An Institutional Program to Increase Compliance with Clinicaltrials.gov Requirements.

Recent National Institutes of Health policy changes have expanded the number of research studies that must be registered in clinicaltrials.gov beyond the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has also adopted a policy that requires registration of research in a public database. The goal was to increase the transparency of research by reporting the original endpoints of a study, and to discern whether primary endpoints were excluded in subsequent publications. Efforts to increase openness and accountability in clinical trials are likely to strengthen public trust. However, first investigators and study staff must be educated about the requirements, and staff must be prepared to offer support to researchers in navigating the clinicaltrials.gov system. For academic institutions, maintaining compliance requires continuous oversight so that problems can be identified centrally and addressed with investigators. At Wake Forest University Health Sciences, because researchers often did not realize they were out of compliance, we implemented a program to assist them and provide oversight. We introduced standard operating procedures, provided education and assistance to investigators, and engaged leadership about consequences of compliance, resulting in increased budget support for a full-time employee in this role. As a result of these changes, compliance increased from 22% to 92% over 4 months. These approaches may help other institutions become compliant with registration requirements more quickly.

Delivery of the research participant perception survey through the patient portal.

INTRODUCTION: The patient portal may be an effective method for administering surveys regarding participant research experiences but has not been systematically studied. METHODS: We evaluated 4 methods of delivering a research participant perception survey: mailing, phone, email, and patient portal. Participants of research studies were identified (n=4013) and 800 were randomly selected to receive a survey, 200 for each method. Outcomes included response rate, survey completeness, and cost. RESULTS: Among those aged <65 years, response rates did not differ between mail, phone, and patient portal (22%, 29%, 30%, p>0.07). Among these methods, the patient portal was the lowest-cost option. Response rates were significantly lower using email (10%, p<0.01), the lowest-cost option. In contrast, among those aged 65+ years, mail was superior to the electronic methods (p<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The patient portal was among the most effective ways to reach research participants, and was less expensive than surveys administered by mail or telephone.

Ensuring respect for persons in COMPASS: a cluster randomised pragmatic clinical trial.

Cluster randomised clinical trials present unique challenges in meeting ethical obligations to those who are treated at a randomised site. Obtaining informed consent for research within the context of clinical care is one such challenge. In order to solve this problem it is important that an informed consent process be effective and efficient, and that it does not impede the research or the healthcare. The innovative approach to informed consent employed in the COMPASS study demonstrates the feasibility of upholding ethical standards without imposing undue burden on clinical workflows, staff members or patients who may participate in the research by virtue of their presence in a cluster randomised facility. The COMPASS study included 40 randomised sites and compared the effectiveness of a postacute stroke intervention with standard care. Each site provided either the comprehensive postacute stroke intervention or standard care according to the randomisation assignment. Working together, the study team, institutional review board and members of the community designed an ethically appropriate and operationally reasonable consent process which was carried out successfully at all randomised sites. This achievement is noteworthy because it demonstrates how to effectively conduct appropriate informed consent in cluster randomised trials, and because it provides a model that can easily be adapted for other pragmatic studies. With this innovative approach to informed consent, patients have access to the information they need about research occurring where they are seeking care, and medical researchers can conduct their studies without ethical concerns or unreasonable logistical impediments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02588664, recruiting. This article covers the development of consent process that is currentlty being employed in the study.

Harms, benefits, and the nature of interventions in pragmatic clinical trials.

To produce evidence capable of informing healthcare decision making at all critical levels, pragmatic clinical trials are diverse both in terms of the type of intervention (medical, behavioral, and/or technological) and the target of intervention (patients, clinicians, and/or healthcare system processes). Patients and clinicians may be called on to participate as designers, investigators, intermediaries, or subjects of pragmatic clinical trials. Other members of the healthcare team, as well as the healthcare system itself, also may be affected directly or indirectly before, during, or after study implementation. This diversity in the types and targets of pragmatic clinical trial interventions has brought into focus the need to consider whether existing ethics and regulatory principles, policies, and procedures are appropriate for pragmatic clinical trials. Specifically, further examination is needed to identify how the types and targets of pragmatic clinical trial interventions may influence the assessment of net potential risk, understood as the balance of potential harms and benefits. In this article, we build on scholarship seeking to align ethics and regulatory requirements with potential research risks and propose an approach to the assessment of net risks that is sensitive to the diverse nature of pragmatic clinical trial interventions. We clarify the potential harms, burdens, benefits, and advantages of common types of pragmatic clinical trial interventions and discuss implications for patients, clinicians, and healthcare systems.

A longitudinal study of developmental and behavioral screening and referral in North Carolina's Assuring Better Child Health and Development participating practices.

Screening children for developmental and behavioral delays is an important part of primary care practice. Well-child visits provide an ideal opportunity to engage parents and to do periodic screening. Screening identifies children who may be at risk and need further evaluation. In North Carolina's Assuring Better Child Health and Development project best-practices process, screening was incorporated as a routine part of well-child visits regardless of payor. The schedule of screenings, using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, was 6, 12, 18 or 24, 36, 48, and 60 months. From the practices' population, a cohort of 526 children, screened from the age of 6 months during August 2001 through November 2003, was retrospectively reviewed. The main objectives of this descriptive study were to determine the number of children who were screened and whether this rate improved with time, observe patterns and trajectories for children identified at risk in 1 or more of the 5 developmental domains, and examine referral rates and physician referral patterns.

Three new mosquito records for North Carolina.

Recently enhanced mosquito surveillance programs in northeastern North Carolina have resulted in the collection of Ochlerotatus aurifer, Oc. cantator, and Oc. grossbecki. These specimens represent the 1st confirmed North Carolina records of these species. Collection-site and species distribution data are included.