European survey on national harmonization in clinical research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Clinical trials remain key to the development of evidence-based medical practice. However, they are becoming increasingly complex, mainly in a multinational setting. To address these challenges, the European Union (EU) adopted the Clinical Trial Regulation EU No. 536/2014 (CTR). Once in force, the CTR will lead to more consistent rules and simplification of procedures for conducting clinical trials throughout the EU. Existing harmonization initiatives and "research infrastructures" for clinical trials may facilitate this process. This publication offers a snapshot of the current level of harmonization activities in academic clinical research in Europe.Methods
A survey was performed among the member and observer countries of the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN), using a standardized questionnaire. Three rounds of data collection were performed to maximize completeness and comparability of the received answers. The survey aimed to describe the harmonization of academic clinical research processes at national level, to facilitate the exchange of expertise and experience among countries, and to identify new fields of action.Results
Most scientific partners already have in place various working groups and harmonization activities at national level. Furthermore, they are involved in and open to sharing their know-how and documents. Since harmonization was mainly a bottom-up approach up until now, the extent and topics dealt with are diverse and there is only little cross-networking and cross-country exchange so far.Conclusions
Currently, the ECRIN member countries offer a very solid base and collaborative spirit for further aligning processes and exchanging best practices for clinical research in Europe. They can support a smooth implementation of the EU CTR and may act as single contact with consolidated expertise in a country.
SUBMITTER: Magnin A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8051345 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundInvestigator-initiated clinical studies (IITs) are crucial to generate reliable evidence that answers questions of day-to-day clinical practice. Many challenges make IITs a complex endeavour, for example, IITs often need to be multinational in order to recruit a sufficient number of patients. Recent studies highlighted that well-trained study personnel are a major factor to conduct such complex IITs successfully. As of today, however, no overview of the European training activities, requirements and career options for clinical study personnel exists.MethodsTo fill this knowledge gap, a survey was performed in all 11 member and observer countries of the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN), using a standardised questionnaire. Three rounds of data collection were performed to maximize completeness and comparability of the received answers. The survey aimed to describe the landscape of academic training opportunities, to facilitate the exchange of expertise and experience among countries and to identify new fields of action.ResultsThe survey found that training for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and investigator training is offered in all but one country. A specific training for study nurses or study coordinators is also either provided or planned in ten out of eleven countries. A majority of countries train in monitoring and clinical pharmacovigilance and offer specific training for principal investigators but only few countries also train operators of clinical research organisations (CRO) or provide training for methodology and quality management systems (QMS). Minimal requirements for study-specific functions cover GCP in ten countries. Only three countries issued no requirements or recommendations regarding the continuous training of study personnel. Yet, only four countries developed a national strategy for training in clinical research and the career options for clinical researchers are still limited in the majority of countries.ConclusionsThere is a substantial and impressive investment in training and education of clinical research in the individual ECRIN countries. But so far, a systematic approach for (top-down) strategic and overarching considerations and cross-network exchange is missing. Exchange of available curricula and sets of core competencies between countries could be a starting point for improving the situation.
| S-EPMC6821032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWithin SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe), a collaborative study funded by the European Commission, we have assessed the support for public health research at ministry level in European countries.MethodsWe surveyed the health and science ministries in 25 EU countries and 3 EEA countries, using a broad definition of public-health research at population level. We made over 600 phone calls and emails to identify respondents and to gain answers. We gained formal replies from 42 out of 56 ministries (73% response) in 25 countries. There were 22 completed questionnaires (from 25 ministries), 6 short answers and 11 contacts declaring that their ministries were not responsible for public health research, while in 14 ministries (both ministries in three countries) no suitable ministry contact could be found.ResultsIn most European countries, ministries of health, or their devolved agencies, were regarded as the leading organizations. Most ministries were able to specify thematic areas for public-health research (from three to thirty), and others ministries referred to policy documents, health plans or public-health plans to define research priorities. Ministries and their agencies led on decisions for financial support of public-health research, with less involvement of other external organisations compared with the process of identifying priorities. However, the actual funds available for public health were not easily identifiable. Most ministries relied on general academic means for dissemination of results of public-health research, while ministries get information on the use of public-health research usually through informal means. Ministries made suggestions for strengthening public-health research through initiatives of their own countries and of the European Union: as well as more resources, improving coordination was most frequently suggested.ConclusionThere is no common approach to support for public-health research across Europe, and significant gaps in organisation and funding. Health ministries and national agencies value exchange between researchers and policy-makers, civil society organizations, and academic and public authorities, and the application of public-health research results. There would be benefits from better processes of priority setting and improved coordination for research, at regional, national and European levels.
| S-EPMC2713230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background'Compassionate use' programmes allow medicinal products that are not authorised, but are in the development process, to be made available to patients with a severe disease who have no other satisfactory treatment available to them. We sought to understand how such programmes are regulated in ten European Union countries.MethodsThe European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) conducted a comprehensive survey on clinical research regulatory requirements, including questions on regulations of 'compassionate use' programmes. Ten European countries, covering approximately 70% of the EU population, were included in the survey (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK).ResultsEuropean Regulation 726/2004/EC is clear on the intentions of 'compassionate use' programmes and aimed to harmonise them in the European Union. The survey reveals that different countries have adopted different requirements and that 'compassionate use' is not interpreted in the same way across Europe. Four of the ten countries surveyed have no formal regulatory system for the programmes. We discuss the need for 'compassionate use' programmes and their regulation where protection of patients is paramount.Conclusions'Compassionate use' is a misleading term and should be replaced with 'expanded access'. There is a need for expanded access programmes in order to serve the interests of seriously ill patients who have no other treatment options. To protect these patients, European legislation needs to be more explicit and informative with regard to the regulatory requirements, restrictions, and responsibilities in expanded access programmes.
| S-EPMC2997627 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveQuantitative MRI (qMRI) methods provide versatile neuroradiological applications and are a hot topic in research. The degree of their clinical implementation is however barely known. This survey was created to illuminate which and how qMRI techniques are currently applied across Europe.MethodsIn total, 4753 neuroradiologists from 27 countries received an online questionnaire. Demographic and professional data, experience with qMRI techniques in the brain and head and neck, usage, reasons for/against application, and knowledge of the QIBA and EIBALL initiatives were assessed.ResultsTwo hundred seventy-two responders in 23 countries used the following techniques clinically (mean values in %): DWI (82.0%, n = 223), DSC (67.3%, n = 183), MRS (64.3%, n = 175), DCE (43.4%, n = 118), BOLD-fMRI (42.6%, n = 116), ASL (37.5%, n = 102), fat quantification (25.0%, n = 68), T2 mapping (16.9%, n = 46), T1 mapping (15.1%, n = 41), PET-MRI (11.8%, n = 32), IVIM (5.5%, n = 15), APT-CEST (4.8%, n = 13), and DKI (3.3%, n = 9). The most frequent usage indications for any qMRI technique were tissue differentiation (82.4%, n = 224) and oncological monitoring (72.8%, n = 198). Usage differed between countries, e.g. ASL: Germany (n = 13/63; 20.6%) vs. France (n = 31/40; 77.5%). Neuroradiologists endorsed the use of qMRI because of an improved diagnostic accuracy (89.3%, n = 243), but 50.0% (n = 136) are in need of better technology, 34.9% (n = 95) wish for more communication, and 31.3% need help with result interpretation/generation (n = 85). QIBA and EIBALL were not well known (12.5%, n = 34, and 11.0%, n = 30).ConclusionsThe clinical implementation of qMRI methods is highly variable. Beyond the aspect of readiness for clinical use, better availability of support and a wider dissemination of guidelines could catalyse a broader implementation.Key points• Neuroradiologists endorse the use of qMRI techniques as they subjectively improve diagnostic accuracy. • Clinical implementation is highly variable between countries, techniques, and indications. • The use of advanced imaging could be promoted through an increase in technical support and training of both doctors and technicians.
| S-EPMC8270851 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo determine how ESTRO can collaborate with Radiation Oncology National Societies (NS) according to its mission and values, and to define the new roadmap to strengthen the NS network role in the forthcoming years.Materials and methodsThe ESTRO NS committee launched a survey addressed to all European National Societies, available online from June 5th to October 30th 2018. Questions were divided into three main sections: (1) general information about NS; (2) relevant activities (to understand the landscape of each NS context of action); (3) relevant needs (to understand how ESTRO can support the NS). Eighty-nine European NS were invited to participate. Respondents were asked to rank ESTRO milestones in order of importance, indicating the level of priority to their society.ResultsA total of 58 out of 89 NS (65.2%) from 31 European countries completed the questionnaire. The majority of NS ranked "Optimal patient care to cure cancer and to reduce treatment-related toxicity" as the highest level of priority. This aligns well with the ESTRO vision 2030 "Optimal health for all together." NS also indicated a high need for more consensus guidelines and exchange of best practices, access to high quality accredited education, implementation of the ESTRO School Core Curriculum at the national level, and defining quality indicators and standard in Radiation Oncology, improved communication and increased channelling of information.ConclusionThe results of this survey will be used to strengthen the relations between ESTRO and European NS to promote and develop initiatives to improve cancer care.
| S-EPMC7410806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinicians around the world perform clinical research in addition to their high workload. To meet the demands of high quality Investigator Initiated Trials (IITs), Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) (as part of Academic Research Institutions) are implemented worldwide. CTUs increasingly hold a key position in facilitating the international mutual acceptance of clinical research data by promoting clinical research practices and infrastructure according to international standards.AimIn this project, we aimed to identify services that established and internationally operating CTUs - members of the International Clinical Trial Center Network (ICN) - consider most important to ensure the smooth processing of a clinical trial while meeting international standards. We thereby aim to drive international harmonization by providing emerging and growing CTUs with a resource for informed service range set-up.MethodsFollowing the AMEE Guide, we developed a questionnaire, addressing the perceived importance of different CTU services. Survey participants were senior representatives of CTUs and part of the ICN with long-term experience in their field and institution.ResultsServices concerning quality and coordination of a research project were considered to be most essential, i.e., Quality management, Monitoring and Project management, followed by Regulatory & Legal affairs, Education & Training, and Data management. Operative services for conducting a research project, i.e., Study Nurse with patient contact and Study Nurse without patient contact, were considered to be least important.ConclusionTo balance the range of services offered while meeting high international standards of clinical research, emerging CTUs should focus on offering (quality) management services and expertise in regulatory and legal affairs. Additionally, education and training services are required to ensure clinicians are well trained on GCP and legislation. CTUs should evaluate whether the expertise and resources are available to offer operative services.
| S-EPMC10602721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReports of questionable or detrimental research practices (QRPs) call into question the reliability of scientific evidence and the trustworthiness of research. A critical component of the research ecosystem is the organization within which research takes place. We conducted a survey to explore the attitudes and beliefs of European and American researchers about the organisations in which they work, their own research practices and their attitudes towards research integrity and research integrity policies.MethodsWe administered an online survey (International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS)) to 2,300 active researchers based in the US and 45,000 in Europe (including UK, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland). We employed a stratified probability sample of the authors of research articles published between 2016 and 2020 included in Clarivate's Web of Science citation database. Coverage includes researchers in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and medical sciences, who hold at least a master's level degree.ResultsIn comparison to researchers in the US, European researchers admit to more QRPs and are less confident in maintaining high research integrity (RI) standards. In the US and Europe, many researchers judge their organization to fall short of best RI practice. All researchers recognize the benefits of RI, reliable knowledge and the trust of colleagues and the public, and there is support for RI training particularly among Europeans.ConclusionTo create and maintain a culture of integrity in scientific research, a collective commitment from researchers, their institutions and funders is needed. Researchers rely on many channels of communication about research integrity and thus the involvement of many different participants in the research system is required to make improvements. Policies must be developed to reinforce best practice rather than being seen as an irrelevance to the real business of research.
