Clinical Trial Recruitment Barriers To Critical Thinking

1. McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7:9.[PMC free article][PubMed]

2. Watson JM, Torgerson DJ. Increasing recruitment to randomised trials: A review of randomised controlled trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:34.[PMC free article][PubMed]

3. Harris PA, Lane L, Biaggioni I. Clinical research subject recruitment: The Volunteer for Vanderbilt Research Program www.volunteer.mc.vanderbilt.edu. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12:608–13.[PMC free article][PubMed]

4. Frank G. Current challenges in clinical trial patient recruitment and enrollment. SOCRA Source. 2004:30–8.

5. Lovato LC, Hill K, Hertert S, Hunninghake DB, Probstfield JL. Recruitment for controlled clinical trials: Literature summary and annotated bibliography. Control Clin Trials. 1997;18:328–52.[PubMed]

6. Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, Cook JA, Kjeldstrøm M, Johansen M, et al. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3:pii: E002360.[PMC free article][PubMed]

7. Spaar A, Frey M, Turk A, Karrer W, Puhan MA. Recruitment barriers in a randomized controlled trial from the physicians’ perspective: A postal survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:14.[PMC free article][PubMed]

8. Sully BG, Julious SA, Nicholl J. A reinvestigation of recruitment to randomised, controlled, multicenter trials: A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2013;14:166.[PMC free article][PubMed]

9. Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:1143–56.[PubMed]

10. Gulhati CM. Needed: Closer scrutiny of clinical trials. Indian J Med Ethics. 2004;1:4–5.[PubMed]

11. Ruckmani A, Vishaly S, Arunkumar R, Prabhu L, Priya A. Assessment of barriers in subject recruitment for clinical trials. J Clin Res Bioeth. 2012;3:125. [doi4172/2155-9627.1000125]

12. Shah JY, Phadtare A, Rajgor D, Vaghasia M, Pradhan S, Zelko H, et al. What leads Indians to participate in clinical trials? A meta-analysis of qualitative studies. PLoS One. 2010;5:e10730.[PMC free article][PubMed]

13. Patel M, Doku V, Tennakoon L. Challenges in recruitment of research participants. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2003;9:229–38.

14. Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, Moore D, Wilson S, Damery S. Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e000496.[PMC free article][PubMed]

15. Sullivan J. Subject recruitment and retention: Barriers to success. (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Appl Clin Trials. 2004. [Last cited on 2015 Mar 03]. Available from: http://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/subject-recruitment-and-retention-barriers-success .

16. Bower P, Brueton V, Gamble C, Treweek S, Smith CT, Young B, et al. Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: A survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials. 2014;15:399.[PMC free article][PubMed]

We describe a clinical research visit scheduling system that can potentially coordinate clinical research visits with patient care visits and increase efficiency at clinical sites where clinical and research activities occur simultaneously. Participatory Design methods were applied to support requirements engineering and to create this software called Integrated Model for Patient Care and Clinical Trials (IMPACT). Using a multi-user constraint satisfaction and resource optimization algorithm, IMPACT automatically synthesizes temporal availability of various research resources and recommends the optimal dates and times for pending research visits. We conducted scenario-based evaluations with 10 clinical research coordinators (CRCs) from diverse clinical research settings to assess the usefulness, feasibility, and user acceptance of IMPACT. We obtained qualitative feedback using semi-structured interviews with the CRCs. Most CRCs acknowledged the usefulness of IMPACT features. Support for collaboration within research teams and interoperability with electronic health records and clinical trial management systems were highly requested features. Overall, IMPACT received satisfactory user acceptance and proves to be potentially useful for a variety of clinical research settings. Our future work includes comparing the effectiveness of IMPACT with that of existing scheduling solutions on the market and conducting field tests to formally assess user adoption.

0 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *