Infrastructure challenges to doing health research "where populations with the most disease live" in Covid times-a response to Rai et al. (2021)

Background

The failure of randomised controlled trials to adequately reflect areas of highest health need have been repeatedly highlighted. This has implications for the validity and generalisability of findings, for equity and efficiency, but also for research capacity-building. Rai et al. (BMC Med Res Methodol 21:80, 2021) recently argued that the poor alignment between UK clinical research activity (specifically multi-centre RCTs) and local prevalence of disease was, in part, the outcome of behaviour and decision-making by Chief Investigators involved in trial research. They argued that a shift in research culture was needed. Following our recent multi-site mixed methods evaluative study about NHS 111 online we identify some of the additional structural barriers to delivering health research “where populations with the most disease live”, accounting for the Covid-19 disruption to processes and delivery.

Methods

The NHS 111 study used a mixed-method research design, including interviews with healthcare staff and stakeholders within the primary, urgent and emergency health care system, and a survey of users and potential users of the NHS 111 online service. This paper draws on data collated by the research team during site identification and selection, as we followed an action research cycle of planning, action, observation and reflection. The process results were discussed among the authors, and grouped into the two themes presented.

Results

We approached 22 primary and secondary care sites across England, successfully recruiting half of these. Time from initial approach to first participant recruitment in successful sites ranged from one to ten months. This paper describes frontline bureaucratic barriers to research delivery and recruitment in the local Clinical Research Network system and secondary care sites carrying large research portfolios, alongside the adaptive practices of research practitioners that mitigate these.

Conclusions

This paper augments the recommendations of Rai et al., describing delays encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic, and suggesting in addition to cultural change, it may be additionally important to dismantle infrastructural barriers and improve support to research teams so they can conduct health research “where populations with the most disease live”.

Surgical Clinical Trials in India: Underutilized Opportunities

Clinical trials in Surgery are central to research; however, very few surgical clinical trials are conducted in India. Such paucity of surgical trials is a cause for concern, and prompted us to explore the recent landscape of surgical trials in India. We reviewed all clinical trials from general surgery or subspecialties of general surgery registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India website between 2018 to 15 th May 2021. Specific details such as the surgical subspecialty, study design, multicentric or single institution and funding were obtained. We found a total of 16,710 trials, out of these 4119 (24.6%) were related to all surgical fields. Only 136 (0.8%) trials were found from general surgery and its subspecialties. Most trials were registered from Central Government Institutions (48%), followed by State Government Medical Colleges (11%). Most number of trials was registered from GI surgery (32%). Most (90.5%) trials were single centre based. Common barriers to research are well known; if the State Government Medical Colleges can mentor a culture of research from an early stage of surgical training it can improve research productivity. Multicentre trials, involving smaller hospitals from tier 2 and tier 3 cities, are a potential solution to one of the major obstacles of surgical trials i.e. small number of patients; especially in this pandemic induced draught of elective surgical operations. A positive change in attitude of surgeons and provision of necessary funding can encourage more surgical clinical trials in India.

Adolescent Barriers to HIV Prevention Research: Are Parental Consent Requirements the Biggest Obstacle?

PURPOSE

One third of people newly living with HIV/AIDS are adolescents. Research on adolescent HIV prevention is critical owing to differences between adolescents and adults. Parental permission requirements are often considered a barrier to adolescent enrollment in research, but whether adolescents view this barrier as the most important one is unclear.

METHODS

Adolescents were approached in schools in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, and at a sexually transmitted infection clinic at the Children's Hospital of Aurora, Colorado. Surveys with a hypothetical vignette about participation in a pre-exposure prophylaxis trial were conducted on smartphones or tablets with 75 adolescents at each site. We calculated descriptive statistics for all variables, using 2-sample tests for equality of proportions with continuity correction. Statistical significance was calculated at p < 0.05. Multivariate analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

Most adolescents thought side effects (77%) and parental consent requirements (69%) were very important barriers to research participation. When asked to rank barriers, adolescents did not agree on a single barrier as most important, but the largest group of adolescents ranked parental consent requirements as most important (29.5%). Parental consent was seen as more of a barrier for adolescents in South Africa than in the United States. Concerns about being experimented on or researchers' mandatory reporting to authorities were ranked much lower. Finally, most (71%, n = 106) adolescents said they would want to extra support from another adult if parental permission was not required.

CONCLUSION

Adolescents consider both parental permission requirements and side effects important barriers to their enrollment in HIV prevention research. Legal reform and better communication strategies may help address these barriers.

Understanding barriers for research involvement among paediatric trainees: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Child Health research is reported to be at worryingly low level by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Recent survey showed that 54.5% of paediatric consultants in the United Kingdom do not do any research at all. We conducted a mixed methods study to understand barriers and facilitators for research involvement among paediatric trainees who are going to fill these consultant posts in the future.

METHODS

A questionnaire based on a validated index for research and development was completed by 136 paediatric trainees within a region in the North of England (Yorkshire and Humber). Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with stratified purposive sampling. Descriptive statistics and Chi-Square test for independence were used for quantitative analysis. Thematic content analysis was done for interviews based on analysis method framework.

RESULTS

136 out of 396 trainees responded to the survey. There was a significant relationship between confidence in using research in practice and ability to understand research terminology. This was not related to research experience or training. Males were significantly more likely to have presented a research paper, know how research influences practice and have more confidence in using research in practice than females. There was no significant relationship between gender and research training or highest qualification. Time constraints and lack of academic culture were the most frequently mentioned barriers in the survey. Over-arching themes identified from the interviews were related to lack of academic culture, opportunities provided in current training scheme and constraints related to time availability along with workforce management.

CONCLUSION

Paediatric research requires a supportive academic culture with more flexibility in training scheme and immediate attention to a pressing staffing crisis.