Cargando…

Towards the development of a comprehensive framework: Qualitative systematic survey of definitions of clinical research quality

OBJECTIVE: To systematically survey existing definitions, concepts, and criteria of clinical research quality, both developed by stakeholder groups as well as in the medical literature. This study serves as a first step in the development of a comprehensive framework for the quality of clinical rese...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: von Niederhäusern, Belinda, Schandelmaier, Stefan, Mi Bonde, Marie, Brunner, Nicole, Hemkens, Lars G., Rutquist, Marielle, Bhatnagar, Neera, Guyatt, Gordon H., Pauli-Magnus, Christiane, Briel, Matthias
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513422/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28715491
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180635
_version_ 1783250659703783424
author von Niederhäusern, Belinda
Schandelmaier, Stefan
Mi Bonde, Marie
Brunner, Nicole
Hemkens, Lars G.
Rutquist, Marielle
Bhatnagar, Neera
Guyatt, Gordon H.
Pauli-Magnus, Christiane
Briel, Matthias
author_facet von Niederhäusern, Belinda
Schandelmaier, Stefan
Mi Bonde, Marie
Brunner, Nicole
Hemkens, Lars G.
Rutquist, Marielle
Bhatnagar, Neera
Guyatt, Gordon H.
Pauli-Magnus, Christiane
Briel, Matthias
author_sort von Niederhäusern, Belinda
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To systematically survey existing definitions, concepts, and criteria of clinical research quality, both developed by stakeholder groups as well as in the medical literature. This study serves as a first step in the development of a comprehensive framework for the quality of clinical research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically and in duplicate searched definitions, concepts and criteria of clinical research quality on websites of stakeholders in clinical research until no further insights emerged and in MEDLINE up to February 2015. Stakeholders included governmental bodies, regulatory agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, academic and commercial contract research organizations, initiatives, research ethics committees, patient organizations and funding agencies from 13 countries. Data synthesis involved descriptive and qualitative analyses following the Framework Method on definitions, concepts, and criteria of clinical research quality. Descriptive codes were applied and grouped into clusters to identify common and stakeholder-specific quality themes. RESULTS: Stakeholder concepts on how to assure quality throughout study conduct or articles on quality assessment tools were common, generally with no a priori definition of the term quality itself. We identified a total of 20 explicit definitions of clinical research quality including varying quality dimensions and focusing on different stages in the clinical research process. Encountered quality dimensions include ethical conduct, patient safety/rights/priorities, internal validity, precision of results, generalizability or external validity, scientific and societal relevance, transparency and accessibility of information, research infrastructure and sustainability. None of the definitions appeared to be comprehensive either in terms of quality dimensions, research stages, or stakeholder perspectives. CONCLUSION: Clinical research quality is often discussed but rarely defined. A framework defining clinical research quality across stakeholders’ individual perspectives is desirable to facilitate discussion, assessment, and improvement of quality at all stages of clinical research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5513422
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55134222017-08-07 Towards the development of a comprehensive framework: Qualitative systematic survey of definitions of clinical research quality von Niederhäusern, Belinda Schandelmaier, Stefan Mi Bonde, Marie Brunner, Nicole Hemkens, Lars G. Rutquist, Marielle Bhatnagar, Neera Guyatt, Gordon H. Pauli-Magnus, Christiane Briel, Matthias PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: To systematically survey existing definitions, concepts, and criteria of clinical research quality, both developed by stakeholder groups as well as in the medical literature. This study serves as a first step in the development of a comprehensive framework for the quality of clinical research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically and in duplicate searched definitions, concepts and criteria of clinical research quality on websites of stakeholders in clinical research until no further insights emerged and in MEDLINE up to February 2015. Stakeholders included governmental bodies, regulatory agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, academic and commercial contract research organizations, initiatives, research ethics committees, patient organizations and funding agencies from 13 countries. Data synthesis involved descriptive and qualitative analyses following the Framework Method on definitions, concepts, and criteria of clinical research quality. Descriptive codes were applied and grouped into clusters to identify common and stakeholder-specific quality themes. RESULTS: Stakeholder concepts on how to assure quality throughout study conduct or articles on quality assessment tools were common, generally with no a priori definition of the term quality itself. We identified a total of 20 explicit definitions of clinical research quality including varying quality dimensions and focusing on different stages in the clinical research process. Encountered quality dimensions include ethical conduct, patient safety/rights/priorities, internal validity, precision of results, generalizability or external validity, scientific and societal relevance, transparency and accessibility of information, research infrastructure and sustainability. None of the definitions appeared to be comprehensive either in terms of quality dimensions, research stages, or stakeholder perspectives. CONCLUSION: Clinical research quality is often discussed but rarely defined. A framework defining clinical research quality across stakeholders’ individual perspectives is desirable to facilitate discussion, assessment, and improvement of quality at all stages of clinical research. Public Library of Science 2017-07-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5513422/ /pubmed/28715491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180635 Text en © 2017 von Niederhäusern et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
von Niederhäusern, Belinda
Schandelmaier, Stefan
Mi Bonde, Marie
Brunner, Nicole
Hemkens, Lars G.
Rutquist, Marielle
Bhatnagar, Neera
Guyatt, Gordon H.
Pauli-Magnus, Christiane
Briel, Matthias
Towards the development of a comprehensive framework: Qualitative systematic survey of definitions of clinical research quality
title Towards the development of a comprehensive framework: Qualitative systematic survey of definitions of clinical research quality
title_full Towards the development of a comprehensive framework: Qualitative systematic survey of definitions of clinical research quality
title_fullStr Towards the development of a comprehensive framework: Qualitative systematic survey of definitions of clinical research quality
title_full_unstemmed Towards the development of a comprehensive framework: Qualitative systematic survey of definitions of clinical research quality
title_short Towards the development of a comprehensive framework: Qualitative systematic survey of definitions of clinical research quality
title_sort towards the development of a comprehensive framework: qualitative systematic survey of definitions of clinical research quality
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513422/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28715491
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180635
work_keys_str_mv AT vonniederhausernbelinda towardsthedevelopmentofacomprehensiveframeworkqualitativesystematicsurveyofdefinitionsofclinicalresearchquality
AT schandelmaierstefan towardsthedevelopmentofacomprehensiveframeworkqualitativesystematicsurveyofdefinitionsofclinicalresearchquality
AT mibondemarie towardsthedevelopmentofacomprehensiveframeworkqualitativesystematicsurveyofdefinitionsofclinicalresearchquality
AT brunnernicole towardsthedevelopmentofacomprehensiveframeworkqualitativesystematicsurveyofdefinitionsofclinicalresearchquality
AT hemkenslarsg towardsthedevelopmentofacomprehensiveframeworkqualitativesystematicsurveyofdefinitionsofclinicalresearchquality
AT rutquistmarielle towardsthedevelopmentofacomprehensiveframeworkqualitativesystematicsurveyofdefinitionsofclinicalresearchquality
AT bhatnagarneera towardsthedevelopmentofacomprehensiveframeworkqualitativesystematicsurveyofdefinitionsofclinicalresearchquality
AT guyattgordonh towardsthedevelopmentofacomprehensiveframeworkqualitativesystematicsurveyofdefinitionsofclinicalresearchquality
AT paulimagnuschristiane towardsthedevelopmentofacomprehensiveframeworkqualitativesystematicsurveyofdefinitionsofclinicalresearchquality
AT brielmatthias towardsthedevelopmentofacomprehensiveframeworkqualitativesystematicsurveyofdefinitionsofclinicalresearchquality