| S-EPMC10349267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Including people with disabilities in precision medicine research (PMR) is key for increasing cohorts' diversity, improving understanding of population health, and attaining social justice for the United States' largest health disparities group. We conducted a national survey to explore the views of people with disabilities about PMR. METHODS:An online survey was developed in disability-accessible formats. Key questions included views on PMR, willingness to participate and to provide data, perceived barriers to participation and potential remedies, and interest in engagement in the study. Analyses described results for all participants and compared results for key demographic characteristics. RESULTS:In total, 1294 participants completed the survey. Participants expressed strong support for PMR, and willingness to participate in PMR; to provide lifestyle, biological, and medical information; and to engage with the study. However, 76% identified a total of 3 to 8 barriers to participation, and most would not provide environmental samples or information from their social media account(s) and activity trackers. Differences were observed across racial, ethnic, and gender groups and are discussed. CONCLUSIONS:Barriers to disability inclusion need to be removed, and further research conducted to better understand concerns about PMR and to develop studies that resonate with the interests and needs of this population.
| S-EPMC6755064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo harmonize the collection of nonsurgical clinical and epidemiologic data relevant to endometriosis research, allowing large-scale collaboration.DesignAn international collaboration involving 34 clinical/academic centers and three industry collaborators from 16 countries on five continents.SettingIn 2013, two workshops followed by global consultation, bringing together 54 leaders in endometriosis research.PatientsNone.Intervention(s)Development of a self-administered endometriosis patient questionnaire (EPQ), based on [1] systematic comparison of questionnaires from eight centers that collect data from endometriosis cases (and controls/comparison women) on a medium to large scale (publication on >100 cases); [2] literature evidence; and [3] several global consultation rounds.Main outcome measure(s)Standard recommended and minimum required questionnaires to capture detailed clinical and covariate data.Result(s)The standard recommended (EPHect EPQ-S) and minimum required (EPHect EPQ-M) questionnaires contain questions on pelvic pain, subfertility and menstrual/reproductive history, hormone/medication use, medical history, and personal information.Conclusion(s)The EPQ captures the basic set of patient characteristics and exposures considered by the WERF EPHect Working Group to be most critical for the advancement of endometriosis research, but is also relevant to other female conditions with similar risk factors and/or symptomatology. The instruments will be reviewed based on feedback from investigators, and-after a first review after 1 year-triannually through systematic follow-up surveys. Updated versions will be made available through http://endometriosisfoundation.org/ephect.
| S-EPMC4252538 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/study contextHarmonizing measures in order to conduct pooled data analyses has become a scientific priority in aging research. Retrospective harmonization where different studies lack common measures of comparable constructs presents a major challenge. This study compared different approaches to harmonization with a crosswalk sample who completed multiple versions of the measures to be harmonized.MethodsThrough online recruitment, 1061 participants aged 30 to 98 answered two different depression scales, and 1065 participants answered multiple measures of subjective health. Rational and configural methods of harmonization were applied, using the crosswalk sample to determine their success; and empirical item response theory (IRT) methods were applied in order empirically to compare items from different measures as answered by the same person.ResultsFor depression, IRT worked well to provide a conversion table between different measures. The rational method of extracting semantically matched items from each of the two scales proved an acceptable alternative to IRT. For subjective health, only configural harmonization was supported. The subjective health items used in most studies form a single robust factor.ConclusionCaution is required in aging research when pooling data across studies using different measures of the same construct. Of special concern are response scales that vary widely in the number of response options, especially if the anchors are asymmetrical. A crosswalk sample that has completed items from each of the measures being harmonized allows the investigator to use empirical approaches to identify flawed assumptions in rational or configural approaches to harmonizing.
| S-EPMC4772674 | biostudies-literature