Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 64
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
4.
Ther Innov Regul Sci ; 54(1): 1-20, 2020 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32008235

RESUMO

Competency standards for clinical research professionals are being developed across the enterprise, based largely on the Core Competency Framework put forth by the Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competency (JTF). In late 2016, representatives from organizations around the world convened at a workshop hosted by the Multi-Regional Clinical Trial Center of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard (MRCT Center) to discuss their use of the standards. A number of modifications were suggested that resulted in the publication of JTF Framework 2.0. Another suggested evolution of the Framework was to consider "leveling" the competencies, to reflect the increase in competency that occurs as individuals progress in their careers. This paper describes the process utilized and final outcome of this work. The leveled competencies, defined as the Fundamental, Skilled, and Advanced levels, and the included examples are expected to provide better-defined tools and resources to organizations that are creating educational and training programs, standardized role descriptions, or professional progression planning for clinical research professionals.

5.
Clin Trials ; 17(3): 264-272, 2020 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32063065

RESUMO

There has been significant analysis of the ethical and regulatory issues involved with paying research participants, but less attention has been focused specifically on paying economically vulnerable individuals and the unique challenges it may present. This is important, as individuals of lower socio-economic standing are present in all disease groups and study populations. Moreover, clinical research is often conducted in economically under-developed locales, such as lower- or middle-income countries as well as impoverished locales of otherwise wealthy nations (such as, for example, rural Appalachia in the United States). Is it ethical to offer payment in such contexts? What are the ethical considerations relevant for determining payment rates and practices to individuals who are economically vulnerable? We offer an analysis of these issues, focusing on four unique areas of concern: (1) whether the risk of undue influence is greater for economically vulnerable individuals than for wealthier ones; (2) whether payment unacceptably raises the risk of 'unjust influence' or disproportionate representation of poor people in clinical research; (3) the positive reasons in favor of paying economically vulnerable people that stem from the ethical value of fairness; and (4) appropriate compensation rates for economically vulnerable populations. Our analysis supports the position that payment to economically vulnerable populations is ethically justified and indeed desirable when certain conditions are met.

6.
PLoS One ; 15(2): e0226143, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32069305

RESUMO

In June 2017, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) announced a requirement that authors reporting the results of clinical trials to journals that follow ICMJE recommendations must include an individual participant data (IPD) sharing statement with manuscripts submitted after 01 July 2018. Additionally, all new clinical trials for which enrollment began on or after 01 January 2019 must include a data sharing statement in the trial's publicly posted registration. This study sought to understand whether IPD sharing statements of clinical trials first registered on ClinicalTrials.gov before 01 January 2019 reflected comprehension of the expectations and a willingness to share. To establish baseline characteristics for the prevalence and quality of IPD sharing statements, we examined IPD sharing statements among 2,040 clinical trials first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov between 01 January 2018 and 06 June 2018. Two independent coders further analyzed the quality of the IPD sharing statements of trials whose registration records indicated the intent to share IPD. The vast majority of trials included in this study did not indicate an intent to share IPD (n = 1,928; 94.5%). Among the trials that did commit to sharing IPD (n = 112, 5.5%), significant variability existed in the content and structure of IPD sharing statements. The results of this study suggest that successful compliance with the IPD sharing statement requirements of the ICMJE will require further clarification, enhanced education, and outreach to investigators.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/normas , Políticas Editoriais , Jornalismo Médico/normas , Manuscritos Médicos como Assunto , Escrita Médica/normas , Revelação , Humanos , Disseminação de Informação/métodos
7.
8.
J Clin Transl Sci ; 3(4): 129-139, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31660237

RESUMO

Single institutional review board (IRB) review of multisite research increased in frequency over a decade ago with a proliferation of master IRB reliance agreements supporting statewide and regional consortia and disease- and population-specific networks. Although successful, the increasing number of agreements presented significant challenges and illuminated potential benefits of a single, nationwide agreement. Anticipated changes in federal regulations highlighted the need to systematize and simplify IRB reliance. To address these challenges, the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences funded a project to establish a national IRB reliance network that would support national adoption of single IRB (sIRB) review. The Streamlined, Multisite, Accelerated Resources for Trials (SMART) IRB Platform launched in July 2016 to facilitate dissemination, adoption, and implementation of a collaboratively developed master IRB reliance agreement and supportive tools and resources. More than 580 institutions have joined SMART IRB's Master Common Reciprocal Institutional Review Board Authorization Agreement and begun using the SMART IRB platform to support sIRB arrangements. Here, we describe the tenets of the agreement and operational benefits and challenges of its use. SMART IRB's early success affirms the utility of collaborative, flexible, and centralized approaches to supporting sIRB review while highlighting the need for further national harmonization.

9.
Contemp Clin Trials ; 84: 105812, 2019 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31330189

RESUMO

Clinical trials for investigational new products to treat rare and ultra-rare diseases typically involve a limited number of research sites recruiting from a small pool of patients dispersed over a large geographical area. When remote access is not possible and participants must be present at a trial site, participation in research may require individuals and their families/caregivers to travel great distances, often at significant cost personally and financially and, frequently, for the duration of the trial. This article addresses the ethical and practical issues associated with the practice of sponsors offering financial and other assistance for relocation to trial sites from significant geographical distances, providing both foundational analysis of the ethical issues as well as actionable policy-level guidance on how to best approach these situations.

13.
Ethics Hum Res ; 41(3): 29-32, 2019 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31108574

Assuntos
Revisão Ética
14.
Clin Trials ; 16(3): 290-296, 2019 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30866676

RESUMO

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Obtaining ethical approval from multiple institutional review boards is a long-standing challenge to multi-site clinical trials and often leads to significant delays in study activation and enrollment. As of 25 January 2018, the National Institutes of Health began requiring use of a single institutional review board for US multi-site trials. To learn more and further inform the research and regulatory communities around aspects of transitioning to single institutional review board review, this study evaluated the efficiency, resource use, and user perceptions of a nascent institutional review board reliance model (Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance). METHODS: This research was embedded within the Influenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop Cardio Thoracic Events and Decompensated Heart Failure trial-a multi-site trial of two influenza vaccine formulations. In the first year of the trial, a sample of sites agreed to use the developing Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance model and participated in its evaluation. In keeping with a least burdensome approach, short surveys were developed and obtained from each reporting entity (relying sites, non-relying site, lead site, and reviewing institutional review board). Data regarding time to institutional review board approval and site activation, costs, and user perceptions of reliant review were self-reported and collected via the survey form. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed, with costs analyzed as actual versus estimated due to the lack of established baseline cost data. RESULTS: A total of 13 sites ceded review and received institutional review board approval. Mean time to approval was substantially faster in sites that ceded review using the Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance model versus the site that did not cede review (81 vs 121 days). The mean time to approval was also faster than published averages for academic medical centers (81 vs 103 days). Time to first enrollment was faster for ceding sites versus the non-ceding site, and also faster than published averages (126 vs 149 and 169 days, respectively). Costs were higher than estimates for local institutional review board review and approval. Nearly half (47%) the stakeholders reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the reliance experience, although many noted the challenge related to institutional culture change. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a single institutional review board represents a shift in practice and culture for many institutions. Evaluation of the reliance arrangements for this study highlights both the potential of, and challenges for, institutions as they transition to single institutional review board review. Although efficiencies were observed for study start-up, we anticipate a learning curve as institutions and research teams implement necessary process and resource changes to adapt to single institutional review board oversight. Findings may inform research teams but are, however, limited by the relatively small number of sites and lack of a control group.

17.
Ther Innov Regul Sci ; : 2168479018799291, 2018 Oct 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30336683

RESUMO

Competency standards for clinical research professionals are being developed across the enterprise, based largely on the Core Competency Framework put forth by the Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competency (JTF). In late 2016, representatives from organizations around the world convened at a workshop hosted by the Multi-Regional Clinical Trial Center of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard (MRCT Center) to discuss their use of the standards. A number of modifications were suggested that resulted in the publication of JTF Framework 2.0. Another suggested evolution of the Framework was to consider "leveling" the competencies, to reflect the increase in competency that occurs as individuals progress in their careers. This paper describes the process utilized and final outcome of this work. The leveled competencies, defined as the Fundamental, Skilled, and Advanced levels, and the included examples are expected to provide better-defined tools and resources to organizations that are creating educational and training programs, standardized role descriptions, or professional progression planning for clinical research professionals.

18.
J Med Internet Res ; 20(7): e10725, 2018 07 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30006325

RESUMO

In February 2018, the Government of India announced a massive public health insurance scheme extending coverage to 500 million citizens, in effect making it the world's largest insurance program. To meet this target, the government will rely on technology to effectively scale services, monitor quality, and ensure accountability. While India has seen great strides in informational technology development and outsourcing, cellular phone penetration, cloud computing, and financial technology, the digital health ecosystem is in its nascent stages and has been waiting for a catalyst to seed the system. This National Health Protection Scheme is expected to provide just this impetus for widespread adoption. However, health data in India are mostly not digitized. In the few instances that they are, the data are not standardized, not interoperable, and not readily accessible to clinicians, researchers, or policymakers. While such barriers to easy health information exchange are hardly unique to India, the greenfield nature of India's digital health infrastructure presents an excellent opportunity to avoid the pitfalls of complex, restrictive, digital health systems that have evolved elsewhere. We propose here a federated, patient-centric, application programming interface (API)-enabled health information ecosystem that leverages India's near-universal mobile phone penetration, universal availability of unique ID systems, and evolving privacy and data protection laws. It builds on global best practices and promotes the adoption of human-centered design principles, data minimization, and open standard APIs. The recommendations are the result of 18 months of deliberations with multiple stakeholders in India and the United States, including from academia, industry, and government.


Assuntos
Segurança Computacional/tendências , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/normas , Saúde Pública/métodos , Cobertura Universal do Seguro de Saúde/normas , Humanos , Índia
19.
Pediatr Res ; 84(4): 516-519, 2018 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29967521

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Inherent to clinical research is the informed consent process, with the informed consent form (ICF), a key component of human participant protections. We wished to examine whether a shortened and simplified ICF, accompanied by an appendix, improved participant understanding of a study compared with a conventional ICF. METHODS: A shortened ICF was developed from an existing conventional ICF for a neonatal study. Either the shortened or conventional ICF was randomly distributed to members of two parental advocacy groups. Participants answered survey questions about the form they received. RESULTS: Thirty-one out of forty-one (76%) parents in the shortened ICF and 28/41 (68%) in the conventional ICF group responded. Significantly more parents in the shortened ICF group found their form "short and to the point". Although they also stated that the shortened ICF did not provide enough information, there were no significant differences between groups measuring the understanding of key study components. CONCLUSION: A shortened ICF did not impact the understanding of the clinical trial. It will be important to compare the shortened and conventional forms in actual clinical trials.


Assuntos
Termos de Consentimento/normas , Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido , Pediatria/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica , Criança , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/normas , Compreensão , Tomada de Decisões , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Idioma , Alfabetização , Pais , Pediatria/ética , Projetos Piloto , Inquéritos e Questionários
20.
Ther Innov Regul Sci ; 52(3): 268-274, 2018 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29714586

RESUMO

The practice of paying research participants has received significant attention in the bioethics literature, but the focus has been almost exclusively on consideration of factors relevant to determining acceptable payment amounts. Surprisingly little attention has been paid to what happens once the payment amount is set. What are the ethical parameters around how offers of payment may be advertised to prospective participants? This article seeks to answer this question, focusing on the ethical and practical issues associated with disclosing information about payment, and payment amounts in particular, in recruitment materials. We argue that it is permissible-and indeed typically ethically desirable-for recruitment materials to disclose the amount that participants will be paid. Further, we seek to clarify the regulatory guidance on "emphasizing" payment in a way that can facilitate design and review of recruitment materials.


Assuntos
Publicidade/ética , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Revelação/ética , Seleção de Pacientes/ética , Pesquisa Biomédica/ética , Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa , Humanos , Sujeitos da Pesquisa/legislação & jurisprudência , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA