Dataset Information

Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In November 2016, the ICH published a requirement for sponsors to develop a systematic, prioritised, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. This approach is more commonly known as risk-based monitoring (RBM). However, recent evidence suggests that a 'gold standard', validated approach to RBM does not exist and it is unclear how sponsors will introduce RBM into their organisations. A first step needed to inform the implementation of RBM is to explore academic trialists' readiness and ability to perform RBM. The aim of this paper is to identify the attitudes and perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials in Ireland.

Methods

This is a mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design, with quantitative survey followed by semistructured interviews. Academic clinical researchers (N?=?132) working in Ireland were surveyed to examine their use and perceptions of RBM. A purposive sample of survey participants (n?=?22) were then interviewed to gain greater insight into the quantitative findings. The survey and interview data were merged to generate a list of perceived barriers and facilitators to RBM implementation, with suggestions for, and solutions to, these issues.

Results

Survey response rate was 49% (132/273). Thirteen percent (n?=?18) of responders were not familiar with the term risk-based monitoring and less than a quarter of respondents (21%, n?=?28) had performed RBM in a clinical trial. Barriers to RBM implementation included lack of RBM knowledge/training, increased costs caused by greater IT demands, increased workload for trial staff and lack of evidence to support RBM as an effective monitoring approach. Facilitators included participants' legal obligation to perform RBM under the new ICH-GCP guidelines, availability of RBM guidance and perception of cost savings by performing RBM in future trials.

Conclusion

The results of this study demonstrate a need for training and regulatory-endorsed guidelines to support the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials. The study provides valuable insights to inform interventions and strategies by policy-makers and clinical trial regulators to improve RBM uptake.

SUBMITTER: Hurley C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5594426 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study.

Hurley Caroline C Sinnott Carol C Clarke Mike M Kearney Patricia P Racine Emmy E Eustace Joseph J Shiely Frances F

Trials 20170911 1

<h4>Background</h4>In November 2016, the ICH published a requirement for sponsors to develop a systematic, prioritised, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. This approach is more commonly known as risk-based monitoring (RBM). However, recent evidence suggests that a 'gold standard', validated approach to RBM does not exist and it is unclear how sponsors will introduce RBM into their organisations. A first step needed to inform the implementation of RBM is to explore academic triali ...[more]

PMID: 28893317

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials is beneficial and mandated by some funders, formal guidance on how to implement PPI is limited and challenges have been reported. We aimed to investigate how PPI is approached within a UK Clinical Trials Unit (CTU)'s portfolio of randomised controlled trials, perceived barriers to/facilitators of its successful implementation, and perspectives on the CTU's role in PPI.MethodsA mixed-methods study design, involving (1) an online survey of 26 trial managers (TMs) and (2) Interviews with Trial Management Group members and public contributors from 8 case-study trials. Quantitative survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics and interview transcripts analysed thematically. Two public contributors advised throughout and are co-authors.Results(1) 21 TMs completed the survey; (2) 19 in-depth interviews were conducted with public contributors (n=8), TMs (n=5), chief investigators (n=3), PPI coordinators (n=2) and a researcher. 15/21 TMs surveyed reported that a public contributor was on the trial team, and 5 used another PPI method. 12/21 TMs reported that public contributors were paid (range £10-50/h). 5 TMs reported that training was provided for public contributors and few staff members had received any formal PPI training. The most commonly reported tasks undertaken by public contributors were the review of participant-facing materials/study documents and advising on recruitment/retention strategies. Public contributors wanted and valued feedback on changes made due to their input, but it was not always provided. Barriers to successful PPI included recruitment challenges, group dynamics, maintaining professional boundaries, negative attitudes to PPI amongst some researchers, a lack of continuity of trial staff, and the academic environment. Successful PPI required early and explicit planning, sharing of power and ownership of the trial with public contributors, building and maintaining relationships, and joint understanding and clarity about expectations/roles. CTUs have an important role to play in supporting recruitment, signposting and coordinating PPI.ConclusionsWhile highly valuable, PPI in trials is currently variable. PPI representatives are recruited informally, may not be provided with any training and are paid inconsistently across trials. Study findings can help optimise PPI in trials and ensure researchers and public contributors are adequately supported.

