Dataset Information

A risk assessment tool for resumption of research activities during the COVID-19 pandemic for field trials in low resource settings.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale

The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk.

Objectives

In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial conducted in rural, low-resource settings, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize the integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest scientific understanding of the virus.

Methods

We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. National and local government recommendations provided the minimum safety guidelines for our work.

Results

Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential viral aerosolization while performing the activity. For each activity, one of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities that can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk.

Conclusions

By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we were able to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our staff, participants, local communities, and funders. This framework can be tailored to other research studies conducted in similar settings during the current pandemic, as well as potential future outbreaks with similar transmission dynamics. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov NCT02944682 on October 26. 2016 .

SUBMITTER: Simkovich SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8040756 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing is considered to be the leading cause of high burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in resource-constrained lower- and middle-income countries. Under its global action plan, the World Health Organization has envisaged tackling the AMR threat through promotion of rational antibiotic use among prescribers. Given the lack of consensus definitions and other associated challenges, we sought to devise and validate an Antimicrobial Rationality Assessment Tool-AmRAT-for standardizing the assessment of appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing. A consensus algorithm was developed by a multidisciplinary team consisting of intensivists, internal medicine practitioners, clinical pharmacologists, and infectious disease experts. The tool was piloted by 10 raters belonging to three groups of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) personnel: Master of Pharmacology (M.Sc.) (n = 3, group A), Doctor of Medicine (MD) residents (n = 3, group B), and DM residents in clinical pharmacology (n = 4, group C) using retrospective patient data from 30 audit and feedback forms collected as part of an existing AMS program. Percentage agreement and the kappa (κ) coefficients were used to measure inter-rater agreements amongst themselves and with expert opinion. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were analyzed comparing their assessments against the gold standard. For the overall assessment of rationality, the mean percent agreement with experts was 76.7% for group A, 68.9% for group B, and 77.5% for group C. The kappa values indicated moderate agreement for all raters in group A (κ 0.47-0.57), and fair to moderate in group B (κ 0.22-0.46) as well as group C (κ 0.37-0.60). Sensitivity and specificity for the same were 80% and 68.6%, respectively. Though evaluated by raters with diverse educational background and variable AMS experience in this pilot study, our tool demonstrated high percent agreement and good sensitivity and specificity, assuring confidence in its utility for assessing appropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions in resource-constrained healthcare environments.

Project description:BackgroundMultinational clinical trials are logistically complex and require close coordination between various stakeholders. They must comply with global clinical standards and are accountable to multiple regulatory and ethical bodies. In resource-limited settings, it is challenging to understand how to apply global clinical standards to international, national, and local factors in clinical trials, making multiple-level stakeholder engagement an important element in the successful conduct of these clinical trials.Main bodyDuring the planning and implementation of a large multinational clinical trial for intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy in resource-limited areas of sub-Saharan Africa, we encountered numerous challenges, which required implementation of a range of engagement measures to ensure compliance with global clinical and regulatory standards. These challenges included coordination with ongoing global malaria efforts, heterogeneity in national regulatory structures, sub-optimal healthcare infrastructure, local practices and beliefs, and perspectives that view healthcare providers with undue trust or suspicion. In addition to engagement with international bodies, such as the World Health Organization, the Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium, the Steve Biko Centre for Bioethics, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, in order to address the challenges just described, Pfizer Inc. and Medicines for Malaria Venture (the "Sponsoring Entities" for these studies) and investigators liaised with national- and district-level stakeholders such as health ministers and regional/local community health workers. Community engagement measures undertaken by investigators included local meetings with community leaders to explain the research aims and answer questions and concerns voiced by the community. The investigators also engaged with family members of prospective trial participants in order to be sensitive to local practices and beliefs.ConclusionEngagement with key stakeholders at international and national levels enabled the Sponsoring Entities to address challenges by aligning the study design with the requirements of health and regulatory agencies and to understand and address healthcare infrastructure needs prior to trial initiation. Local stakeholder engagement, including community members, study participants, and family enabled the investigators to address challenges by ensuring that study design and conduct were adapted to local considerations and ensuring accurate information about the study aims was shared with the public.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01103063 . Registered on 7 April 2010.

Project description:Introduction:Under five mortality rates (UFMR) remain high for children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the developing world. Education for practitioners in these environments is a key factor to improve outcomes that will address United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 3 and 10 (good health and well being and reduced inequalities). In order to appropriately contextualize a curriculum using simulation, it is necessary to first conduct a needs assessment of the target learner population. The World Health Organization (WHO) has published a tool to assess capacity for emergency and surgical care in LMICs that is adaptable to this goal. Materials and methods:The WHO Tool for Situational Analysis to Assess Emergency and Essential Surgical Care was modified to assess pediatric resuscitation capacity in clinical settings in two LMICs: Uganda and Myanmar. Modifications included assessment of self-identified learning needs, current practices, and perceived epidemiology of disease burden in each clinical setting, in addition to assessment of pediatric resuscitation capacity in regard to infrastructure, procedures, equipment, and supplies. The modified tool was administered to 94 respondents from the two settings who were target learners of a proposed simulation-based curriculum in pediatric and neonatal resuscitation. Results:Infectious diseases (respiratory illnesses and diarrheal disease) were cited as the most common causes of pediatric deaths in both countries. Self-identified learning needs included knowledge and skill development in pediatric airway/breathing topics, as well as general resuscitation topics such as CPR and fluid resuscitation in shock. Equipment and supply availability varied substantially between settings, and critical shortages were identified in each setting. Current practices and procedures were often limited by equipment availability or infrastructural considerations. Discussion and conclusion:Epidemiology of disease burden reported by respondents was relatively consistent with WHO country-specific UFMR statistics in each setting. Results of the needs assessment survey were subsequently used to refine goals and objectives for the simulation curriculum and to ensure delivery of pragmatic educational content with recommendations that were contextualized for local capacity and resource availability. Effective use of the tool in two different settings increases its potential generalizability.