Dataset Information

Academic response to improving value and reducing waste: A comprehensive framework for INcreasing QUality In patient-oriented academic clinical REsearch (INQUIRE).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Compelling evidence has demonstrated that a large proportion of investment in biomedical research is wasted; this waste is avoidable. Academic institutions have, thus far, shown limited response to recommendations for increasing value and reducing waste. We formulated an academic response by (i) achieving consensus across a wide range of stakeholder groups on a comprehensive framework for quality of patient-oriented clinical research and (ii) highlighting first successful examples of its operationalization to facilitate waste-reducing strategies at academic institutions.

Methods and findings

Based on a systematic review of quality definitions, concepts, and criteria in the medical literature (systematic MEDLINE search up to February 15, 2015, with independent and in duplicate article selection) and on stakeholder websites from 13 countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States), we systematically developed a comprehensive framework for the quality of clinical research. We identified websites through personal contacts with experts in clinical research or public health who also suggested, for each country, websites of the following 7 stakeholder groups: patient organizations; academic research infrastructures; governmental bodies; regulatory agencies; ethics committees; the pharmaceutical industry; and funding agencies. In addition, we searched websites of inter- or supranational bodies involved in clinical research until no further insights emerged. After consolidation of the identified definitions, concepts, and criteria of quality in a basic framework structure, we conducted 4 rounds of an adapted online Delphi process among the same 7 stakeholder groups from 16 countries. The Delphi process ultimately achieved consensus on structure and content. The framework addresses 5 study stages (concept, planning and feasibility, conduct, analysis and interpretation, and reporting and knowledge translation) and includes the following dimensions: (i) protection of patient safety and rights, (ii) relevance/patient centeredness and involvement, (iii) minimization of bias (internal validity), (iv) precision, (v) transparency/access to data, and (vi) generalizability (external validity) of study results. These dimensions interact with 2 promoters-infrastructure and sustainability through education-that include a set of factors that may enhance all listed quality dimensions. Each quality dimension contains specific questions and explanatory items that guide quality assessment at each research stage from conceptualization of the research question through reporting and knowledge translation of study results. In the last survey round, Delphi participants from 9 countries (Austria, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, and US) agreed on the structure, content, and wording of the research stages, quality dimensions, specific questions, and descriptive examples of the final framework. In Switzerland, INQUIRE has resulted in a roadmap that guides initiatives to increase value within the Swiss Clinical Trial Organization network and through affiliated researchers.

Conclusions

We present a framework based on a consensus of different stakeholder groups guiding the practical assessment of clinical research quality at all stages of a research project. Operationalization of this common structure will support the increase of value by guiding academic institutions and researchers in developing quality enhancement initiatives, from posing the right research question to the transparent publication of results.

SUBMITTER: von Niederhausern B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5991651 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Academic response to improving value and reducing waste: A comprehensive framework for INcreasing QUality In patient-oriented academic clinical REsearch (INQUIRE).

von Niederhäusern Belinda B Guyatt Gordon H GH Briel Matthias M Pauli-Magnus Christiane C

PLoS medicine 20180607 6

<h4>Background</h4>Compelling evidence has demonstrated that a large proportion of investment in biomedical research is wasted; this waste is avoidable. Academic institutions have, thus far, shown limited response to recommendations for increasing value and reducing waste. We formulated an academic response by (i) achieving consensus across a wide range of stakeholder groups on a comprehensive framework for quality of patient-oriented clinical research and (ii) highlighting first successful exam ...[more]

PMID: 29879117

Similar Datasets

Project description:International experts have recommended actions that funders can take to improve the value of research investments. They state that self-assessment and public sharing are the basis for accountability and improvement. We examined our policies and practice to determine the extent to which the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's (PCORI) policies and practices as a research funder align with international best practice recommendations. A self-audit of current policies and practice against 17 recommendations and 35 sub-recommendations representing five major stages of research production, based on adapted methods used for self-assessment by another funder, was performed. Fit of existing PCORI policies and practices with 35 sub-recommendations, qualitative assessment of adequacy (area of strength; area of partial strength; area of growth; not applicable) for 17 recommendations for five stages of research production was assessed. Of the 17 recommendations, 15 were applicable to PCORI's research mission and focus. PCORI has policies and practices in place for all elements of six recommendations ("area of strength") and policies that address each element but with some still in active development for three ("area of partial strength"). PCORI is partially addressing six of the 15 relevant recommendations ("area of growth"). Areas for growth include making study protocols publicly available, improving policies on data sharing, and enhancing collaboration with other funders to reduce redundant funding. A voluntary consortium of international funders is underway to encourage further progress, including additional self-assessment and public sharing for accountability. These findings indicate PCORI has undertaken efforts to align its funding practices with international recommendations to ensure the value of public dollars invested in research. Further efforts will likely require additional coordination and collaboration between funders and stakeholders.

Project description:The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficiency of the production-oriented approach research (POA-R) teaching approach on academic English courses. The six-week study involved thirty-nine postgraduate students from Guilin Medical University studying medical technology. These students were randomly divided into POA-R (19 participants) and non-POA-R (20 participants) groups. The process of study in the POA-R group was divided into three stages, motivating, enabling, and assisting. The instructor gave the class a task at the motivational stage that involved taking the academic IELTS exam, writing a review article and giving an oral presentation about their research topic. At this stage, students are challenged to find relevant information searching PubMed and other literature databases. The teacher served as a facilitator of learning and would not offer information related to the tasks. During the enabling phase, students were encouraged to ask their supervisor for help and guidance. Students ask questions in class, and the instructor discusses the questions with the students and guides them to solve the questions independently. During the assessment stage, students take the academic IELTS exam, finish the review article, given an oral presentation related their research project, and complete an instructional questionnaire. The non-POA-R group was instructed by the teacher lecture method, comprising six lectures and an oral presentation in addition to the completion of a review article. The final grades of course include a review article, an oral presentation, and an academic IELTS test. The results revealed that the students in the POA-R group outperformed the non-POA-R group in terms of mean scores on the IELTS exam, oral presentation, and review article. To further support and demonstrate the advantages of the POA-R teaching approach, an instructional questionnaire using Likert scales and the attitudes of their supervisors was employed. In conclusion, the POA-R teaching approach is a highly successful strategy for enhancing postgraduate students' academic English proficiency. It greatly enhanced the participants' academic knowledge, learning interest, and active learning.

Project description:How much can we rely on whether what was reported in a study was actually done? Systematic and independent examination of records, documents and processes through audits are a central element of quality management systems. In the context of current concerns about the robustness and reproducibility of experimental biomedical research audits have been suggested as a remedy a number of times. However, audits are resource intense and time consuming, and due to their very nature may be perceived as inquisition. Consequently, there is very little experience or literature on auditing and assessments in the complex preclinical biomedical research environment. To gain some insight into which audit approaches might best suit biomedical research in academia, in this study we have applied a number of them in a typical academic neuroscience environment consisting of twelve research groups with about 100 researchers, students and technicians, utilizing the full gamut of state-of-the-art methodology. Several types of assessments and internal as well as external audits (including the novel format of a peer audit) were systematically explored by a team of quality management specialists. An experimental design template was developed (and is provided here) that takes into account and mitigates difficulties, risks and systematic errors that may occur during the course of a study. All audits were performed according to a pre-defined workflow developed by us. Outcomes were assessed qualitatively. We asked for feedback from participating employees in every final discussion of an audit and documented this in the audit reports. Based on these reports follow-up audits were improved. We conclude that several realistic options for auditing exist which have the potential to improve preclinical biomedical research in academia, and have listed specific recommendations regarding their benefits and provided practical resources for their implementation (e.g. study design and audit templates, audit workflow).

Dataset Information

Academic response to improving value and reducing waste: A comprehensive framework for INcreasing QUality In patient-oriented academic clinical REsearch (INQUIRE).

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Academic response to improving value and reducing waste: A comprehensive framework for INcreasing QUality In patient-oriented academic clinical REsearch (INQUIRE).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets