Selecting trial centers using a standardized, automated site assessment survey instrument (SASI).

BACKGROUND: To improve the site selection process for clinical trials, we expanded a site survey to include standardized assessments of site commitment time, team experience, feasibility of tight timelines, and local medical community equipoise as factors that might better predict performance. We also collected contact information about institutional research services ahead of site onboarding. AIM: As a first step, we wanted to confirm that an expanded survey could be feasible and generalizable-that asking site teams for more details upfront was acceptable and that the survey could be completed in a reasonable amount of time, despite the assessment length. METHODS: A standardized, two-part Site Assessment Survey Instrument (SASI), examining qualitative components and with multiple contact list sections, was developed using a publicly accessible dashboard and later transferred to a REDCap platform. After multiple rounds of internal testing, the SASI was deployed 11 times for multicenter trials. Follow-up questionnaires were sent to site teams to confirm that an expanded survey instrument is acceptable to the research community and could be completed during a brief work shift. RESULTS: Respondents thought the SASI collected useful and relevant information about their sites (100%). Sites were "comfortable" (90%) supplying detailed information early in the site selection process and 57% completed the SASI in one to two hours. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinating centers and sites found the SASI tool to be acceptable and helpful when collecting data in consideration of multicenter trial site selection.

Approaches for enhancing the informativeness and quality of clinical trials: Innovations and principles for implementing multicenter trials from the Trial Innovation Network.

One challenge for multisite clinical trials is ensuring that the conditions of an informative trial are incorporated into all aspects of trial planning and execution. The multicenter model can provide the potential for a more informative environment, but it can also place a trial at risk of becoming uninformative due to lack of rigor, quality control, or effective recruitment, resulting in premature discontinuation and/or non-publication. Key factors that support informativeness are having the right team and resources during study planning and implementation and adequate funding to support performance activities. This communication draws on the experience of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) Trial Innovation Network (TIN) to develop approaches for enhancing the informativeness of clinical trials. We distilled this information into three principles: (1) assemble a diverse team, (2) leverage existing processes and systems, and (3) carefully consider budgets and contracts. The TIN, comprised of NCATS, three Trial Innovation Centers, a Recruitment Innovation Center, and 60+ CTSA Program hubs, provides resources to investigators who are proposing multicenter collaborations. In addition to sharing principles that support the informativeness of clinical trials, we highlight TIN-developed resources relevant for multicenter trial initiation and conduct.

Using gamification to enhance clinical trial start-up activities.

Background: The Trial Innovation Network (TIN) is a collaborative initiative within the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program. To improve and innovate the conduct of clinical trials, it is exploring the uses of gamification to better engage the trial workforce and improve the efficiencies of trial activities. The gamification structures described in this article are part of a TIN website gamification toolkit, available online to the clinical trial scientific community. Methods: The game designers used existing electronic trial platforms to gamify the tasks required to meet trial start-up timelines to create friendly competitions. Key indicators and familiar metrics were mapped to scoreboards. Webinars were organized to share and applaud trial and game performance. Results: Game scores were significantly associated with an increase in achieving start-up milestones in activation, institutional review board (IRB) submission, and IRB approval times, indicating the probability of completing site activation faster by using games. Overall game enjoyment and feelings that the game did not apply too much pressure appeared to be an important moderator of performance in one trial but had little effect on performance in a second. Conclusion: This retrospective examination of available data from gaming experiences may be a first-of-kind use in clinical trials. There are signals that gaming may accelerate performance and increase enjoyment during the start-up phase of a trial. Isolating the effect of gamification on trial outcomes will depend on a larger sampling from future trials, using well-defined, hypothesis-driven statistical analysis plans.