A report from the NIHR UK working group on remote trial delivery for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of clinical trial activity took place face to face within clinical or research units. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant shift towards trial delivery without in-person face-to-face contact or "Remote Trial Delivery". The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) assembled a Remote Trial Delivery Working Group to consider challenges and enablers to this major change in clinical trial delivery and to provide a toolkit for researchers to support the transition to remote delivery. METHODS: The NIHR Remote Trial Delivery Working Group evaluated five key domains of the trial delivery pathway: participant factors, recruitment, intervention delivery, outcome measurement and quality assurance. Independent surveys were disseminated to research professionals, and patients and carers, to ascertain benefits, challenges, pitfalls, enablers and examples of good practice in Remote Trial Delivery. A toolkit was constructed to support researchers, funders and governance structures in moving towards Remote Trial Delivery. The toolkit comprises a website encompassing the key principles of Remote Trial Delivery, and a repository of best practice examples and questions to guide research teams. RESULTS: The patient and carer survey received 47 respondents, 34 of whom were patients and 13 of whom were carers. The professional survey had 115 examples of remote trial delivery practice entered from across England. Key potential benefits included broader reach and inclusivity, the ability for standardisation and centralisation, and increased efficiency and patient/carer convenience. Challenges included the potential exclusion of participants lacking connectivity or digital skills, the lack of digitally skilled workforce and appropriate infrastructure, and validation requirements. Five key principles of Remote Trial Delivery were proposed: national research standards, inclusivity, validity, cost-effectiveness and evaluation of new methodologies. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid changes towards Remote Trial Delivery catalysed by the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to sustained change in clinical trial delivery. The NIHR Remote Trial Delivery Working Group provide a toolkit for researchers recommending five key principles of Remote Trial Delivery and providing examples of enablers.

Developing the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework-a tool to help trialists design trials that better reflect the communities they serve.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring that a trial is designed so that its participants reflect those who might benefit from the results, or be spared harms, is key to the potential benefits of the trial reaching all they should. This paper describes the process, facilitated by Trial Forge, that was used between July 2019 and October 2020 to develop the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework, part of the wider INCLUDE initiative from the National Institute for Health Research to improve inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research studies. METHODS: Development of the Framework was done in seven phases: (1) outline, (2) initial draft, (3) stakeholder meeting, (4) modify draft, (5) Stakeholder feedback, (6) applying the Framework and (7) packaging. Phases 2 and 3 were face-to-face meetings. Consultation with stakeholders was iterative, especially phases 4 to 6. Movement to the next phase was done once all or most stakeholders were comfortable with the results of the current phase. When there was a version of the Framework that could be considered final, the Framework was applied to six trials to create a set of examples (phase 6). Finally, the Framework, guidance and examples were packaged ready for dissemination (phase 7). RESULTS: A total of 40 people from stakeholder groups including patient and public partners, clinicians, funders, academics working with various ethnic groups, trial managers and methodologists contributed to the seven phases of development. The Framework comprises two parts. The first part is a list of four key questions: 1. Who should my trial apply to? 2. Are the groups identified likely to respond in different ways? 3. Will my study intervention make it harder for some groups to engage? 4. Will the way I have designed the study make it harder for some groups to engage? The second part is a set of worksheets to help trial teams address these questions. The Framework can be used for any stage of trial, for a healthcare intervention in any disease area. The Framework was launched on 1st October 2020 and is available open access at the Trial Forge website: https://www.trialforge.org/trial-forge-centre/include/ . CONCLUSION: Thinking about the number of people in our trials is not enough: we need to start thinking more carefully about who our participants are.

Ensuring that COVID-19 research is inclusive: guidance from the NIHR INCLUDE project.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to researchers, funders, regulators and study delivery teams to ensure that research on COVID-19 is inclusive, particularly of groups disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and who may have been historically under-served by research. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS: Groups who are disproportionately affected by COVID-19 include (but are not limited to) older people, people with multiple long-term conditions, people with disabilities, people from Black, Asian and Ethnic minority groups, people living with obesity, people who are socioeconomically deprived and people living in care homes. All these groups are under-served by clinical research, and there is an urgent need to rectify this if COVID-19 research is to deliver relevant evidence for these groups who are most in need. We provide a framework and checklists for addressing key issues when designing and delivering inclusive COVID-19 research, based on the National Institute for Health Research INnovations in CLinical trial design and delivery for the UnDEr-served project roadmap. Strong community engagement, codevelopment and prioritisation of research questions and interventions are essential. Under-served groups should be represented on funding panels and ethics committees, who should insist on the removal of barriers to participation. Exclusion criteria should be kept to a minimum; intervention delivery and outcome measurement should be simple, flexible and tailored to the needs of different groups, and local advice on the best way to reach and engage with under-served communities should be taken by study delivery teams. Data on characteristics that allow identification of under-served groups must be collected, analyses should include these data to enable subgroup comparisons and results should be shared with under-served groups at an early stage. CONCLUSION: Inclusive COVID-19 research is a necessity, not a luxury, if research is to benefit all the communities it seeks to serve. It requires close engagement with under-served groups and attention to aspects of study topic, design, delivery, analysis and dissemination across the research life cycle.

Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process.

BACKGROUND: Participants in clinical research studies often do not reflect the populations for which healthcare interventions are needed or will be used. Enhancing representation of under-served groups in clinical research is important to ensure that research findings are widely applicable. We describe a multicomponent workstream project to improve representation of under-served groups in clinical trials. METHODS: The project comprised three main strands: (1) a targeted scoping review of literature to identify previous work characterising under-served groups and barriers to inclusion, (2) surveys of professional stakeholders and participant representative groups involved in research delivery to refine these initial findings and identify examples of innovation and good practice and (3) a series of workshops bringing together key stakeholders from funding, design, delivery and participant groups to reach consensus on definitions, barriers and a strategic roadmap for future work. The work was commissioned by the UK National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. Output from these strands was integrated by a steering committee to generate a series of goals, workstream plans and a strategic roadmap for future development work in this area. RESULTS: 'Under-served groups' was identified and agreed by the stakeholder group as the preferred term. Three-quarters of stakeholders felt that a clear definition of under-served groups did not currently exist; definition was challenging and context-specific, but exemplar groups (e.g. those with language barriers or mental illness) were identified as under-served. Barriers to successful inclusion of under-served groups could be clustered into communication between research teams and participant groups; how trials are designed and delivered, differing agendas of research teams and participant groups; and lack of trust in the research process. Four key goals for future work were identified: building long-term relationships with under-served groups, developing training resources to improve design and delivery of trials for under-served groups, developing infrastructure and systems to support this work and working with funders, regulators and other stakeholders to remove barriers to inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: The work of the INCLUDE group over the next 12 months will build on these findings by generating resources customised for different under-served groups to improve the representativeness of trial populations.