Dataset Information

More than a box to check: Research sponsor and clinical investigator perspectives on making GCP training relevant.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Good clinical practice (GCP) training is the industry expectation for ensuring quality conduct of registrational clinical trials. However, concerns exist about whether the current structure and delivery of GCP training sufficiently prepares clinical investigators and their delegates to conduct clinical trials.

Methods

We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 13 clinical investigators and 10 research sponsors to 1) examine characteristics of the quality conduct of sponsored clinical trials, including critical tasks and concerns perceived as essential for trial quality, 2) identify key knowledge and skills required to perform critical tasks, and 3) identify gaps and redundancies in GCP training and areas of improvement to ensure quality conduct of clinical trials. Data were examined using applied thematic analysis.

Results

The top three tasks identified as critical for the quality conduct of clinical trials were obtaining informed consent, ensuring protocol compliance, and protecting participants' health and safety. Respondents acknowledged that GCP principles address each of these critical tasks but also described many challenges and burdens of GCP training, including high training frequency and repetitive content. Respondents suggested moving beyond GCP training as a mere check-box activity by making it more effective, engaging, and interactive. They also emphasized that applying GCP principles in a real-world, skills-based environment would increase the perceived relevance of GCP training.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that although investigators and sponsors recognize that GCP training addresses tasks critical to the quality conduct of clinical trials, the need for significant improvement in the design, content, and presentation of GCP training remains.

SUBMITTER: Swezey T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7426536 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

More than a box to check: Research sponsor and clinical investigator perspectives on making GCP training relevant.

Swezey Teresa T McGuire F Hunter FH Hurley Patricia P Panhuis Janette J Goldstein Kathy K Chuck Tina T Dombeck Carrie C Perry Brian B Brennan Christina C Phrsai Natasha N Corneli Amy A

Contemporary clinical trials communications 20200702

<h4>Background</h4>Good clinical practice (GCP) training is the industry expectation for ensuring quality conduct of registrational clinical trials. However, concerns exist about whether the current structure and delivery of GCP training sufficiently prepares clinical investigators and their delegates to conduct clinical trials.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 13 clinical investigators and 10 research sponsors to 1) examine characteristics of the quality c ...[more]

PMID: 32817904

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIf you want to know which of two or more healthcare interventions is most effective, the randomised controlled trial is the design of choice. Randomisation, however, does not itself promote the applicability of the results to situations other than the one in which the trial was done. A tool published in 2009, PRECIS (PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summaries) aimed to help trialists design trials that produced results matched to the aim of the trial, be that supporting clinical decision-making, or increasing knowledge of how an intervention works. Though generally positive, groups evaluating the tool have also found weaknesses, mainly that its inter-rater reliability is not clear, that it needs a scoring system and that some new domains might be needed. The aim of the study is to: Produce an improved and validated version of the PRECIS tool. Use this tool to compare the internal validity of, and effect estimates from, a set of explanatory and pragmatic trials matched by intervention.MethodsThe study has four phases. Phase 1 involves brainstorming and a two-round Delphi survey of authors who cited PRECIS. In Phase 2, the Delphi results will then be discussed and alternative versions of PRECIS-2 developed and user-tested by experienced trialists. Phase 3 will evaluate the validity and reliability of the most promising PRECIS-2 candidate using a sample of 15 to 20 trials rated by 15 international trialists. We will assess inter-rater reliability, and raters' subjective global ratings of pragmatism compared to PRECIS-2 to assess convergent and face validity. Phase 4, to determine if pragmatic trials sacrifice internal validity in order to achieve applicability, will compare the internal validity and effect estimates of matched explanatory and pragmatic trials of the same intervention, condition and participants. Effect sizes for the trials will then be compared in a meta-regression. The Cochrane Risk of Bias scores will be compared with the PRECIS-2 scores of pragmatism.DiscussionWe have concrete suggestions for improving PRECIS and a growing list of enthusiastic individuals interested in contributing to this work. By early 2014 we expect to have a validated PRECIS-2.

Project description:AimsWe explored the experiences and motivations of participants and staff who took part in the TRED-HF trial (Therapy withdrawal in REcovered Dilated cardiomyopathy).Methods and resultsWe conducted a qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews, with participants (n = 12) and the research team (n = 4) from the TRED-HF trial. Interviews were carried out in 2019 and were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were managed using NVivo and analysed using framework analysis. A patient representative provided guidance on the interpretation of findings and presentation of themes to ensure these remained meaningful, and an accurate representation, to those living with dilated cardiomyopathy. Three key themes emerged from the data: (i) perception of health; (ii) experiences and relationships with healthcare services and researchers; and (iii) perception of risk. Study participants held differing perceptions of their health; some did not consider themselves to have a heart condition or disagreed with the medical term 'heart failure'. Relationships between participants, research staff, and clinical management teams influenced participants' experiences and decision making during the trial, including following clinical advice. There were differences in participants' perceptions of risk and their decisions to take heart failure medication after the trial was completed. Although the original TRED-HF trial did not provide the results many had hoped for, a strong motivator for taking part was the opportunity to withdraw medication in a safely monitored environment which had been previously considered by some participants before. Investigators acknowledged that the insights gained from the study can now be used to support evidence-based conversations with patients.ConclusionsFor people whose dilated cardiomyopathy is in remission, decisions to continue, reduce, or stop their medication are influenced by perceptions of personal health, perceive risk and the important of work, employment, recreation, relationships, and long-term plans. The unique relationship between patient and cardiologist provides opportunities to promote honest discussion about adherence to medication and personalized long-term management.

Dataset Information

More than a box to check: Research sponsor and clinical investigator perspectives on making GCP training relevant.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

More than a box to check: Research sponsor and clinical investigator perspectives on making GCP training relevant.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets