Dataset Information

Research subject advocacy: program implementation and evaluation at clinical and translational science award centers.

ABSTRACT: In 2000, the National Center for Research Resources mandated that general research centers create a research subject advocate (RSA) position. In 2008, the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium endorsed a new advocacy model based on four RSA Best Practice Functions. The authors surveyed CTSA centers to learn about their implementation of programs to fulfill the RSA functions.In 2010, the RSA taskforce developed a two-part online survey to examine leadership, organizational structure, governance, scope, collaboration and integration, and funding and evaluation of RSA activities implemented at CTSA centers.Respondents from 45 RSA programs at 43 CTSA centers completed the survey. Senior university or CTSA officials led all programs. Ninety-six percent (43/45) of programs were funded by a CTSA core. Eighty percent (36/45) designated an individual "RSA." Ninety-eight percent (44/45) provided diverse services either in collaboration with or complementary to other departments, including development of data and safety monitoring plans (16/45; 36%), informed consent observation (10/45; 22%), training responsive to audit findings (12/45; 27%), and direct advocacy services to participants (11/45; 24%). Eighty-six percent (24/28) reported qualitative evaluation methods for these activities.RSA programs conduct both collaborative and unique research protection activities. This survey, an initial step in developing a more robust mechanism for evaluating RSA programs, collected valuable feedback. The authors recommend defining and developing outcome-based evaluation measures that take the heterogeneity of the individual RSA programs into account while advancing their value and effectiveness in protecting human research subject participants.

SUBMITTER: Kost RG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3529179 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Research subject advocacy: program implementation and evaluation at clinical and translational science award centers.

Kost Rhonda G RG Reider Carson C Stephens Julie J Schuff Kathryn G KG

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 20120901 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>In 2000, the National Center for Research Resources mandated that general research centers create a research subject advocate (RSA) position. In 2008, the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium endorsed a new advocacy model based on four RSA Best Practice Functions. The authors surveyed CTSA centers to learn about their implementation of programs to fulfill the RSA functions.<h4>Method</h4>In 2010, the RSA taskforce developed a two-part online survey to examin ...[more]

PMID: 22836849

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is a great deal of interest in personalized, individualized, or precision interventions for disease and health-risk mitigation. This is as true of nutrition-based intervention and prevention strategies as it is for pharmacotherapies and pharmaceutical-oriented prevention strategies. Essentially, technological breakthroughs have enabled researchers to probe an individual's unique genetic, biochemical, physiological, behavioral, and exposure profile, allowing them to identify very specific and often nuanced factors that an individual might possess, which may make it more or less likely that he or she responds favorably to a particular intervention (e.g., nutrient supplementation) or disease prevention strategy (e.g., specific diet). However, as compelling and intuitive as personalized nutrition might be in the current era in which data-intensive biomedical characterization of individuals is possible, appropriately and objectively vetting personalized nutrition strategies is not trivial and requires novel study designs and data analytical methods. These designs and methods must consider a very integrated use of the multiple contemporary biomedical assays and technologies that motivate them, which adds to their complexity. Single-subject or N-of-1 trials can be used to assess the utility of personalized interventions and, in addition, can be crafted in such a way as to accommodate the necessarily integrated use of many emerging biomedical technologies and assays. In this review, we consider the motivation, design, and implementation of N-of-1 trials in translational nutrition research that are meant to assess the utility of personalized nutritional strategies. We provide a number of example studies, discuss appropriate analytical methods given the complex data they generate and require, and consider how such studies could leverage integration of various biomarker assays and clinical end points. Importantly, we also consider the development of strategies and algorithms for matching nutritional needs to individual biomedical profiles and the issues surrounding them. Finally, we discuss the limitations of personalized nutrition studies, possible extensions of N-of-1 nutritional intervention studies, and areas of future research.

Project description:PurposeTo respond to increased public and programmatic demand to address underenrollment of clinical translational research studies, the authors examined participant recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites and make recommendations for performance metrics and accountability.MethodThe CTSA Recruitment and Retention taskforce in 2010 invited representatives at 46 CTSAs to complete an online 48-question survey querying accrual and recruitment outcomes, practices, evaluation methods, policies, and perceived gaps in related knowledge/practice. Descriptive statistical and thematic analyses were conducted.ResultsForty-six respondents representing 44 CTSAs completed the survey. Recruitment conducted by study teams was the most common practice reported (78%-91%, by study type); 39% reported their institution offered recruitment services to investigators. Respondents valued study feasibility assessment as a successful practice (39%); desired additional resources included feasibility assessments (49%) and participant registries (44%). None reported their institution systematically required justification of feasibility; some indicated relevant information was considered prior to institutional review board (IRB) review (30%) or contract approval (22%). All respondents' IRBs tracked study progress, but only 10% of respondents could report outcome data for timely accrual. Few reported written policies addressing poor accrual or provided data to support recruitment practice effectiveness.ConclusionsMany CTSAs lack the necessary frame work to support study accrual. Recom men dations to enhance accrual include articulating institutional expectations and policy for routine recruitment plan ning; providing recruitment expertise to inform feasibility assessment and recruit ment planning; and developing interdepartmental coordination and integrated informatics infrastructure to drive the conduct, evaluation, and improvement of recruitment practices.

Project description:Background: An 8-week educational intervention co-taught by medical students and faculty was designed to foster communication between clinical researchers and populations of interest to ultimately increase participation in clinical research by older adults, including underrepresented groups. Weekly topics focused on age-related changes and health conditions, socio-contextual factors impacting aging populations, and wellness strategies. Objectives: To evaluate the successes and weaknesses of an educational intervention aimed at increasing the participation of older adults in clinical research. Design: A focus group was assembled after an 8-week educational intervention, titled DREAMS, to obtain participants' feedback on the program, following a pre-formulated interview guide. Settings: Participants were interviewed in a health center office environment in the United States of America in April of 2016. Participants: A post-intervention focus group was conducted with a group of eight older adults (mean age = 75.8 ± 11.4 years) from 51 total participants who completed the intervention. Methods: The focus group was interviewed loosely following a pre-formed question guide. Participants were encouraged to give honest feedback. The conversation was recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analyses. Results: While participants viewed most aspects of the study as a success and stated that it was a productive learning experience, most participants had suggestions for improvements in the program content and implementation. Specifically, the composition of and direction to small breakout groups should be carefully considered and planned in this population, and attention should be paid to the delivery of sensitive topic such as death and dementia. A clear main benefit of this programmatic approach is the development of a rapport amongst participants and between participants and clinical researchers. Conclusions: The results provide useful insights regarding improving participation among hard-to-reach and historically underrepresented groups of older adults in clinical research. Future iterations of this program and similar educational interventions can use these findings to better achieve the programmatic objectives.

Dataset Information

Research subject advocacy: program implementation and evaluation at clinical and translational science award centers.

Publications

Research subject advocacy: program implementation and evaluation at clinical and translational science award centers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets