Dataset Information

Performance Index for Types of Clinical Research Support Service Providers for Academic Research Organizations in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to conduct a factual survey to evaluate the type of clinical research support offered by service providers (supporters) in Japanese academic research organizations (AROs). From September to October 2018, we conducted an online questionnaire targeting researchers and supporters of AROs, including individuals supporting research and development (R&D) planning, as well as those involved in study management, biostatistics, coordination, data management, monitoring, and auditing. The number of responses was tabulated for each survey item. For items with written descriptions, we compiled summaries using the inductive regression method of qualitative research. Responses were obtained from 124 researchers, 258 supporters, and 40 AROs. None of the institutions responded that they had a performance index for all types of service providers, whereas 47% of institutions had an index for 1-3 types of service providers, and 40% of institutions had no index. Many institutions responded that they had a performance index for coordinators and data management, but few responded that there was a performance index for individuals engaged in R&D and study management. Furthermore, for all evaluations of AROs and researchers, the level of supporter satisfaction was low at only 20%. There was a discrepancy between the levels of researcher expectations and the actual contribution of R&D in the process of research planning. Our survey revealed that there is currently no performance index for services supporting clinical research. In future studies, we need to examine a performance index that accurately reflects the researcher attitudes revealed in this study.

SUBMITTER: Ueda K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7993270 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious surveys of organizations that support the development of evidence-informed health policies have focused on organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or undertake health technology assessments (HTAs). Only rarely have surveys focused at least in part on units that directly support the use of research evidence in developing health policy on an international, national, and state or provincial level (i.e., government support units, or GSUs) that are in some way successful or innovative or that support the use of research evidence in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsWe drew on many people and organizations around the world, including our project reference group, to generate a list of organizations to survey. We modified a questionnaire that had been developed originally by the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation in Europe (AGREE) collaboration and adapted one version of the questionnaire for organizations producing CPGs and HTAs, and another for GSUs. We sent the questionnaire by email to 176 organizations and followed up periodically with non-responders by email and telephone.ResultsWe received completed questionnaires from 152 (86%) organizations. More than one-half of the organizations (and particularly HTA agencies) reported that examples from other countries were helpful in establishing their organization. A higher proportion of GSUs than CPG- or HTA-producing organizations involved target users in the selection of topics or the services undertaken. Most organizations have few (five or fewer) full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. More than four-fifths of organizations reported providing panels with or using systematic reviews. GSUs tended to use a wide variety of explicit valuation processes for the research evidence, but none with the frequency that organizations producing CPGs, HTAs, or both prioritized evidence by its quality. Between one-half and two-thirds of organizations do not collect data systematically about uptake, and roughly the same proportions do not systematically evaluate their usefulness or impact in other ways.ConclusionThe findings from our survey, the most broadly based of its kind, both extend or clarify the applicability of the messages arising from previous surveys and related documentary analyses, such as how the 'principles of evidence-based medicine dominate current guideline programs' and the importance of collaborating with other organizations. The survey also provides a description of the history, structure, processes, outputs, and perceived strengths and weaknesses of existing organizations from which those establishing or leading similar organizations can draw.

