Dataset Information

Barriers and Facilitating Factors for Conducting Systematic Evidence Assessments in Academic Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

A systematic assessment of existing research should justify the conduct and inform the design of new clinical research but is often lacking. There is little research on the barriers to and factors facilitating systematic evidence assessments.

Objective

To examine the practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders and international funders regarding conducting systematic evidence assessments in academic clinical trials.

Design, setting, and participants

In this qualitative study, individual semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted between February and August 2020 with 48 Swiss stakeholder groups (27 primary investigators, 9 funders and sponsors, 6 clinical trial support organizations, and 6 ethics committee members) and between January and March 2021 with 9 international funders of clinical trials from North America and Europe with a reputation for requiring systematic evidence synthesis in applications for academic clinical trials.

Main outcomes and measures

The main outcomes were practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders and international funders regarding conducting systematic evidence assessments in academic clinical trials. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis.

Results

Of the 57 participants, 40 (70.2%) were male. Participants universally acknowledged that a comprehensive understanding of the previous evidence is important but reported wide variation regarding how this should be achieved. Participants reported that the conduct of formal systematic reviews was currently not expected before most clinical trials, but most international funders reported expecting a systematic search for the existing evidence. Whereas time and resources were reported by all participants as barriers to conducting systematic reviews, the Swiss research ecosystem was reported not to be as supportive of a systematic approach compared with international settings.

Conclusions and relevance

In this qualitative study, Swiss stakeholders and international funders generally agreed that new clinical trials should be justified by a systematic evidence assessment but that barriers on individual, organizational, and political levels kept them from implementing it. More explicit requirements from funders appear to be needed to clarify the required level of comprehensiveness in summarizing existing evidence for different types of clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: McLennan S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8634056 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsSurvey 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.ConclusionThe 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.

Project description:Most tobacco-focused clinical trials are based on locally conducted studies that face significant challenges to implementation and successful execution. These challenges include the need for large, diverse, yet still representative study samples. This often means a protracted, costly, and inefficient recruitment process. Multisite clinical trials can overcome some of these hurdles but incur their own unique challenges. With recent advances in mobile health and digital technologies, there is now a promising alternative: Remote Trials. These trials are led and coordinated by a local investigative team, but are based remotely, within a given community, state, or even nation. The remote approach affords many of the benefits of multisite trials (more efficient recruitment of larger study samples) without the same barriers (cost, multisite management, and regulatory hurdles). The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global health pandemic has resulted in rapid requirements to shift ongoing clinical trials to remote delivery and assessment platforms, making methods for the conduct of remote trials even more timely. The purpose of the present review is to provide an overview of available methods for the conduct of remote tobacco-focused clinical trials as well as illustrative examples of how these methods have been implemented across recently completed and ongoing tobacco studies. We focus on key aspects of the clinical trial pipeline including remote: (1) study recruitment and screening, (2) informed consent, (3) assessment, (4) biomarker collection, and (5) medication adherence monitoring. Implications With recent advances in mobile health and digital technologies, remote trials now offer a promising alternative to traditional in-person clinical trials. Remote trials afford expedient recruitment of large, demographically representative study samples, without undo burden to a research team. The present review provides an overview of available methods for the conduct of remote tobacco-focused clinical trials across key aspects of the clinical trial pipeline.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Electronic mental health interventions (eMental health or eMH) can be used to increase accessibility of mental health services for mood disorders, with indications of comparable clinical outcomes as face-to-face psychotherapy. However, the actual use of eMH in routine mental health care lags behind expectations. Identifying the factors that might promote or inhibit implementation of eMH in routine care may help to overcome this gap between effectiveness studies and routine care. OBJECTIVE:This paper reports the results of a systematic review of the scientific literature identifying those determinants of practices relevant to implementing eMH for mood disorders in routine practice. METHODS:A broad search strategy was developed with high sensitivity to four key terms: implementation, mental health care practice, mood disorder, and eMH. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was applied to guide the review and structure the results. Thematic analysis was applied to identify the most important determinants that facilitate or hinder implementation of eMH in routine practice. RESULTS:A total of 13,147 articles were screened, of which 48 studies were included in the review. Most studies addressed aspects of the reach (n=33) of eMH, followed by intervention adoption (n=19), implementation of eMH (n=6), and maintenance (n=4) of eMH in routine care. More than half of the studies investigated the provision of mental health services through videoconferencing technologies (n=26), followed by Internet-based interventions (n=20). The majority (n=44) of the studies were of a descriptive nature. Across all RE-AIM domains, we identified 37 determinants clustered in six main themes: acceptance, appropriateness, engagement, resources, work processes, and leadership. The determinants of practices are expressed at different levels, including patients, mental health staff, organizations, and health care system level. Depending on the context, these determinants hinder or facilitate successful implementation of eMH. CONCLUSIONS:Of the 37 determinants, three were reported most frequently: (1) the acceptance of eMH concerning expectations and preferences of patients and professionals about receiving and providing eMH in routine care, (2) the appropriateness of eMH in addressing patients' mental health disorders, and (3) the availability, reliability, and interoperability with other existing technologies such as the electronic health records are important factors for mental health care professionals to remain engaged in providing eMH to their patients in routine care. On the basis of the taxonomy of determinants of practices developed in this review, implementation-enhancing interventions can be designed and applied to achieve better implementation outcomes. Suggestions for future research and implementation practice are provided.