NIH citizen science working group

39
1. science is exiting the control of the guild of experts.

Transcript of NIH citizen science working group

Page 1: NIH citizen science working group

1. science is exiting the control

of the guild of experts.

Page 2: NIH citizen science working group

“Investigators will meet annually in-person with each participant to assess and record progression … every six months, the team

will conduct phone and mail surveys regarding diagnosis, medications, and

other impacts of the disease…”

Page 3: NIH citizen science working group

investigator-centered infrequent data

small sample size

(this is what passes for the gold standard)

Page 4: NIH citizen science working group

if your clinical study can fit in this church, it’s probably not representative…for any meaning of

“representative”

Page 5: NIH citizen science working group

689,003 people

Page 6: NIH citizen science working group

active patients feel the system is failing them,

and are looking elsewhere.

Page 7: NIH citizen science working group
Page 8: NIH citizen science working group
Page 9: NIH citizen science working group
Page 10: NIH citizen science working group

http://files.snpedia.com/reports/promethease_data/genome_jtw_ui2.html

Page 11: NIH citizen science working group
Page 12: NIH citizen science working group
Page 13: NIH citizen science working group

2.

informed consent for studies at internet scale.

Page 14: NIH citizen science working group
Page 15: NIH citizen science working group
Page 16: NIH citizen science working group

from 1800 to 100,000

Page 17: NIH citizen science working group
Page 18: NIH citizen science working group

1. series of interviews and requirements gathering

2. interaction design process and prototyping

3. consent development

Page 19: NIH citizen science working group

courtesy of: David Fore

Page 20: NIH citizen science working group

gait balance voice tapping

Page 21: NIH citizen science working group

1. tiered information access by participants

2. “pictorial” dominant on first information tier

3. text dominant on second information tier

4. require perfect score on short assessment

Page 22: NIH citizen science working group
Page 23: NIH citizen science working group
Page 24: NIH citizen science working group
Page 25: NIH citizen science working group
Page 26: NIH citizen science working group

64,926 enrolled since 9 March

(across 5 study apps using the method)

Page 27: NIH citizen science working group

changeable by participant

70% choose to share broadly.

Page 28: NIH citizen science working group

28

technical architecture for clinical apps

Page 29: NIH citizen science working group

evaluation criteria*:

are you capable of running a serious study? do you understand the ethics?

can you build a solid app? can you analyze? will you share?

will you give back to participants?

* this is all in addition to IRB review

Page 30: NIH citizen science working group

3.

it’s a method, not a product.

Page 31: NIH citizen science working group

iconographic representations of key concepts in informed consent

“nouns and verbs”

http://sagebase.org/pcc

Page 32: NIH citizen science working group

“sentences”

“separating your identity from your data”

Page 33: NIH citizen science working group

design layouts

Page 34: NIH citizen science working group

workflows

Page 35: NIH citizen science working group

web templates and assets

Page 36: NIH citizen science working group

2015 tasks:

- multi-stakeholder data sharing process development - new modules for e-consent - connection with biobanks

Page 37: NIH citizen science working group
Page 38: NIH citizen science working group

consent isn’t standalone. it connects to ethics and governance structures inside the technical architectures - and back.

Page 39: NIH citizen science working group

thank you

http://sagebase.org/

@sagebio

@wilbanks