Project description:Childhood obesity is a growing global health concern. Although mobile health apps have the potential to deliver behavioural interventions, their impact is commonly limited by a lack of sufficient engagement. The purpose of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to engagement with a family-focused app and its perceived impact on motivation, self-efficacy, and behaviour. Parents with at least one child under 18 and healthcare professionals working with children were recruited; all participants were allocated to use the NoObesity app over a 6-month period. The mixed-methods design was based on the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance frameworks. Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, and app use data (logins and in-app self-reported data). 35 parents were included in the final analysis; quantitative results were analysed descriptively and thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative data. Key barriers to engagement were boredom, forgetting, and usability issues and key barriers to potential impact on behaviours were accessibility, lack of motivation, and family characteristics. Novelty, gamification features, reminders, goal setting, progress monitoring and feedback, and suggestions for healthy foods and activities were key facilitators to engagement with the app and behaviours. A key observation was that intervention strategies could help address many motivation and capability barriers, but there was a gap in strategies addressing opportunity barriers. Without incorporating strategies that successfully mitigate barriers in all three determinants of behaviour, an intervention is unlikely to be successful. We highlight key recommendations for developers to consider when designing the features and implementation of digital health interventions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05261555).

Project description:BackgroundPersonalized dosing based on measurement of individual drug levels and adjusting the dose accordingly can improve efficacy and decrease unnecessary toxicity of oncological treatment. For imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib, this therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-guided dosing is, however, not routinely used, despite accumulating evidence favoring individualized dosing. Therefore, we aimed to identify and quantify (potential) barriers and facilitators in TDM-guided dosing for imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib.MethodsWe performed a mixed methods study among all stakeholders involved: patients, healthcare professionals (HCPs), pharmaceutical companies, and health insurance companies. During the first qualitative part of this study, we performed semi-structured individual interviews and one focus group interview to identify all (potential) barriers and facilitators, and during the second quantitative part of this study, we used a web-based survey to quantify these findings. The interviews addressed the six domains of the implementation of change model of Grol and Wensing: (1) the innovation itself; (2) the HCP; (3) the patient; (4) social context; (5) organizational context; and (6) finances, law, and governance.ResultsIn the qualitative study, we interviewed 20 patients, 18 HCPs and 10 representatives of pharmaceutical and health insurance companies and identified 72 barriers and 90 facilitators. In the quantitative study, the survey was responded by 66 HCPs and 58 patients. Important barriers were on the domain of the HCP, such as a lack of experience with TDM (36.4%), on the domain of the patient, such as lack of awareness of TDM (39.7%), and the processing time for measurement and interpretation of the TDM result (40.9%) (organizational domain). Important facilitators were education of HCPs (95.5%), education of patients (87.9%) and facilitating an overview of when and where TDM measurements are being performed (86.4%).ConclusionWe identified and quantified important barriers and facilitators for the implementation of TDM-guided dosing for imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib. Based on our results, the implementation strategy should mainly focus on educating both HCPs and patients and on the organizational aspect of TDM.

Project description:BackgroundMusculoskeletal problems substantially impact the demand for and the finances of the United Kingdom's National Health Service. Some of this demand and cost could be alleviated if patients use self-directed-exercises. The present study aims first to establish whether general practitioners already recommend self-directed-exercises and second to describe barriers and facilitators to making such recommendations.MethodThe design of the current study included surveys and interviews. The surveys were designed to draw out participants' tendency to recommend self-directed-exercises and their behavioral drivers to do so. The drivers investigated include 14 domains described by the Theoretical Domains Framework. The surveys were completed online and the responses were analyzed using descriptive reports and regression analyses. The interviews were designed to more fully understand participants' experiences recommending self-directed-exercises according to the same framework. The interviews were audio-taped, transcribed, and thematically analyzed.ResultsThe survey found that the following domains significantly predicted participants' tendency to recommend self-directed-exercises: Environmental contexts and resources, Goals, Intentions, Knowledge, Memory attention and decision processes, and Social/professional role. The interviews brought out four themes that could be leveraged to increase general practitioners' tendency to recommend self-directed-exercises: (1) Practitioners' beliefs about self-directed-exercises being effective, (2) Patients' motivations to engage in self-directed-exercises, (3) Time constraints, and (4) The ease with which practitioners can recommend self-directed-exercises.ConclusionsMost general practitioners already recommend self-directed-exercises, though they note significant barriers that may prevent them from doing so. General practitioners' tendency to recommend self-directed-exercises would be bolstered by creating a respected central resource of exercise pamphlets. These pamphlets should clearly describe how different self-directed-exercises should be performed and evidence supporting their effectiveness.

Dataset Information

Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets