Extending the clinical research network approach to all of healthcare

Theory-guided interviews identified behavioral barriers and enablers to healthcare professionals recruiting participants to maternity trials

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a behavioral investigation, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), to identify barriers and enablers to maternity healthcare professionals (HCP) inviting all eligible women to participate in a maternity care trial.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We invited HCP recruiters from maternity care trials in high priority research areas including, diabetes, preeclampsia and breastfeeding, from across Ireland and the UK, to take part in a semi-structured interview. Data collection was informed by the TDF, followed by inductive thematic analysis and deductive mapping to the TDF.

RESULTS

Twenty-two recruiters including midwives, nurses, allied health professionals and doctors were interviewed online or by telephone phone. Thematic analysis generated four global themes; Availability and accessibility of resources, Navigating the recruitment pathway, Prioritising clinical responsibilities over research responsibilities and The influence of colleagues and peers. Themes were mapped to the TDF, identifying 13 domains relevant to the behaviour.

CONCLUSION

This paper identifies the factors enabling or inhibiting maternity HCP recruiters to invite all eligible women to participate in a maternity care trial. The findings provide guidance for researchers designing trials for this population and the essential first step in developing a recruiter-focused behaviour change intervention to support recruitment to trials in maternity care.

Activities supporting the growth of Clinical Trial Networks in Australia

Clinical Trial Networks in which trialists work collaboratively enable multi-site, large-scale, high-quality clinical trials to be efficiently run. Although the benefits of Clinical Trial Networks are largely known, establishing a Clinical Trial Network can be complex. There are many factors for clinicians and researchers to consider, and there is currently a paucity of information on how to form a Clinical Trial Network. This article provides a suggested roadmap on how to establish a Clinical Trial Network. The Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA) is the peak body for Clinical Trial Networks, Coordinating Centres and Registries in Australia, and has produced several resources to support the effective and efficient running of clinical trials. This guide has come about through discussions with members of the ACTA Clinical Trial Network Sector Expansion Reference Group consisting of clinical trialists, clinicians, researchers, and consumers.

Working together to deliver stratified medicine research effectively

INTRODUCTION OR BACKGROUND

Stratified medicine is an important area of research across all clinical specialties, with far reaching impact in many spheres. Despite recently formulated global policy and research programmes, major challenges for delivering stratified medicine studies persist. Across the globe, clinical research infrastructures have been setup to facilitate high quality clinical research.

SOURCES OF DATA

This article reviews the literature and summarizes views collated from a workshop held by the UK Pharmacogenetics and Stratified Medicine Network and the NIHR Clinical Research Network in November 2016.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Stratified medicine is an important area of clinical research and health policy, benefitting from substantial international, cross-sector investment and has the potential to transform patient care. However there are significant challenges to the delivery of stratified medicine studies.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Complex methodology and lack of consistency of definition and agreement on key approaches to the design, regulation and delivery of research contribute to these challenges and would benefit from greater focus.

GROWING POINTS

Effective partnership and development of consistent approaches to the key factors relating to stratified medicine research is required to help overcome these challenges.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

This paper examines the critical contribution clinical research networks can make to the delivery of national (and international) initiatives in the field of stratified medicine. Importantly, it examines the position of clinical research in stratified medicine at a time when pressures on the clinical and social services are mounting.

Strategies designed to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants to research studies

BACKGROUND

Identifying and approaching eligible participants for recruitment to research studies usually relies on healthcare professionals. This process is sometimes hampered by deliberate or inadvertent gatekeeping that can introduce bias into patient selection.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to identify and assess the effect of strategies designed to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants to research studies.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches on 5 January 2015 in the following electronic databases: Cochrane Methodology Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, PsycINFO, ASSIA and Web of Science (SSCI, SCI-EXPANDED) from 1985 onwards. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant review articles and did citation tracking through Web of Science for all included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all studies that evaluated a strategy to identify and recruit participants for research via healthcare professionals and provided pre-post comparison data on recruitment rates.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results for potential eligibility, read full papers, applied the selection criteria and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios for each study to indicate the effect of each strategy.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies met our eligibility criteria and all were at medium or high risk of bias. Only five studies gave the total number of participants (totalling 7372 participants). Three studies used a randomised design, with the others using pre-post comparisons. Several different strategies were investigated. Four studies examined the impact of additional visits or information for the study site, with no increases in recruitment demonstrated. Increased recruitment rates were reported in two studies that used a dedicated clinical recruiter, and five studies that introduced an automated alert system for identifying eligible participants. The studies were embedded into trials evaluating care in oncology mainly but also in emergency departments, diabetes and lower back pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no strong evidence for any single strategy to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants in research studies. Additional visits or information did not appear to increase recruitment by healthcare professionals. The most promising strategies appear to be those with a dedicated resource (e.g. a clinical recruiter or automated alert system) for identifying suitable participants that reduced the demand on healthcare professionals, but these were assessed in studies at high risk of bias.

