17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ethical aspects of hemophilia gene therapy: a qualitative interview study with stakeholders

      research-article
      1 , , 2 , 3 , 4 , 1 , SYMPHONY consortium
      Role: Principal investigator
      Role: Project manager
      Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis
      Elsevier
      ethics, freedom, gene therapy, hemophilia, qualitative research

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There are great expectations for the potential role of gene therapy in the treatment of hemophilia. At the same time, developments in the field of hemophilia gene therapy have always raised ethical issues. It remains unknown how these ethical issues are perceived by stakeholders, particularly regarding the most recent developments in the field.

          Objectives

          To obtain insight into stakeholders’ morally reasoned opinions on gene therapy for hemophilia.

          Methods

          We conducted qualitative research with Dutch people with hemophilia ( n = 13), parents of children with hemophilia ( n = 5), physicians ( n = 4), nurses ( n = 3), a regulator ( n = 1), and a representative from a pharmaceutical company ( n = 1). We conducted semistructured interviews based on a topic list and reported the results according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines.

          Results

          We identified 3 main themes. The theme freedom and independence describes the hope people with hemophilia have of increasing their freedom through gene therapy, as well as concerns that gene therapy increases their dependence on their treatment center. The theme trust and altruism describes how people with hemophilia have a high level of trust in their physician and treatment center as well as in scientific research. As a result of this trust, they are willing to participate in research to help other people with hemophilia. The theme incremental benefits describes doubts respondents have about the added value of gene therapy compared to standard treatment.

          Conclusion

          Stakeholders embrace the theoretical potential of gene therapy, while several people with hemophilia question the added value of the current gene transfer products for themselves.

          Essentials

          • It is unknown how stakeholders perceive the ethical aspects hemophilia gene therapy.

          • We conducted an interview study with Dutch stakeholders to identify ethically relevant themes.

          • Freedom and independence, trust and altruism, and incremental benefits are important ethical themes.

          • People with hemophilia hope to enhance their autonomy, but it is unclear if gene therapy will enable this.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Code Saturation Versus Meaning Saturation: How Many Interviews Are Enough?

            Saturation is a core guiding principle to determine sample sizes in qualitative research, yet little methodological research exists on parameters that influence saturation. Our study compared two approaches to assessing saturation: code saturation and meaning saturation. We examined sample sizes needed to reach saturation in each approach, what saturation meant, and how to assess saturation. Examining 25 in-depth interviews, we found that code saturation was reached at nine interviews, whereby the range of thematic issues was identified. However, 16 to 24 interviews were needed to reach meaning saturation where we developed a richly textured understanding of issues. Thus, code saturation may indicate when researchers have "heard it all," but meaning saturation is needed to "understand it all." We used our results to develop parameters that influence saturation, which may be used to estimate sample sizes for qualitative research proposals or to document in publications the grounds on which saturation was achieved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Member Checking

              The trustworthiness of results is the bedrock of high quality qualitative research. Member checking, also known as participant or respondent validation, is a technique for exploring the credibility of results. Data or results are returned to participants to check for accuracy and resonance with their experiences. Member checking is often mentioned as one in a list of validation techniques. This simplistic reporting might not acknowledge the value of using the method, nor its juxtaposition with the interpretative stance of qualitative research. In this commentary, we critique how member checking has been used in published research, before describing and evaluating an innovative in-depth member checking technique, Synthesized Member Checking. The method was used in a study with patients diagnosed with melanoma. Synthesized Member Checking addresses the co-constructed nature of knowledge by providing participants with the opportunity to engage with, and add to, interview and interpreted data, several months after their semi-structured interview.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                @LiekeBaas
                @Mariette_HE
                @ALBredenoord
                @riekevdgraaf
                Journal
                Res Pract Thromb Haemost
                Res Pract Thromb Haemost
                Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis
                Elsevier
                2475-0379
                19 October 2023
                October 2023
                19 October 2023
                : 7
                : 7
                : 102237
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Bioethics and Health Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Hematology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Netherlands Hemophilia Patients Society (NVHP), Nijkerk, The Netherlands
                [4 ]Erasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [] Correspondence Lieke Baas, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre, Utrecht Postbus 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. L.baas-3@ 123456umcutrecht.nl @LiekeBaas
                Article
                S2475-0379(23)00497-1 102237
                10.1016/j.rpth.2023.102237
                10704513
                38077815
                d86929f4-2fb4-4b82-8a42-e2afca9b42d6
                © 2023 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 29 March 2023
                : 25 August 2023
                : 23 September 2023
                Categories
                Original Article

                ethics,freedom,gene therapy,hemophilia,qualitative research
                ethics, freedom, gene therapy, hemophilia, qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article