Dataset Information

Lessons learned from conducting the first cancer care delivery trial in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance A191402CD).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Testing healthcare delivery interventions in rigorous clinical trials is a critical step in improving patient care, but conducting multisite randomized clinical trials to test the effect of care delivery interventions has unique challenges and requires foresight and planning.

Methods

We conducted the first care delivery trial (A191402CD) in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, a National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program research base, which tested the effectiveness of two different decision aids for supporting shared decision-making about prostate cancer treatment. Our experience illustrates the kind of challenges that confront care delivery researchers as they seek to test interventions to improve the experiences of patients.

Results

Lessons learned include the following: cluster-randomized designs introduce complexity; workflow disruption can discourage site participation; evidence-based methods may not always be sufficient.

Conclusion

We conclude with the following recommendations: assessing feasibility requires special rigor; relationships and interpersonal dynamics must be leveraged. Our experiences may inform future care delivery research.

SUBMITTER: Pacyna JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10523847 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lessons learned from conducting the first cancer care delivery trial in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance A191402CD).

Pacyna Joel E JE Dueck Amylou C AC Chang George J GJ Chow Selina S Paskett Electra D ED Kim Simon S Tilburt Jon C JC

Clinical trials (London, England) 20230412 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>Testing healthcare delivery interventions in rigorous clinical trials is a critical step in improving patient care, but conducting multisite randomized clinical trials to test the effect of care delivery interventions has unique challenges and requires foresight and planning.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted the first care delivery trial (A191402CD) in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, a National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program research base, whic ...[more]

PMID: 37050880

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAlliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) coordinated trials utilize Medidata Rave® (Rave) as the primary clinical data capture system. A growing number of innovative and complex cancer care delivery research (CCDR) trials are being conducted within the Alliance with the aims of studying and improving cancer-related care. Because these trials encompass patients, providers, practices, and their interactions, a defining characteristic of CCDR trials is multilevel data collection in pragmatic settings. Consequently, CCDR trials necessitated innovative strategies for database development, centralized data management, and data monitoring in the presence of these real-world multilevel relationships. Having real trial experience in working with community and academic centers, and having recently implemented five CCDR trials in Rave, we are committed to sharing our strategies and lessons learned in implementing such pragmatic trials in oncology.MethodsFive Alliance CCDR trials are used to describe our approach to analyzing the database development needs and the novel strategies applied to overcome the unanticipated challenges we encountered. The strategies applied are organized into 3 categories: multilevel (clinic, clinic stakeholder, patient) enrollment, multilevel quantitative and qualitative data capture, including nontraditional data capture mechanisms being applied, and multilevel data monitoring.ResultsA notable lesson learned in each category was (1) to seek long-term solutions when developing the functionality to push patient and non-patient enrollments to their respective Rave study database that affords flexibility if new participant types are later added; (2) to be open to different data collection modalities, particularly if such modalities remove barriers to participation, recognizing that additional resources are needed to develop the infrastructure to exchange data between that modality and Rave; and (3) to facilitate multilevel data monitoring, orient site coordinators to the their trial's multiple study databases, each corresponding to a level in the hierarchy, and remind them to establish the link between patient and non-patient participants in the site-facing NCI web-based enrollment system.ConclusionAlthough the challenges due to multilevel data collection in pragmatic settings were surmountable, our shared experience can inform and foster collaborations to collectively build on our past successes and improve on our past failures to address the gaps.

Project description:BackgroundCancer Care Delivery (CCD) research studies often require practice-level interventions that pose challenges in the clinical trial setting. The SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) conducted S1415CD, one of the first pragmatic cluster-randomized CCD trials to be implemented through the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Program (NCORP), to compare outcomes of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) use for an intervention of automated PP-CSF standing orders to usual care. The introduction of new methods for study implementation created challenges and opportunities for learning that can inform the design and approach of future CCD interventions.MethodsThe order entry system intervention was administered at the site level; sites were affiliated NCORP practices that shared the same chemotherapy order system. 32 sites without existing guideline-based PP-CSF standing orders were randomized to the intervention (n = 24) or to usual care (n = 8). Sites assigned to the intervention participated in tailored training, phone calls and onboarding activities administered by research team staff and were provided with additional funding and external IT support to help them make protocol required changes to their order entry systems.ResultsThe average length of time for intervention sites to complete reconfiguration of their order sets following randomization was 7.2 months. 14 of 24 of intervention sites met their individual patient recruitment target of 99 patients enrolled per site.ConclusionsIn this paper we share seven recommendations based on lessons learned from implementation of the S1415CD intervention at NCORP community oncology practices representing diverse geographies and patient populations across the U. S. It is our hope these recommendations can be used to guide future implementation of CCD interventions in both research and community settings.Trial registrationNCT02728596 , registered April 5, 2016.

Project description:Background The Tinnitus Retraining Therapy Trial (TRTT), a randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial, evaluated the efficacy of tinnitus retraining therapy and its individual components, tinnitus-specific educational counseling and sound therapy versus the standard of care, in military practice to improve study participants' quality of life. The trial was conducted at six US military hospitals to take advantage of the greater prevalence of tinnitus in the military population. Methods During the trial, various challenges arose that were uniquely related to the military setting. To convey these challenges to investigators planning future multi-center trials in military hospitals, we itemized various challenges that arose during the trial, interviewed clinic directors and coordinators to elicit their viewpoints, and then collated and organized their responses, together with those challenges presented while conducting the Tinnitus Retraining Therapy Trial. Results We encountered challenges in site selection, the approval process, administrative issues, study personnel training and retention, participant recruitment methods and issues, adherence to protocol, reimbursement issues, and military security. Site selection involved visiting 20 military hospitals to identify six sites that enrolled and followed study participants. We found that commitment for the trial must be obtained from the full military chain of command, but with ongoing changes in staff or military priorities, initial commitments were insufficient to sustain support throughout the entire trial. More time is required to obtain necessary administrative approvals by various military authorities and institutional review boards than is typically experienced in civilian settings. Recruitment strategies must be flexible due to changing military regulations regarding display of materials. Protracted periods of inactivity were due to sequestration and delays in institutional review board approval of required study personnel or protocol amendments. While mostly adherent to the protocol, study staff had difficulties in integrating study visits into the military clinical schedule. Unexpected study expenses revolved around hiring civilian study staff and obtaining associated security clearance while maintaining a consistent flow of funds to each site. The added expense negated cost savings realized by conducting the National Institutes of Health-funded trial at federal institutions, whose personnel could not be reimbursed for their efforts. Military security concerns impacted the use of web-based data systems and led to increased time and effort required for site visits. Conclusion Overall, US military hospitals provide a unique setting to conduct multi-center trials. Challenges arise mainly due to ever-changing authority personnel and military priorities. Pre-planning and flexibility are keys in overcoming these challenges. Multi-center trials conducted in the military will likely take longer to initiate and complete than those in the civilian sector due to multiple levels of command and administrative approvals.

Project description:Simulation-based research has grown substantially over the past two decades; however, relatively few published simulation studies are multicenter in nature. Multicenter research confers many distinct advantages over single-center studies, including larger sample sizes for more generalizable findings, sharing resources amongst collaborative sites, and promoting networking. Well-executed multicenter studies are more likely to improve provider performance and/or have a positive impact on patient outcomes. In this manuscript, we offer a step-by-step guide to conducting multicenter, simulation-based research based upon our collective experience with the International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research and Education (INSPIRE). Like multicenter clinical research, simulation-based multicenter research can be divided into four distinct phases. Each phase has specific differences when applied to simulation research: (1) Planning phase, to define the research question, systematically review the literature, identify outcome measures, and conduct pilot studies to ensure feasibility and estimate power; (2) Project Development phase, when the primary investigator identifies collaborators, develops the protocol and research operations manual, prepares grant applications, obtains ethical approval and executes subsite contracts, registers the study in a clinical trial registry, forms a manuscript oversight committee, and conducts feasibility testing and data validation at each site; (3) Study Execution phase, involving recruitment and enrollment of subjects, clear communication and decision-making, quality assurance measures and data abstraction, validation, and analysis; and (4) Dissemination phase, where the research team shares results via conference presentations, publications, traditional media, social media, and implements strategies for translating results to practice. With this manuscript, we provide a guide to conducting quantitative multicenter research with a focus on simulation-specific issues.

Dataset Information

Lessons learned from conducting the first cancer care delivery trial in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance A191402CD).

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Lessons learned from conducting the first cancer care delivery trial in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance A191402CD).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets