard to the hemostatic process. We believe that these research investments will lead to health-care innovations with long-term clinical and societal impact. This consortium has been made possible by a governmental, competitive grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) within the framework of the NWA-ORC Call grant agreement NWA.1160.18.038. Show less
Laurijssen, S.J.M.; Graaf, R. van der; Dijk, W.B. van; Schuit, E.; Groenwold, R.H.H.; Grobbee, D.E.; Vries, M.C. de 2022
Background Informed consent is one of the cornerstones of biomedical research with human subjects. Research ethics committees may allow for a modification or a waiver of consent when the research... Show moreBackground Informed consent is one of the cornerstones of biomedical research with human subjects. Research ethics committees may allow for a modification or a waiver of consent when the research has social value, involves minimal risk, and if consent is impractical to obtain. While the conditions of social value and minimal risk have received ample attention in research ethics literature, the impractical condition remains unclear. There seem to be different interpretations of the meaning of impractical within academic literature. To address this lack of clarity, we performed a systematic review on the interpretation of impractical. Methods First, we examined international research ethics guidelines on their usage and interpretation of impractical. Next, we used international ethical guidelines to identify synonyms of the term "impractical." Accordingly, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles that included "informed consent" and "impractical" or one of its synonyms. Results We found that there were only a few international ethics guidelines that described what could be considered impractical. Out of 2329 identified academic articles, 42 were included. Impractical was used to describe four different conditions: (1) obtaining informed consent becomes too demanding for researchers, (2) obtaining informed consent leads to invalid study outcomes, (3) obtaining informed consent harms the participant, and (4) obtaining informed consent is meaningless for the participant. Conclusion There are conditions that render conventional informed consent truly impractical, such as untraceable participants or harm for participants. At the same time, researchers have a moral responsibility to design an infrastructure in which consent can be obtained, even if they face hardship in obtaining consent. In addition, researchers should seek to minimize harm inflicted upon participants when harm may occur as a result of the consent procedure. Invalidity of research due to consent issues should not be regarded as impractical but as a condition that limits the social value of research. Further research is essential for when a waiver of informed consent based on impractical is also reasonable. Show less
Dijk, W.B. van; Fiolet, A.T.L.; Schuit, E.; Sammani, A.; Groenhof, T.K.J.; Graaf, R. van der; ... ; Mosterd, A. 2021
Objective: This study aimed to validate trial patient eligibility screening and baseline data collection using text-mining in electronic healthcare records (EHRs), comparing the results to those of... Show moreObjective: This study aimed to validate trial patient eligibility screening and baseline data collection using text-mining in electronic healthcare records (EHRs), comparing the results to those of an international trial.Study Design and Setting: In three medical centers with different EHR vendors, EHR-based text-mining was used to automatically screen patients for trial eligibility and extract baseline data on nineteen characteristics. First, the yield of screening with automated EHR text-mining search was compared with manual screening by research personnel. Second, the accuracy of extracted baseline data by EHR text mining was compared to manual data entry by research personnel.Results: Of the 92,466 patients visiting the out-patient cardiology departments, 568 (0.6%) were enrolled in the trial during its recruitment period using manual screening methods. Automated EHR data screening of all patients showed that the number of patients needed to screen could be reduced by 73,863 (79.9%). The remaining 18,603 (20.1%) contained 458 of the actual participants (82.4% of participants). In trial participants, automated EHR text-mining missed a median of 2.8% (Interquartile range [IQR] across all variables 0.4-8.5%) of all data points compared to manually collected data. The overall accuracy of automatically extracted data was 88.0% (IQR 84.7-92.8%).Conclusion: Automatically extracting data from EHRs using text-mining can be used to identify trial participants and to collect baseline information. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
Dijk, W.B. van; Grobbee, D.E.; Vries, M.C. de; Groenwold, R.H.H.; Graaf, R. van der; Schuit, E. 2019
Aims:Reviews of clinical practice guidelines have repeatedly concluded that only a minority of guideline recommendations are supported by high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials.... Show moreAims:Reviews of clinical practice guidelines have repeatedly concluded that only a minority of guideline recommendations are supported by high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether these findings apply to the whole cardiovascular evidence base or specific recommendation types and actions. Methods All recommendations from current European Society of Cardiology guidelines were extracted with their class (I, treatment is beneficial; II, treatment is possibly beneficial; III, treatment is harmful) and level of evidence (A, multiple randomised controlled trials/meta-analyses; B, single randomised controlled trials/large observational studies; C, expert opinion/small studies). Recommendations were categorised by type (therapeutic, diagnostic, other) and actions (e.g. pharmaceutical intervention/non-invasive imaging/test). Results:In total, 3531 recommendations (median 128, interquartile range 108-150) were extracted from 27 guidelines. Therapeutic recommendations comprised 2545 (72.1%) recommendations, 411 (16.1%) were supported by level of evidence A, 833 (32.7%) by B and 1301 (51.1%) by C. Class I/III (should/should not) recommendations on minimally invasive interventions were most supported by level of evidence A (55/183, 30.1%) (B [70/183, 38.3%], C [58/183, 31.7%]), while class I/III recommendations on open surgical interventions were least supported by level of evidence A (15/164, 9.1%) (B [34/164, 20.7%], C [115/164, 70.1%]). Of all (831, 23.5%) diagnostic recommendations, just 44/503 (8.7%) class I/III recommendations were supported by level of evidence A (B (125/503, 24.9%), C (334/503, 66.4%)). Conclusion:Evidence levels supporting European Society of Cardiology guideline recommendations differ widely between recommendation types and actions. Attributing to this variability are different evidence requirements, therapeutic/diagnostic recommendations, different feasibility levels for trials (e.g. open surgical/pharmacological) and many off-topic/policy recommendations based on expert opinion. Show less
Dekking, S.A.S.; Graaf, R. van der; vries, M.C. de; Bierings, M.B.; Delden, J.J.M. van; Kodish, E.; Lantos, J.D. 2015
