Examining consent for interventional research in potential deceased organ donors: a narrative review

In the last decade, research in transplant medicine has focused on developing interventions in the management of the deceased organ donor to improve the quality and quantity of transplantable organs. Despite the promise of interventional donor research, there remain debates about the ethics of this research, specifically regarding gaining research consent. Here, we examine the concerns and ambiguities around consent for interventional donor research, which incorporate questions about who should consent for interventional donor research and what people are being asked to consent for. We highlight the US and UK policy responses to these concerns and argue that, whereas guidance in this area has done much to clarify these ambiguities, there is little consideration of the nature, practicalities and context around consent in this area, particularly regarding organ donors and their families. We review wider studies of consent in critical care research and social science studies of consent in medical research, to gain a broader view of consent in this area as a relational and contextual process. We contend a lack of consideration has been given to: what it might mean to consent to interventional donor research; how families, patients and health professionals might experience providing and seeking this consent; who is best placed to have these discussions; and the socio‐institutional contexts affecting these processes. Further, empirical research is required to establish an ethical and sensitive model for consent in interventional donor research, ensuring the principles enshrined in research ethics are met and public trust in organ donation is maintained

Clarifying causal mediation analysis for the applied researcher: Defining effects based on what we want to learn

The incorporation of causal inference in mediation analysis has led to theoretical and methodological advancements -- effect definitions with causal interpretation, clarification of assumptions required for effect identification, and an expanding array of options for effect estimation. However, the literature on these results is fast-growing and complex, which may be confusing to researchers unfamiliar with causal inference or unfamiliar with mediation. The goal of this paper is to help ease the understanding and adoption of causal mediation analysis. It starts by highlighting a key difference between the causal inference and traditional approaches to mediation analysis and making a case for the need for explicit causal thinking and the causal inference approach in mediation analysis. It then explains in as-plain-as-possible language existing effect types, paying special attention to motivating these effects with different types of research questions, and using concrete examples for illustration. This presentation differentiates two perspectives (or purposes of analysis): the explanatory perspective (aiming to explain the total effect) and the interventional perspective (asking questions about hypothetical interventions on the exposure and mediator, or hypothetically modified exposures). For the latter perspective, the paper proposes tapping into a general class of interventional effects that contains as special cases most of the usual effect types -- interventional direct and indirect effects, controlled direct effects and also a generalized interventional direct effect type, as well as the total effect and overall effect. This general class allows flexible effect definitions which better match many research questions than the standard interventional direct and indirect effects

Jointly interventional and observational data: estimation of interventional Markov equivalence classes of directed acyclic graphs

In many applications we have both observational and (randomized) interventional data. We propose a Gaussian likelihood framework for joint modeling of such different data-types, based on global parameters consisting of a directed acyclic graph (DAG) and correponding edge weights and error variances. Thanks to the global nature of the parameters, maximum likelihood estimation is reasonable with only one or few data points per intervention. We prove consistency of the BIC criterion for estimating the interventional Markov equivalence class of DAGs which is smaller than the observational analogue due to increased partial identifiability from interventional data. Such an improvement in identifiability has immediate implications for tighter bounds for inferring causal effects. Besides methodology and theoretical derivations, we present empirical results from real and simulated data

Executive summary of the joint position paper on renal denervation of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH)

No abstract available

Cross-sectional study of the provision of interventional oncology services in the UK

Objective: To map out the current provision of interventional oncology (IO) services in the UK. Design: Cross-sectional multicentre study. Setting: All National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland health boards. Participants: Interventional radiology (IR) departments in all NHS trusts/health boards in the UK. Results: A total of 179 NHS trusts/health boards were contacted. We received a 100% response rate. Only 19 (11%) institutions had an IO lead. 144 trusts (80%) provided IO services or had a formal pathway of referral in place for patients to a recipient trust. 21 trusts (12%) had plans to provide an IO service or formal referral pathway in the next 12 months only. 14 trusts (8%) did not have a pathway of referral and no plans to implement one. 70 trusts (39%) offered supportive and disease-modifying procedures. One trust had a formal referral pathway for supportive procedures. 73 trusts (41%) provided only supportive procedures (diagnostic or therapeutic). Of these, 43 (59%) had a referral pathway for disease-modifying IO procedures, either from a regional cancer network or through IR networks and 30 trusts (41%) did not have a referral pathway for disease-modifying procedures. Conclusion: The provision of IO services in the UK is promising; however, collaborative networks are necessary to ensure disease-modifying IO procedures are made accessible to all patients and to facilitate larger registry data for research with commissioning of new services