Cargando…

Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND: In November 2016, the ICH published a requirement for sponsors to develop a systematic, prioritised, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. This approach is more commonly known as risk-based monitoring (RBM). However, recent evidence suggests that a ‘gold standard’, validated...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hurley, Caroline, Sinnott, Carol, Clarke, Mike, Kearney, Patricia, Racine, Emmy, Eustace, Joseph, Shiely, Frances
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5594426/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28893317
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2148-4
_version_ 1783263197857316864
author Hurley, Caroline
Sinnott, Carol
Clarke, Mike
Kearney, Patricia
Racine, Emmy
Eustace, Joseph
Shiely, Frances
author_facet Hurley, Caroline
Sinnott, Carol
Clarke, Mike
Kearney, Patricia
Racine, Emmy
Eustace, Joseph
Shiely, Frances
author_sort Hurley, Caroline
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In November 2016, the ICH published a requirement for sponsors to develop a systematic, prioritised, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. This approach is more commonly known as risk-based monitoring (RBM). However, recent evidence suggests that a ‘gold standard’, validated approach to RBM does not exist and it is unclear how sponsors will introduce RBM into their organisations. A first step needed to inform the implementation of RBM is to explore academic trialists’ readiness and ability to perform RBM. The aim of this paper is to identify the attitudes and perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials in Ireland. METHODS: This is a mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design, with quantitative survey followed by semistructured interviews. Academic clinical researchers (N = 132) working in Ireland were surveyed to examine their use and perceptions of RBM. A purposive sample of survey participants (n = 22) were then interviewed to gain greater insight into the quantitative findings. The survey and interview data were merged to generate a list of perceived barriers and facilitators to RBM implementation, with suggestions for, and solutions to, these issues. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 49% (132/273). Thirteen percent (n = 18) of responders were not familiar with the term risk-based monitoring and less than a quarter of respondents (21%, n = 28) had performed RBM in a clinical trial. Barriers to RBM implementation included lack of RBM knowledge/training, increased costs caused by greater IT demands, increased workload for trial staff and lack of evidence to support RBM as an effective monitoring approach. Facilitators included participants’ legal obligation to perform RBM under the new ICH-GCP guidelines, availability of RBM guidance and perception of cost savings by performing RBM in future trials. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate a need for training and regulatory-endorsed guidelines to support the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials. The study provides valuable insights to inform interventions and strategies by policy-makers and clinical trial regulators to improve RBM uptake. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2148-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5594426
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55944262017-09-14 Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study Hurley, Caroline Sinnott, Carol Clarke, Mike Kearney, Patricia Racine, Emmy Eustace, Joseph Shiely, Frances Trials Research BACKGROUND: In November 2016, the ICH published a requirement for sponsors to develop a systematic, prioritised, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. This approach is more commonly known as risk-based monitoring (RBM). However, recent evidence suggests that a ‘gold standard’, validated approach to RBM does not exist and it is unclear how sponsors will introduce RBM into their organisations. A first step needed to inform the implementation of RBM is to explore academic trialists’ readiness and ability to perform RBM. The aim of this paper is to identify the attitudes and perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials in Ireland. METHODS: This is a mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design, with quantitative survey followed by semistructured interviews. Academic clinical researchers (N = 132) working in Ireland were surveyed to examine their use and perceptions of RBM. A purposive sample of survey participants (n = 22) were then interviewed to gain greater insight into the quantitative findings. The survey and interview data were merged to generate a list of perceived barriers and facilitators to RBM implementation, with suggestions for, and solutions to, these issues. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 49% (132/273). Thirteen percent (n = 18) of responders were not familiar with the term risk-based monitoring and less than a quarter of respondents (21%, n = 28) had performed RBM in a clinical trial. Barriers to RBM implementation included lack of RBM knowledge/training, increased costs caused by greater IT demands, increased workload for trial staff and lack of evidence to support RBM as an effective monitoring approach. Facilitators included participants’ legal obligation to perform RBM under the new ICH-GCP guidelines, availability of RBM guidance and perception of cost savings by performing RBM in future trials. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate a need for training and regulatory-endorsed guidelines to support the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials. The study provides valuable insights to inform interventions and strategies by policy-makers and clinical trial regulators to improve RBM uptake. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2148-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-09-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5594426/ /pubmed/28893317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2148-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Hurley, Caroline
Sinnott, Carol
Clarke, Mike
Kearney, Patricia
Racine, Emmy
Eustace, Joseph
Shiely, Frances
Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study
title Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study
title_full Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study
title_fullStr Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study
title_full_unstemmed Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study
title_short Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study
title_sort perceived barriers and facilitators to risk based monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5594426/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28893317
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2148-4
work_keys_str_mv AT hurleycaroline perceivedbarriersandfacilitatorstoriskbasedmonitoringinacademicledclinicaltrialsamixedmethodsstudy
AT sinnottcarol perceivedbarriersandfacilitatorstoriskbasedmonitoringinacademicledclinicaltrialsamixedmethodsstudy
AT clarkemike perceivedbarriersandfacilitatorstoriskbasedmonitoringinacademicledclinicaltrialsamixedmethodsstudy
AT kearneypatricia perceivedbarriersandfacilitatorstoriskbasedmonitoringinacademicledclinicaltrialsamixedmethodsstudy
AT racineemmy perceivedbarriersandfacilitatorstoriskbasedmonitoringinacademicledclinicaltrialsamixedmethodsstudy
AT eustacejoseph perceivedbarriersandfacilitatorstoriskbasedmonitoringinacademicledclinicaltrialsamixedmethodsstudy
AT shielyfrances perceivedbarriersandfacilitatorstoriskbasedmonitoringinacademicledclinicaltrialsamixedmethodsstudy