Cargando…

Evaluating follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trials (EFACCT): an eDelphi study of research professionals’ perspectives

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trial delivery, using consensus methods to: (1) identify research professionals’ priorities, (2) understand localised challenges, (3) define study complexity and workloads supporting the development of a trial rating and com...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jones, Helene Markham, Curtis, Ffion, Law, Graham, Bridle, Christopher, Boyle, Dorothy, Ahmed, Tanweer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045255/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32075839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034269
_version_ 1783501744432480256
author Jones, Helene Markham
Curtis, Ffion
Law, Graham
Bridle, Christopher
Boyle, Dorothy
Ahmed, Tanweer
author_facet Jones, Helene Markham
Curtis, Ffion
Law, Graham
Bridle, Christopher
Boyle, Dorothy
Ahmed, Tanweer
author_sort Jones, Helene Markham
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trial delivery, using consensus methods to: (1) identify research professionals’ priorities, (2) understand localised challenges, (3) define study complexity and workloads supporting the development of a trial rating and complexity assessment tool (TRACAT). DESIGN: A classic eDelphi completed in three rounds, conducted as the launch study to a multiphase national project (evaluating follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trials). SETTING: Multicentre online survey involving professionals at National Health Service secondary care hospital sites in Scotland and England varied in scale, geographical location and patient populations. PARTICIPANTS: Principal investigators at 13 hospitals across nine clinical research networks recruited 33 participants using pre-defined eligibility criteria to form a multidisciplinary panel. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Statements achieving a consensus level of 70% on a 7-point Likert-type scale and ranked trial rating indicators (TRIs) developed by research professionals. RESULTS: The panel developed 75 consensus statements illustrating factors contributing to complexity, follow-up intensity and operational performance in trial delivery, and specified 14 ranked TRIs. Seven open questions in the first qualitative round generated 531 individual statements. Iterative survey rounds returned rates of 82%, 82% and 93%. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials operate within a dynamic, complex healthcare and innovation system where rapid scientific advances present opportunities and challenges for delivery organisations and professionals. Panellists highlighted cultural and organisational factors limiting the profession’s potential to support growing trial complexity and patient follow-up. Enhanced communication, interoperability, funding and capacity have emerged as key priorities. Future operational models should test dialectic Singerian-based approaches respecting open dialogue and shared values. Research capacity building should prioritise innovative, collaborative approaches embedding validated review and evaluation models to understand changing operational needs and challenges. TRACAT provides a mechanism for continual knowledge assimilation to improve decision-making.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7045255
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70452552020-03-09 Evaluating follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trials (EFACCT): an eDelphi study of research professionals’ perspectives Jones, Helene Markham Curtis, Ffion Law, Graham Bridle, Christopher Boyle, Dorothy Ahmed, Tanweer BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trial delivery, using consensus methods to: (1) identify research professionals’ priorities, (2) understand localised challenges, (3) define study complexity and workloads supporting the development of a trial rating and complexity assessment tool (TRACAT). DESIGN: A classic eDelphi completed in three rounds, conducted as the launch study to a multiphase national project (evaluating follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trials). SETTING: Multicentre online survey involving professionals at National Health Service secondary care hospital sites in Scotland and England varied in scale, geographical location and patient populations. PARTICIPANTS: Principal investigators at 13 hospitals across nine clinical research networks recruited 33 participants using pre-defined eligibility criteria to form a multidisciplinary panel. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Statements achieving a consensus level of 70% on a 7-point Likert-type scale and ranked trial rating indicators (TRIs) developed by research professionals. RESULTS: The panel developed 75 consensus statements illustrating factors contributing to complexity, follow-up intensity and operational performance in trial delivery, and specified 14 ranked TRIs. Seven open questions in the first qualitative round generated 531 individual statements. Iterative survey rounds returned rates of 82%, 82% and 93%. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials operate within a dynamic, complex healthcare and innovation system where rapid scientific advances present opportunities and challenges for delivery organisations and professionals. Panellists highlighted cultural and organisational factors limiting the profession’s potential to support growing trial complexity and patient follow-up. Enhanced communication, interoperability, funding and capacity have emerged as key priorities. Future operational models should test dialectic Singerian-based approaches respecting open dialogue and shared values. Research capacity building should prioritise innovative, collaborative approaches embedding validated review and evaluation models to understand changing operational needs and challenges. TRACAT provides a mechanism for continual knowledge assimilation to improve decision-making. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-02-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7045255/ /pubmed/32075839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034269 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research Methods
Jones, Helene Markham
Curtis, Ffion
Law, Graham
Bridle, Christopher
Boyle, Dorothy
Ahmed, Tanweer
Evaluating follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trials (EFACCT): an eDelphi study of research professionals’ perspectives
title Evaluating follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trials (EFACCT): an eDelphi study of research professionals’ perspectives
title_full Evaluating follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trials (EFACCT): an eDelphi study of research professionals’ perspectives
title_fullStr Evaluating follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trials (EFACCT): an eDelphi study of research professionals’ perspectives
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trials (EFACCT): an eDelphi study of research professionals’ perspectives
title_short Evaluating follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trials (EFACCT): an eDelphi study of research professionals’ perspectives
title_sort evaluating follow-up and complexity in cancer clinical trials (efacct): an edelphi study of research professionals’ perspectives
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045255/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32075839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034269
work_keys_str_mv AT joneshelenemarkham evaluatingfollowupandcomplexityincancerclinicaltrialsefacctanedelphistudyofresearchprofessionalsperspectives
AT curtisffion evaluatingfollowupandcomplexityincancerclinicaltrialsefacctanedelphistudyofresearchprofessionalsperspectives
AT lawgraham evaluatingfollowupandcomplexityincancerclinicaltrialsefacctanedelphistudyofresearchprofessionalsperspectives
AT bridlechristopher evaluatingfollowupandcomplexityincancerclinicaltrialsefacctanedelphistudyofresearchprofessionalsperspectives
AT boyledorothy evaluatingfollowupandcomplexityincancerclinicaltrialsefacctanedelphistudyofresearchprofessionalsperspectives
AT ahmedtanweer evaluatingfollowupandcomplexityincancerclinicaltrialsefacctanedelphistudyofresearchprofessionalsperspectives