Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review

Decentralized Clinical Trials in Early Drug Development-A Framework Proposal

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rethinking of clinical trial design to maintain clinical research activity, with regulatory changes allowing for the wider implementation and development of decentralized design models. Evidence of the feasibility and benefits associated with a remote design comes mainly from observational studies or phase 2 and 3 clinical trials, in which implementation is easier with a better-established safety profile. Early drug development is a slow and expensive process in which accrual and safety are key aspects of success. Applying a decentralized model to phase 1 clinical trials could improve patient accrual by removing geographic barriers, improving patient population diversity, strengthening evidence for rare tumors, and reducing patients' financial and logistical burdens. However, safety monitoring, data quality, shipment, and administration of the investigational product are challenges to its implementation. Based on published data for decentralized clinical trials, we propose an exploratory framework of solutions to enable the conceptualization of a decentralized model for phase 1 clinical trials.

A consensus process to identify research priorities in paediatric urology in the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

Paediatric urologists manage a spectrum of conditions, much of the evidence for relevant treatment pathways is of low quality. For many conditions treatment varies according to location and surgeon; children with the same condition might have surgery in one unit but watchful waiting in another. Underlying this variation are differences in opinion, and insufficient high-level evidence with few prospective randomized studies. Such studies may be challenging to design, fund and recruit into, and are more likely to succeed if there is a collaborative approach. Research prioritization is a tool to identify the research of most value. Delphi methodology is an interpretive technique aiming to gain the consensus view of interested parties. The British Association of Paediatric Urologists (BAPU) set out to ascertain consensus on what paediatric urologists, working in the UK, consider to be areas of priority for research. This paper describes the process used, and the resulting list of research questions.

METHODS

A scoping survey of paediatric urologists in the UK was undertaken to identify an initial set of research questions. These were refined by the BAPU research committee (BAPU RC), then prioritized using a modified Delphi process. During Stage 1a multiple new research questions were submitted leading to Stage 1b, an interim process. All UK paediatric urologists were invited to take part in Stage 2 of the prioritization process.

RESULTS

Sixty-five questions were submitted to the scoping survey by 24 paediatric urologists. The BAPU RC refined these to 60 questions, which were submitted to Stage 1a of the modified Delphi process. Sixty-seven people completed Stage 1a, at the same time submitting 224 additional research questions. The BAPU RC revised the entire question set, ensuring the key subject of the original question was not altered and novel questions were retained. The BAPU RC undertook interim scoring of the resultant 79 questions, the top scoring 25 questions plus 5 lower scoring 'wild card' questions (to ensure the breadth of the specialty was represented) were put forward to Stage 2. A total of 65 people completed Stage 2, including a lay representative. A list of 30 priority research questions was generated; the top 10 includes management of neuropathic bladder, posterior urethral valves, antibiotic prophylaxis, DSD & CAH, continence, male external genitalia, VUR and transition care (Table).

CONCLUSION

This process has provided BAPU, paediatric urologists in the UK, and funders with areas of research considered a priority in the specialty.

Embedding stakeholder preferences in setting priorities for health research: Using a discrete choice experiment to develop a multi-criteria tool for evaluating research proposals

We determined weights for a multi-criteria tool for assessing the relative merits of clinical-trial research proposals, and investigated whether the weights vary across relevant stakeholder groups. A cross-sectional, adaptive discrete choice experiment using 1000minds online software was administered to consumers, researchers and funders affiliated with the Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA). We identified weights for four criteria-Appropriateness, Significance, Relevance, Feasibility-and their levels, representing their relative importance, so that research proposals can be scored between 0% (nil or very low merit) and 100% (very high merit). From 220 complete survey responses, the most important criterion was Appropriateness (adjusted for differences between stakeholder groups, mean weight 28.9%) and the least important was Feasibility (adjusted mean weight 19.5%). Consumers tended to weight Relevance more highly (2.7% points difference) and Feasibility less highly (3.1% points difference) than researchers. The research or grant writing experience of researchers or consumers was not associated with the weights. A multi-criteria tool for evaluating research proposals that reflects stakeholders' preferences was created. The tool can be used to assess the relative merits of clinical trial research proposals and rank them, to help identify the best proposals for funding.