Impact on the individual: what do patients and carers gain, lose and expect from being involved in research?

BACKGROUND

Study feasibility and deliverability can benefit from involving patients and carers in the research process, known as patient and public involvement (PPI). There is less evidence on the experiences of patients and carers themselves and we require more information across a range of studies, health conditions and research stages.

AIMS

This study explored how patients and carers in eight diagnostic research specialties have been involved in research, their motivations and the impact involvement had on them.

METHOD

143 patients and carers across the Clinical Research Network (CRN) responded to an online semi-structured questionnaire (developed using participatory methodology). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed.

RESULTS

A range of benefits were reported, including providing a life focus and an improved relationship with illness. Less positive experiences regarding time and money and lack of acknowledgement were also reported, along with suggestions for improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI confers many benefits on patients and carers which could increase PPI recruitment if made explicit. More involvement in study recruitment and dissemination would increase the effectiveness of PPI input. Involving a more varied socioeconomic demographic and at an earlier stage is vital. Financial support for lower earners and greater feedback following involvement should also be explored.

Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review

OBJECTIVE

There is a widely held assumption that engagement by clinicians and healthcare organisations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels, but little direct empirical evidence has previously been collated. The objective of this study was to address the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organisations) improve healthcare performance?

METHODS

An hourglass-shaped review was developed, consisting of three stages: (1) a planning and mapping stage; (2) a focused review concentrating on the core question of whether or not research engagement improves healthcare performance; and (3) a wider (but less systematic) review of papers identified during the two earlier stages, focusing on mechanisms.

RESULTS

Of the 33 papers included in the focused review, 28 identified improvements in health services performance. Seven out of these papers reported some improvement in health outcomes, with others reporting improved processes of care. The wider review demonstrated that mechanisms such as collaborative and action research can encourage some progress along the pathway from research engagement towards improved healthcare performance. Organisations that have deliberately integrated the research function into organisational structures demonstrate how research engagement can, among other factors, contribute to improved healthcare performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that there is an association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organisations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The mechanisms through which research engagement might improve healthcare performance overlap and rarely act in isolation, and their effectiveness often depends on the context in which they operate.

Design and conduct of a large obstetric or neonatal randomized controlled trial

As event rates fall, if mortality and disability are to improve further there is increasing need for large, well-designed trials. These should enroll more patients, more rapidly and at lower cost, with better representation of infants at highest risk and greater integration with routine care. This may require simpler datasets, linkage with routinely collected data, and international collaboration. It may be helpful to draw attention to recent evidence that participation in Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is at least as safe as receiving established care. Nationally coordinated clinical research networks employing local research staff may be the single most effective strategy to integrate clinical trials into routine practice. Other goals are: international standardization of outcomes; consensus on composite endpoints, biomarkers, surrogates and measures of disability; greater efficiency through randomized factorial designs and cluster or cross-over cluster RCTs; and equipping parents as partners in all aspects of the conduct of RCTs and in implementing their results.

The impact of registration of clinical trials units: the UK experience

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, the United Kingdom has invested significant resources in its clinical trial infrastructure. Clinical research networks have been formed, and some general oversight functions for clinical research have been centralised. One of the initiatives is a registration programme for Clinical Trials Units involved in the coordination of clinical trials. An international review panel of experts in clinical trials has been convened for three reviews over time, reviewing applications from Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom. The process benefited from earlier work by the National Cancer Research Institute that developed accreditation procedures for trials units involved in cancer trials. This article describes the experience with the three reviews of UK Clinical Trials Units which submitted applications.

PURPOSE

This article describes the evolution and impact of this registration process from the perspective of the current international review panel members, some of whom have served on all reviews, including two done by the National Cancer Research Institute.

PROCESS

Applications for registration were invited from all active, non-commercial Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom. The invitations were issued in 2007, 2009 and 2012, and applicants were asked to describe their expertise and staffing levels in specific areas. To ensure that the reviews were as objective as possible, a description of expected core competencies was developed and applicants were asked to document their compliance with meeting these. The review panel assessed each Clinical Trials Unit against the competencies. The Clinical Trials Unit registration process has evolved over time with each successive review benefiting from what was learned in earlier ones.

RESULTS

The review panel has seen positive changes over time, including an increase in the number of units applying, a greater awareness on the part of host institutions about the trials activity within their organisations, more widespread development of Standard Operating Procedures in key areas and improvements in information technology systems used to host clinical trials databases. Key funders are awarding funds only to registered units, and host institutions are implementing procedures and structures to ensure improved communication between all parties involved in trials within their organisation.

CONCLUSION

The registration process developed in the United Kingdom has helped to ensure that trials units in the United Kingdom are compliant with regulatory standards and can meet acceptable standards of quality in their conduct of clinical trials. There is an increased awareness among funders, host institutions and Clinical Trials Units themselves of the required competencies, and communication between all those involved in trials has increased. The registration process is an effective and financially viable way of ensuring that objective standards are met at a national level.

Engagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance

Background

There is a widely held assumption that research engagement improves health-care performance at various levels, but little direct empirical evidence.

Objectives

To conduct a theoretically and empirically grounded synthesis to map and explore plausible mechanisms through which research engagement might improve health services performance. A review of the effects on patients of their health-care practitioner's or institution's participation in clinical trials was published after submission of the proposal for this review. It identified only 13 relevant papers and, overall, suggested that the evidence that research engagement improves health-care performance was less strong than some thought. We aimed to meet the need for a wider review.

Methods

An hourglass review was developed, consisting of three stages: (1) a planning and mapping stage; (2) a focused review concentrating on the core question of whether or not research engagement improves health care; and (3) a wider (but less systematic) review of papers identified during the two earlier stages. Studies were included inthe focused review if the concept of ‘engagementinresearch’ was an input and some measure of ‘performance’ an output. The search strategy covered the period 1990 to March 2012. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science and other relevant databases were searched. A total of 10,239 papers were identified through the database searches, and 159 from other sources. A further relevance and quality check on 473 papers was undertaken, and identified 33 papers for inclusion in the review. A standard meta-analysis was not possible on the heterogeneous mix of papers in the focused review. Therefore an explanatory matrix was developed to help characterise the circumstances in which research engagement might improve health-care performance and the mechanisms that might be at work, identifying two main dimensions along which to categorise the studies:the degree of intentionalityandthe scope of the impact.

Results

Of the 33 papers in the focused review, 28 were positive (of which six were positive/mixed) in relation to the question of whether or not research engagement improves health-care performance. Five papers were negative (of which two were negative/mixed). Seven out of 28 positive papers reported some improvement in health outcomes. For the rest, the improved care took the form of improved processes of care. Nine positive papers were at a clinician level and 19 at an institutional level. The wider review demonstrated, for example, how collaborative and action research can encourage some progress along the pathway from research engagement towards improved health-care performance. There is also evidence that organisations in which the research function is fully integrated into the organisational structure out-perform other organisations that pay less formal heed to research and its outputs. The focused and wider reviews identified the diversity in the mechanisms through which research engagement might improve health care: there are many circumstances and mechanisms at work, more than one mechanism is often operative, and the evidence available for each one is limited.

Limitations

To address the complexities of this evidence synthesis of research we needed to spend significant time mapping the literature, and narrowed the research question to make it feasible. We excluded many potentially relevant papers (though we partially addressed this by conducting a wider additional synthesis). Studies assessing the impact made on clinician behaviour by small, locally conducted pieces of research could be difficult to interpret without full knowledge of the context.

Conclusions

Drawing on the focused and wider reviews, it is suggested that when clinicians and health-care organisations engage in research there is the likelihood of a positive impact on health-care performance. Organisations that have deliberately integrated the research function into organisational structures demonstrate how research engagement can, among other factors, contribute to improved health-care performance. Further explorations are required of research networks and schemes to promote the engagement of clinicians and managers in research. Detailed observational research focusing on research engagement within organisations would build up an understanding of mechanisms.

Study registration

PROSPERO: CRD42012001990.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The Royal College of Physicians Simms Lecture, 6 December 2011: clinical research networks and the benefits of intensive healthcare systems

Clinical research contributes to the evidence base for the planning of improved healthcare services and creates an excellent environment for the delivery of healthcare and the recruitment and retention of excellent and well-motivated staff. In this paper, we consider the evidence that a research-intensive healthcare system might yield improved outcomes as a result of the impact of the process of research on the provision of care. We review progress in establishing clinical research networks for cancer and the evidence of the impact of the conduct of clinical cancer research in the National Health Service.

Research-intensive cancer care in the NHS in the UK

In the late 1990 s, in response to poor national cancer survival figures, government monies were invested to enhance recruitment to clinical cancer research. Commencing with England in 2001 and then rolling out across all four countries, a network of clinical cancer research infrastructure was created, the new staff being linked to existing clinical care structures including multi-disciplinary teams. In parallel, a UK-wide co-ordination of cancer research funders driven by the 'virtual' National Cancer Research Institute, combined to create a 'whole-system approach' linking research funders, researchers and NHS clinicians all working to the same ends. Over the next 10 years, recruitment to clinical trials and other well-designed studies, increased 4-fold, reaching 17% of the incident cancer population, the highest national rate world-wide. The additional resources led to more studies opened, and more patients recruited across the country, for all types of cancers and irrespective of additional clinical research staff in some hospitals. In 2006, a co-ordinated decision was made to increasingly focus on randomized trials, leading to increased recruitment, without any fall-off in accrual to non-randomized and observational studies. The National Cancer Research Network has supported large successful trials which are changing clinical practice in many cancers.