Abstract
Purpose of Review
There are growing expectations for the return of individual-level research results (RoR), which promotes autonomy and potential clinical and personal benefits. There are ethical and practical challenges, however, that may be exacerbated in research that assesses neurocognitive and psychological outcomes, including HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND). This paper reviews central concepts for RoR and recent empirical and conceptual articles from Alzheimer’s disorder (AD) as a model for HIV.
Recent Findings
Data from AD studies indicate high participant interest and low risk of harm from RoR, though additional research is needed. Investigators report a range of benefits, potential risks, and feasibility concerns. Standardized, evidence-based approaches are needed for RoR.
Summary
For HIV research, we recommend a default position of offering RoR for cognitive and psychological outcomes. Investigators should justify decisions not to return results after assessing the potential value and feasibility of RoR. Longitudinal research is needed for feasible and evidence-based best practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance, •• Of major importance
Heaton RK, Clifford D, Franklin D Jr, Woods S, Ake C, Vaida F, et al. HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders persist in the era of potent antiretroviral therapy: CHARTER Study. Neurology. 2010;75:2087–96. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e318200d727.
Rojas Celis V, Valiente-Echeverría F, Soto Rifo R, Toro-Ascuy D. New challenges of HIV-1 infection: how HIV-1 attacks and resides in the central nervous system. Cells. 2019;8:1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells8101245.
Nebeker C, Leow A, Moore R. From return of information to return of value: ethical considerations when sharing individual-level research data. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;71:1081–8. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190589.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Returning individual research results to participants: guidance for a new research paradigm. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2018. https://doi.org/10.17226/25094. This consensus study report by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine outlines detailed recommendations on when and how it is appropriate to return individual-level research results generated from biospecimens, based on a review of evidence, ethical and social implications, and operational and regulatory aspects of practice.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Revised Common Rule. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/finalized-revisions-common-rule/index.html. Accessed 12 Apr 2023.
Kirsch AC, Zaccariello MJ, McCormick JB, Sharp RR, Flick RP, Warner DO. Bridging the gap: ethical considerations of providing psychological assessment results in research studies. Ethics Behav. 2021;31:381–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1799793. This work examines ethical challenges associated with return of individual-level results in research that employs psychological assessments and described a process for return of neuropsychological results in a study of anesthesia exposure.
Erickson C, Chin N, Johnson S, Gleason C, Clark L. Disclosure of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease biomarker results in research and clinical settings: why, how, and what we still need to know. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2021;13:e12150. https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12150 This review article outlines key questions related to disclosure of amyloid PET scan results to asymptomatic individuals in a research setting, responds to those questions using data from 45 studies in Alzheimer’s disease, and provides recommendations for biomarker disclosure protocols.
Roberts J, Ferber R, Blacker D, Rumbaugh M, Grill J. Disclosure of individual research results at federally funded Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers. Alzheimer Dement (NY). 2021;7:e12213. https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.12213.
Erickson CM, Chin NA, Ketchum FB, Jonaitis EM, Zuelsdorff ML, Gleason CE, et al. Predictors of willingness to enroll in hypothetical Alzheimer disease biomarker studies that disclose personal results. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2022;36:125–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/WAD.0000000000000490.
Fadda M, Fiordelli M, Amati R, Falvo I, Ibnidris A, Hurst S, et al. Returning individual-specific results of a dementia prevalence study: insights from prospective participants living in Switzerland. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020;36:207–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.5416.
Vanderschaeghe G, Schaeverbeke J, Bruffaerts R, Vandenberghe R, Dierick K. Amnestic MCI patients’ experiences after disclosure of the amyloid PET result in a research context. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2017;9:92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-017-0321-3.
Lingler J, Sereika S, Butters M, Cohen A, Klunk W, Knox M, et al. A randomized controlled trial of amyloid positron emission tomography results disclosure in mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement. 2020;16:1330–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12129. This study reports on the first randomized controlled trial of return of PET results on understanding, coping efficacy, and test-related distress among dyads of patients with mild cognitive impairment and caregivers.
Vanderschaeghe G, Schaeverbeke J, Bruffaerts R, Vandenberghe R, Dierick K. From information to follow-up: ethical recommendations to facilitate the disclosure of amyloid PET scan results in a research setting. Alzheimers Dement (NY). 2018;4:243–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trci.2018.04.002. This work uses prior empirical literature on return of results from amyloid PET scans to develop recommendations to facilitate return of amyloid PET research results while minimizing risks.
Erdmann P, Langanke M. The ambivalence of early diagnosis – returning results in current Alzheimer research. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2018;15:28–37. https://doi.org/10.2174/1567205014666170908101237.
UNAIDS. Policy brief the greater involvement of people living with HIV (GIPA). 2007. https://data.unaids.org/pub/briefingnote/2007/jc1299_policy_brief_gipa.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2023..
Relf MV, Holzemer WL, Holt L, Nyblade L, Caiola CE. A review of the state of the science of HIV and stigma: context, conceptualization, measurement, interventions, gaps, and future priorities. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2021;32:392–407. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNC.0000000000000237.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the assistance of Aminah Isiaq at RTI International in the literature search.
Funding
The authors received funding from grants 1R01AI127024 and 1R34MH123328.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Peay, H.L., Rennie, S. & Henderson, G.E. Reporting Individual-Level Research Results from Neurocognitive and Psychological Research in People Living with HIV: Lessons from Dementia Research. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 20, 131–138 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-023-00650-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-023-00650-4