Dataset Information

UK publicly funded Clinical Trials Units supported a controlled access approach to share individual participant data but highlighted concerns.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Evaluate current data sharing activities of UK publicly funded Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and identify good practices and barriers.

Study design and setting

Web-based survey of Directors of 45 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered CTUs.

Results

Twenty-three (51%) CTUs responded: Five (22%) of these had an established data sharing policy and eight (35%) specifically requested consent to use patient data beyond the scope of the original trial. Fifteen (65%) CTUs had received requests for data, and seven (30%) had made external requests for data in the previous 12 months. CTUs supported the need for increased data sharing activities although concerns were raised about patient identification, misuse of data, and financial burden. Custodianship of clinical trial data and requirements for a CTU to align its policy to their parent institutes were also raised. No CTUs supported the use of an open access model for data sharing.

Conclusion

There is support within the publicly funded UKCRC-registered CTUs for data sharing, but many perceived barriers remain. CTUs are currently using a variety of approaches and procedures for sharing data. This survey has informed further work, including development of guidance for publicly funded CTUs, to promote good practice and facilitate data sharing.

SUBMITTER: Hopkins C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4742521 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

UK publicly funded Clinical Trials Units supported a controlled access approach to share individual participant data but highlighted concerns.

Hopkins Carolyn C Sydes Matthew M Murray Gordon G Woolfall Kerry K Clarke Mike M Williamson Paula P Tudur Smith Catrin C

Journal of clinical epidemiology 20150711

<h4>Objectives</h4>Evaluate current data sharing activities of UK publicly funded Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and identify good practices and barriers.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>Web-based survey of Directors of 45 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered CTUs.<h4>Results</h4>Twenty-three (51%) CTUs responded: Five (22%) of these had an established data sharing policy and eight (35%) specifically requested consent to use patient data beyond the scope of the original trial. Fift ...[more]

PMID: 26169841

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Due to rising healthcare expenditures, countries with publicly funded healthcare systems face challenges when providing newly approved expensive anti-cancer treatments to all eligible patients. In the Netherlands in 2015, the so-called Coverage Lock (CL), was introduced to help safeguard the sustainability of the healthcare system. Since then, newly approved treatments are no longer automatically reimbursed. Previous work has shown that as policies for access to CL treatments are lacking, patient access to non-reimbursed treatments is limited and variable, which raises ethical issues. The ethics of access were discussed in a series of multi-stakeholder dialogues in the Netherlands. Methods: Three dialogues were held in early 2023 and included physicians, health insurers, hospital executives, policymakers, patients, citizens, and representatives of pharmaceutical companies, patient and professional organizations. In advance, participants had received an 'argument scheme' featuring three models: 1) access based on third-party payment (e.g., by pharmaceutical companies, health insurers or hospitals) 2) access based on out-of-pocket payments by patients 3) no access to CL treatments. During the dialogues, participants were asked to discuss the merits of the ethical arguments for and against these models together, and ultimately to weigh them. The discussions were audio-taped, transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed. Results: Generally, most stakeholders were in favour of allowing access-at least when treatments are clearly beneficial-to treatments in the CL. When discussing third-party payment, stakeholders favoured payment by pharmaceutical companies over payment by health insurers or hospitals, not wanting to usurp collective funds while cost-effectiveness assessments are still pending. Largely, stakeholders were not in favour of out-of-pocket payments, emphasizing solidarity and equal access as important pillars of the Dutch healthcare system. Recurrent themes included the conflict between individual and collective interests, shifting attitudes, withholding access as a means to put pressure on the system, and the importance of transparency about access to CL-treatments. Conclusion: Policies for access to non-reimbursed treatments should address stakeholders' concerns regarding transparency, equal access and solidarity, and loss of potential health benefits for patients. Multi-stakeholder dialogues are an important tool to help inform policy-making on access to newly approved (too) expensive treatments in countries facing challenges to the sustainability of healthcare systems.

Project description:BackgroundBuilding on an approach developed to assess the economic returns to cardiovascular research, we estimated the economic returns from UK public and charitable funded cancer-related research that arise from the net value of the improved health outcomes.MethodsTo assess these economic returns from cancer-related research in the UK we estimated: 1) public and charitable expenditure on cancer-related research in the UK from 1970 to 2009; 2) net monetary benefit (NMB), that is, the health benefit measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) valued in monetary terms (using a base-case value of a QALY of GB£25,000) minus the cost of delivering that benefit, for a prioritised list of interventions from 1991 to 2010; 3) the proportion of NMB attributable to UK research; 4) the elapsed time between research funding and health gain; and 5) the internal rate of return (IRR) from cancer-related research investments on health benefits. We analysed the uncertainties in the IRR estimate using sensitivity analyses to illustrate the effect of some key parameters.ResultsIn 2011/12 prices, total expenditure on cancer-related research from 1970 to 2009 was £15 billion. The NMB of the 5.9 million QALYs gained from the prioritised interventions from 1991 to 2010 was £124 billion. Calculation of the IRR incorporated an estimated elapsed time of 15 years. We related 17% of the annual NMB estimated to be attributable to UK research (for each of the 20 years 1991 to 2010) to 20 years of research investment 15 years earlier (that is, for 1976 to 1995). This produced a best-estimate IRR of 10%, compared with 9% previously estimated for cardiovascular disease research. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the importance of smoking reduction as a major source of improved cancer-related health outcomes.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated a substantive IRR from net health gain to public and charitable funding of cancer-related research in the UK, and further validated the approach that we originally used in assessing the returns from cardiovascular research. In doing so, we have highlighted a number of weaknesses and key assumptions that need strengthening in further investigations. Nevertheless, these cautious estimates demonstrate that the returns from past cancer research have been substantial, and justify the investments made during the period 1976 to 1995.

Project description:BackgroundOpinions and practices vary around the issue of performing multiple statistical tests in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We carried out a study to collate information about opinions and practices using a methodological rapid review and a survey, specifically of publicly funded pragmatic RCTs that are not seeking marketing authorisation. The aim was to identify the circumstances under which researchers would make a statistical adjustment for multiplicity.MethodsA review was performed extracting information from articles reporting primary analyses of pragmatic RCTs in one of seven high quality medical journals, in January to June (inclusive) 2018. A survey (Survey Monkey) eliciting opinions and practices around multiplicity was distributed to the 47 registered clinical trials units (CTUs) in the UK.ResultsOne hundred and thirty-eight RCTs were included in the review, and survey responses were received from 27/47 (57%) CTUs. Both the review and survey indicated that adjusting for multiplicity was considered most important for multiple treatment comparisons; adjustment was performed for 11/23 (48%) published trials, and 24/27 (89%) CTU statisticians reported they would consider adjustment. Opinions and practices varied around adjustment for multiplicity arising from multiple primary outcomes and interim analyses. Adjustment was considered less important for multiplicity due to multiple secondary outcomes (adjustment performed for 17/136 [13%] published trials and 3/27 [11%] CTU statisticians would consider adjustment) and subgroup analyses (8/85 [9%] published trials adjusted and 6/27 CTU [22%] statisticians would consider adjustment).ConclusionsThere is variation in opinions about adjustment for multiplicity among both statisticians reporting RCTs and applied statisticians working in CTUs. Further guidance is needed on the circumstances in which adjustment should be considered in relation to primary trial hypotheses, and if there are any situations in which adjustment would be recommended in the context of secondary analyses.

Project description:BackgroundAdults living with overweight/obesity are eligible for publicly funded weight management (WM) programmes according to national guidance. People with the most severe and complex obesity are eligible for bariatric surgery. Primary care plays a key role in identifying overweight/obesity and referring to WM interventions. This study aimed to (1) describe the primary care population in England who (a) are referred for WM interventions and (b) undergo bariatric surgery and (2) determine the patient and GP practice characteristics associated with both.Methods and findingsAn observational cohort study was undertaken using routinely collected primary care data in England from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics. During the study period (January 2007 to June 2020), 1,811,587 adults met the inclusion criteria of a recording of overweight/obesity in primary care, of which 54.62% were female and 20.10% aged 45 to 54. Only 56,783 (3.13%) were referred to WM, and 3,701 (1.09% of those with severe and complex obesity) underwent bariatric surgery. Multivariable Poisson regression examined the associations of demographic, clinical, and regional characteristics on the likelihood of WM referral and bariatric surgery. Higher body mass index (BMI) and practice region had the strongest associations with both outcomes. People with BMI ≥40 kg/m2 were more than 6 times as likely to be referred for WM (10.05% of individuals) than BMI 25.0 to 29.9 kg/m2 (1.34%) (rate ratio (RR) 6.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) [5.99,6.40], p < 0.001). They were more than 5 times as likely to undergo bariatric surgery (3.98%) than BMI 35.0 to 40.0 kg/m2 with a comorbidity (0.53%) (RR 5.52, 95% CI [5.07,6.02], p < 0.001). Patients from practices in the West Midlands were the most likely to have a WM referral (5.40%) (RR 2.17, 95% CI [2.10,2.24], p < 0.001, compared with the North West, 2.89%), and practices from the East of England least likely (1.04%) (RR 0.43, 95% CI [0.41,0.46], p < 0.001, compared with North West). Patients from practices in London were the most likely to undergo bariatric surgery (2.15%), and practices in the North West the least likely (0.68%) (RR 3.29, 95% CI [2.88,3.76], p < 0.001, London compared with North West). Longer duration since diagnosis with severe and complex obesity (e.g., 1.67% of individuals diagnosed in 2007 versus 0.34% in 2015, RR 0.20, 95% CI [0.12,0.32], p < 0.001), and increasing comorbidities (e.g., 2.26% of individuals with 6+ comorbidities versus 1.39% with none (RR 8.79, 95% CI [7.16,10.79], p < 0.001) were also strongly associated with bariatric surgery. The main limitation is the reliance on overweight/obesity being recorded within primary care records to identify the study population.ConclusionsBetween 2007 and 2020, a very small percentage of the primary care population eligible for WM referral or bariatric surgery according to national guidance received either. Higher BMI and GP practice region had the strongest associations with both. Regional inequalities may reflect differences in commissioning and provision of WM services across the country. Multi-stakeholder qualitative research is ongoing to understand the barriers to accessing WM services and potential solutions. Together with population-wide prevention strategies, improved access to WM interventions is needed to reduce obesity levels.

Dataset Information

UK publicly funded Clinical Trials Units supported a controlled access approach to share individual participant data but highlighted concerns.

Objectives

Study design and setting

Results

Conclusion

Publications

UK publicly funded Clinical Trials Units supported a controlled access approach to share individual participant data but highlighted concerns.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets