Financial disclosure and clinical research: what is important to participants?

Good Financial Practice and Clinical Research Coordinator Responsibilities

OBJECTIVES

To describe clinical research billing pitfalls and good financial practices the research nurse coordinator can implement to decrease billing errors in clinical practice.

DATA SOURCES

Government websites, published articles, and the author's expertise in national/international research studies.

CONCLUSION

Clinical research billing is a risky business. It involves many steps in the process and requires good communication among all key stakeholders. The clinical research coordinator is the key team player to facilitate good financial practices for research billing. Creating and applying standards, cross-functional transparent communication, and effective processes across the organization can help to increase billing compliance and decreases billing risk to the organization.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The research billing process is a critical component of clinical research. However, billing in the process of generating evidence to inform clinical practice is not included in the core competencies in nursing curriculum. As such, in the real world many nurses grapple with taking on the new role of being a clinical research coordinator. Developing knowledge and understanding about the potential billing pitfalls and good financial practices can support clinical research nurses to decrease billing errors and exposure to risk.

What adolescents enrolled in genomic addiction research want to know about conflicts of interest

BACKGROUND

Perspectives of adolescent research participants regarding conflicts of interest (COIs) and their impact on trust in researchers have not been studied. This study evaluates views of adolescent patients in treatment for substance and conduct problems compared to controls enrolled in genomic addiction research.

METHODS

Participants included 273 (190 patients, 83 controls) adolescents. Participants consented or assented (with parental consent) to have their genomic information deposited in a NIH biobank that shares information globally with qualified investigators. As part of that study, participants completed a COI survey. Endorsement of each COI item was analyzed with multiple logistic regressions, evaluating group, age, sex, ethnicity, and highest grade completed.

RESULTS

Patients and controls differed in gender, ethnicity and highest grade completed. In response to the survey, 38.4% of patients and 25.3% of controls "want to know" and 35.3% of patients and 37.3% of controls "might want to know" about COIs. Males were less likely to want/might want disclosure about COIs. Older patients were more likely to want disclosure about financial interests; patients were more likely to want disclosure about possible treatments; males were more likely to want information about monetary gains. Both groups requested between 1 paragraph and 1 page of information. Disclosure of COIs did not impact trust for most participants.

CONCLUSION

Adolescent patients and controls in this study want comparable information for disclosure of COIs including monetary gains, salary, publications, grants, and professional awards. Notably, the majority of patients and controls report that disclosure will not undermine trust in researchers.

What potential research participants want to know about research: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To establish the empirical evidence base for the information that participants want to know about medical research and to assess how this relates to current guidance from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES).

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Web of Science, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological abstracts, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane Library, thesis index's, grey literature databases, reference and cited article lists, key journals, Google Scholar and correspondence with expert authors.

STUDY SELECTION

Original research studies published between 1950 and October 2010 that asked potential participants to indicate how much or what types of information they wanted to be told about a research study or asked them to rate the importance of a specific piece of information were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Studies were appraised based on the generalisability of results to the UK potential research participant population. A metadata analysis using basic thematic analysis was used to split results from papers into themes based on the sections of information that NRES recommends should be included in a participant information sheet.

RESULTS

14 studies were included. Of the 20 pieces of information that NRES recommend should be included in patient information sheets for research pooled proportions could be calculated for seven themes. Results showed that potential participants wanted to be offered information about result dissemination (91% (95% CI 85% to 95%)), investigator conflicts of interest (48% (95% CI 27% to 69%)), the purpose of the study (76% (95% CI 27% to 100%)), voluntariness (39% (95% CI 2% to 100%)), how long the research would last (61% (95% CI 16% to 97%)), potential benefits (57% (95% CI 7% to 98%)) and confidentiality (44% (95% CI 10% to 82%)). The level of detail participants wanted to know was not explored comprehensively in the studies. There was no empirical evidence to support the level of information provision required by participants on the remaining seven items.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited empirical evidence on what potential participants want to know about research. The existing empirical evidence suggests that individuals may have very different needs and a more tailored evidence-based approach may be necessary.