Project description:BackgroundMany clinical trials conducted by academic organizations are not published, or are not published completely. Following the US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, "The Final Rule" (compliance date April 18, 2017) and a National Institutes of Health policy clarified and expanded trial registration and results reporting requirements. We sought to identify policies, procedures, and resources to support trial registration and reporting at academic organizations.MethodsWe conducted an online survey from November 21, 2016 to March 1, 2017, before organizations were expected to comply with The Final Rule. We included active Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) accounts classified by ClinicalTrials.gov as a "University/Organization" in the USA. PRS administrators manage information on ClinicalTrials.gov. We invited one PRS administrator to complete the survey for each organization account, which was the unit of analysis.ResultsEligible organization accounts (N = 783) included 47,701 records (e.g., studies) in August 2016. Participating organizations (366/783; 47%) included 40,351/47,701 (85%) records. Compared with other organizations, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) holders, cancer centers, and large organizations were more likely to participate. A minority of accounts have a registration (156/366; 43%) or results reporting policy (129/366; 35%). Of those with policies, 15/156 (11%) and 49/156 (35%) reported that trials must be registered before institutional review board approval is granted or before beginning enrollment, respectively. Few organizations use computer software to monitor compliance (68/366; 19%). One organization had penalized an investigator for non-compliance. Among the 287/366 (78%) accounts reporting that they allocate staff to fulfill ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements, the median number of full-time equivalent staff is 0.08 (interquartile range = 0.02-0.25). Because of non-response and social desirability, this could be a "best case" scenario.ConclusionsBefore the compliance date for The Final Rule, some academic organizations had policies and resources that facilitate clinical trial registration and reporting. Most organizations appear to be unprepared to meet the new requirements. Organizations could enact the following: adopt policies that require trial registration and reporting, allocate resources (e.g., staff, software) to support registration and reporting, and ensure there are consequences for investigators who do not follow standards for clinical research.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To support the use of research evidence by community-based organizations (CBOs) we have developed 'Synthesized HIV/AIDS Research Evidence' (SHARE), which is an evidence service for those working in the HIV sector. SHARE consists of several components: an online searchable database of HIV-relevant systematic reviews (retrievable based on a taxonomy of topics related to HIV/AIDS and open text search); periodic email updates; access to user-friendly summaries; and peer relevance assessments. Our objective is to evaluate whether this 'full serve' evidence service increases the use of research evidence by CBOs as compared to a 'self-serve' evidence service. METHODS/DESIGN:We will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process study to explore the findings in greater depth. All CBOs affiliated with Canadian AIDS Society (n = 120) will be invited to participate and will be randomized to receive either the 'full-serve' version of SHARE or the 'self-serve' version (a listing of relevant systematic reviews with links to records on PubMed and worksheets that help CBOs find and use research evidence) using a simple randomized design. All management and staff from each organization will be provided access to the version of SHARE that their organization is allocated to. The trial duration will be 10 months (two-month baseline period, six-month intervention period, and two month crossover period), the primary outcome measure will be the mean number of logins/month/organization (averaged across the number of users from each organization) between baseline and the end of the intervention period. The secondary outcome will be intention to use research evidence as measured by a survey administered to one key decision maker from each organization. For the qualitative study, one key organizational decision maker from 15 organizations in each trial arm (n = 30) will be purposively sampled. One-on-one semi-structured interviews will be conducted by telephone on their views about and their experiences with the evidence service they received, how helpful it was in their work, why it was helpful (or not helpful), what aspects were most and least helpful and why, and recommendations for next steps. DISCUSSION:To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT to evaluate the effects of an evidence service specifically designed to support CBOs in finding and using research evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01257724.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Academic medical centers in North America are expanding their missions from the traditional triad of patient care, research, and education to include the broader issue of healthcare delivery improvement. In recent years, integrated Critical Care Organizations have developed within academic centers to better meet the challenges of this broadening mission. The goal of this article was to provide interested administrators and intensivists with the proper resources, lines of communication, and organizational approach to accomplish integration and Critical Care Organization formation effectively. DESIGN:The Academic Critical Care Organization Building section workgroup of the taskforce established regular monthly conference calls to reach consensus on the development of a toolkit utilizing methods proven to advance the development of their own academic Critical Care Organizations. Relevant medical literature was reviewed by literature search. Materials from federal agencies and other national organizations were accessed through the Internet. SETTING:The Society of Critical Care Medicine convened a taskforce entitled "Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine" on February 22, 2016 at the 45th Critical Care Congress using the expertise of successful leaders of advanced governance Critical Care Organizations in North America to develop a toolkit for advancing Critical Care Organizations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Key elements of an academic Critical Care Organization are outlined. The vital missions of multidisciplinary patient care, safety, and quality are linked to the research, education, and professional development missions that enhance the value of such organizations. Core features, benefits, barriers, and recommendations for integration of academic programs within Critical Care Organizations are described. Selected readings and resources to successfully implement the recommendations are provided. Communication with medical school and hospital leadership is discussed. CONCLUSIONS:We present the rationale for critical care programs to transition to integrated Critical Care Organizations within academic medical centers and provide recommendations and resources to facilitate this transition and foster Critical Care Organization effectiveness and future success.

Dataset Information

Performance Index for Types of Clinical Research Support Service Providers for Academic Research Organizations in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets