Clinical Trial and Research Study Recruiters’ Verbal Communication Behaviors

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 765-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan E. Morgan ◽  
Ashton Mouton ◽  
Aurora Occa ◽  
Jonell Potter
2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan E. Morgan ◽  
Aurora Occa ◽  
Ashton Mouton ◽  
JoNell Potter

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J Solomon ◽  
Todd M Bauer ◽  
Filippo de Marinis ◽  
Enriqueta Felip ◽  
Yasushi Goto ◽  
...  

This is a summary of a research study (known as a clinical trial) called CROWN. The study tested two medicines called lorlatinib and crizotinib in participants with untreated non-small cell lung cancer that had spread to other parts of their body. All those who took part had changes in a gene called ALK, which is involved in cell growth. In total, 296 participants from 23 countries took part. Half the participants took lorlatinib and half took crizotinib. After participants started taking lorlatinib or crizotinib, they were checked regularly to see if their tumors had grown or spread to other parts of their body (known as tumor progression) and to monitor any side effects. After 1 year of treatment, the participants who took lorlatinib were twice as likely to be alive with no tumor growth as the participants who took crizotinib. More participants who took lorlatinib had cancer that shrank (76%) compared with the participants who took crizotinib (58%). This was also true of the participants whose cancer had spread to their brain. The most common side effects in participants who took lorlatinib were increases in the amount of cholesterol and triglycerides (a type of fat) in their blood, swelling, weight gain, nerve damage, unclear thoughts, and diarrhea. Among the participants who took crizotinib, the most common side effects were diarrhea, feeling like you want to throw up, sight problems, swelling, vomiting, changes in liver function, and feeling tired. Overall, the CROWN study showed that fewer participants with advanced ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer died or had tumor growth with lorlatinib compared with crizotinib treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT03052608 .


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Puymirat ◽  
F Schiele ◽  
F Roubille ◽  
V Tea ◽  
J Ferrieres ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The main potential benefits of participating in a clinical trial is to have access to a treatment that is not available yet and to have a regular and careful attention from physicians. Several data have suggested that inclusion in a research study was associated with better clinical outcome. Aims The aim of this study is to describe the prevalence of inclusions in a research study (i.e., device or medication), clinical characteristics, management and clinical outcome in patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) according to participation in a research study (versus not) using data from the French registries of Acute ST-or non-ST-elevation Myocardial infarction (FAST-MI) 2010 and 2015. Methods We used data from 2 one-month French registries, conducted 5 years apart, including 9,414 AMI admitted to coronary or intensive care units. We analyzed baseline characteristics, management and one-year survival according to participation in a research study. Results From 2010 to 2015, the prevalence of patients included in a research study decreased from 6.8% to 3.6% (P<0.001). Inclusions were performed mainly in university hospitals (8%). Clinical characteristics according to participation in a research study were strongly different. Overall, patients included in a research study were younger (61.2±12.7 vs 65.7±14.1; P<0.001) with less previous medical history and co-morbidities. Clinical presentation was preferentially a ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI: 70% vs 52%; P<0.001) in these patients who had a lower GRACE score (133±32 vs. 141±35; P<0.001). The use of invasive strategies was more used in patients included in a research study (coronary angiogram: 99% vs 95%, P<0.001) as prescriptions of recommended medications (i.e., antiplatelet agents, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and statins) at discharge (72% vs 63%; P<0.001). In a cox multivariate analysis, participation in a research study was not associated with lower mortality at one-year (HR= 0.68, 95% CI, 0.39–1.18, P=0.17). Similar results were observed in patients discharge alive (HR= 0.81, 95% CI, 0.44–1.48, P=0.49). Recommended medications were however more used in patients included in a clinical trial (OR=1.34; 95% CI, 1.09–1.65; P=0.007). Conclusions The number of inclusions in a research study related to AMI in France is low. Our data suggest that patients included in a research study are selected and received more recommended medications and invasive strategies. However, this management is not associated with a lower mortality at one-year. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None


Author(s):  
Dr. Ishita Attri ◽  

Majority of healthcare professionals are struggling with conducting and writing a protocol for a research study. Thus, the purpose of this article is to summarize significant steps and necessary guidelines for producing a standard research protocol, roles and responsibilities of various team members involved in the study, and conduction of actual clinical trial including its initiation, phases (I-III), termination or post-marketing surveillance phase. It is important to note that the quality of a clinical trial largely depends on the protocol to achieve success in the research study.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Thomas Mellor ◽  
Nicole Pfeiffer

Recently, the NIH has modified the definition of clinical trial so that it applies to a much broader range of studies that previously were classified as clinical research but not specifically as trials. This definition, below, specifically includes research where behavioral outcomes are a focus of the study: “A research study in which one or more human subjects are prospectively assigned to one or more interventions (which may include placebo or other control) to evaluate the effects of those interventions on health-related biomedical or behavioral outcomes.”With the addition of behavioral outcomes, many studies that previously would not have been “clinical trials” are now so classified. Research studies that meet both criteria for “clinical trial” and “basic research” are now referred to as basic experimental studies in humans (BESH). The purpose of this whitepaper is to analyze and investigate ways that existing infrastructure could be improved to support these new requirements in ways that benefit all stakeholders.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 790-799 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yulia A. Strekalova

Significant barriers to participant recruitment for clinical research (CR) are related to effective communication, and nurse coordinators are entrusted with being knowledge brokers between investigators and prospective participants. This prospective cohort study sought to identify linguistic choices that could inform and facilitate recruitment efforts. Healthy adults ( N = 204) were invited to join an online survey to assess the likelihood of participation in CR based on short and extended definitions of CR. Five short definitions included clinical trial, clinical study, health-related research study, community participatory study, and quality improvement study. The likelihood of participation in CR was the lowest for clinical trial and the highest for health-related research study. However, when only an extended definition was provided, those differences were not observed. A linguistic change from trial to study could lead to positive attitude toward CR and improvements in recruitment. However, ethical implications of linguistic choices should be considered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document