scholarly journals How do clinical research coordinators learn Good Clinical Practice? A mixed-methods study of factors that predict uptake of knowledge

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-175
Author(s):  
Jessica T Mozersky ◽  
Alison L Antes ◽  
Kari Baldwin ◽  
Michelle Jenkerson ◽  
James M DuBois
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Clinical Research Coordinator ◽  
Clinical Research Coordinators ◽  
Research Coordinator ◽  
Practice Knowledge

Background: Good Clinical Practice is an international standard for the design and conduct of clinical trials to ensure ethical and scientific integrity. Recent National Institutes of Health policy mandates Good Clinical Practice training for all investigators and staff involved in National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trials, yet approaches to Good Clinical Practice training vary widely. There are limited data on Good Clinical Practice knowledge among the clinical trial workforce and no evidence regarding effective methods to learn Good Clinical Practice. Methods: We used an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. We conducted 18 exploratory qualitative interviews with clinical research coordinators to help inform the development of the quantitative survey. We then administered a validated 32-item, multiple-choice test of Good Clinical Practice knowledge with a survey of work and training experiences to 625 clinical research coordinators at three academic medical centers in the United States. Variables that were significantly associated with Good Clinical Practice knowledge were entered into a multiple regression analysis to identify unique predictors of Good Clinical Practice knowledge. We controlled for verbal–numerical reasoning and learning orientation. Results: During qualitative interviews, clinical research coordinators reported that formal Good Clinical Practice training had value but they simultaneously emphasized the importance of experience, day-to-day practice, and observing colleagues and mentors as essential to supplement formal training. In our quantitative survey, five variables predicted a total of 22% of variance in Good Clinical Practice knowledge scores: years of experience as a clinical research coordinator, working on diverse types of trials, supporting industry-funded trials, being certified in clinical research coordination, and aggregated hours of online and face-to-face training (in that order). Conclusion: The duration and richness of experience as a clinical research coordinator were the strongest predictors of Good Clinical Practice knowledge, a finding consistent with our exploratory qualitative interview results. Our findings suggest that formal online and face-to-face training has a minimal influence on Good Clinical Practice knowledge. The type of training—whether online or face to face—does not make a significant difference in Good Clinical Practice knowledge scores. Much of the variance in Good Clinical Practice knowledge remains unexplained, calling for further research in this area.

scholarly journals Assessing clinical research coordinator knowledge of good clinical practice: An evaluation of the state of the art and a test validation study

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
James M. DuBois ◽  
Jessica T. Mozersky ◽  
Alison L. Antes ◽  
Kari Baldwin ◽  
Michelle Jenkerson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Knowledge Test ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Clinical Research Coordinator ◽  
Clinical Research Coordinators ◽  
Research Coordinator ◽  
Effectiveness Of Training ◽  
Development And Validation

AbstractThis paper describes the development and validation of a new 32-item test of knowledge of good clinical practice (GCP) administered to 625 clinical research coordinators. GCP training is mandated by study sponsors including the US National Institutes of Health. The effectiveness of training is rarely assessed, and the lack of validated tests is an obstacle to assessment. The GCP knowledge test was developed following evaluation of two existing widely used GCP tests to ensure it accurately reflects the content of current training. The final GCP knowledge test demonstrated good reliability (α = 0.69). It is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring knowledge of GCP. The test will be useful in assessing the effectiveness of GCP training programs as well as individuals’ mastery of GCP content.

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Effectiveness of a Compassion-Centered Team Intervention to Improve Clinical Research Coordinator Resilience and Well-Being

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.21.00120
Author(s):  
Jennifer S. Mascaro ◽  
Patricia K. Palmer ◽  
Marcia J. Ash ◽  
Caroline Peacock ◽  
Anuja Sharma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Clinical Research Coordinator ◽  
Individual Resilience ◽  
Clinical Research Coordinators ◽  
Research Coordinator ◽  
The Impact

PURPOSE: Oncology clinical research coordinators (CRCs) and team-based coordinator care are critical for the success of clinical trials. However, CRCs typically report elevated anxiety and burnout and many oncology centers have high levels of coordinator attrition. To address the need for a team-based intervention to reduce burnout and promote resilience and cohesion among CRCs, we developed a compassion-centered, team-based intervention, Compassion-Centered Spiritual Health Team Intervention (CCSH-TI). METHODS: Participants were CRCs working in disease-specific teams within a comprehensive cancer center. CRCs were randomly assigned by team to either participate in four 60-minute sessions of CCSH-TI or receive the intervention after the study. To evaluate whether CCSH-TI is feasible and acceptable, we used a mixed-method approach including self-report questionnaires and a focus group. To evaluate the impact of CCSH-TI, we assessed self-reported resilience, well-being, burnout, and team civility before and immediately after the intervention period (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04060901 ). RESULTS: Attendance varied by team, but all teams had rates more than 60%. Coordinators rated high levels of credibility of CCSH-TI to improve burnout, and the majority reported that they received benefits, particularly in resilience and stress management, indicating acceptability. Coordinators randomly assigned to CCSH-TI reported an increase in resilience compared with coordinators randomly assigned to the wait-list group (F(41) = 4.53, P = .039). CONCLUSION: Data from this pilot study indicate that CCSH-TI may be a feasible, credible, acceptable, and effective intervention to augment individual resilience among CRCs. However, the quantitative and qualitative data suggest that more comprehensive and systematic programming is necessary to truly mitigate burnout.

scholarly journals Obstacles in conducting clinical trials in the Saudi Arabia

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 166
Author(s):  
Salem D. Al Suwaidan ◽  
Aseel S. Alsuwaidan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Strategic Plan ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Regulatory Authorities ◽  
Research Institution

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Conducting clinical research in accordance with the standards of regulatory authorities and within the guidelines of the good clinical practice (GCP) is a matter of concern.  It has been noticed that some increment in the conduction of clinical trials outside USA and European countries in the last two decades. The main objective of this study is to identify the magnitude of some obstacles that affect the conduction of clinical trials in accordance with the GCP.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Developing questionnaire in accordance with the criteria of the GCP would make assessment on how to buildup infrastructure including policy and procedures of the research institution. Recommendation of the study is to perform this questionnaire every other year to assess the progress and development of the research institution.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> To identify good clinical researchers, what sort of obstacle(s) regarding conducting clinical trials, and from these obstacles how to resolve it and build up infrastructure for the research institution and also to establish the strategic plan for the research institution.</p>

scholarly journals The appearance and increase in the quantity and proportion of the clinical research coordinator's service fee in drug clinical trial research fund and its impact on trial quality

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liran Chen ◽  
Zhimin Chen ◽  
Huafang Chen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Continuous Increase ◽  
Clinical Trial Research ◽  
Clinical Research Coordinator ◽  
Research Coordinator ◽  
Drug Clinical Trial

Abstract Objective: The changes of absolute value and relative value of clinical research coordinator service fee and its influence on the quality of drug clinical trial were analyzed.Methods: This study compared the amount and structural changes of drug clinical trial costs in before 3 years and after 3 years of self-examination and inspection initiated by the China Food and Drug Administration, identified the increase number and composition of each individual cost of a clinical trial research funds which including clinical research coordinator service fee, investigator labor fee, subjects examination fee, subjects traffic subsidy, documents management fee, drug management fee, etc.Result: The most significant appearance and increase in volume and proportion were the clinical research coordinator service fee. From the initial few to the global multicenter tumor drug clinical trials RMB31,624 or 34.92% of the proportion and domestic multicenter tumor drug clinical trials RMB16,500,accounted for 33.74%.Discussion: It has become common for more money to be spent on clinical trials to be accompanied by improved quality, but the occurrence and continuous increase of clinical research coordinator service fee were divided into two aspects, On the one hand, the quality of clinical trials was promoted by the large amount of low-skill trivial work undertaken by clinical research coordinator; on the other hand, the quality of clinical trials was undermined by the fact that clinical research coordinator did too much treatment evaluation work that should have been done by the investigator.

scholarly journals European survey on national training activities in clinical research

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Magnin ◽  
V. Cabral Iversen ◽  
G. Calvo ◽  
B. Čečetková ◽  
O. Dale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Core Competencies ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Specific Training ◽  
Continuous Training ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Training Activities ◽  
Career Options

Abstract Background Investigator-initiated clinical studies (IITs) are crucial to generate reliable evidence that answers questions of day-to-day clinical practice. Many challenges make IITs a complex endeavour, for example, IITs often need to be multinational in order to recruit a sufficient number of patients. Recent studies highlighted that well-trained study personnel are a major factor to conduct such complex IITs successfully. As of today, however, no overview of the European training activities, requirements and career options for clinical study personnel exists. Methods To fill this knowledge gap, a survey was performed in all 11 member and observer countries of the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN), using a standardised questionnaire. Three rounds of data collection were performed to maximize completeness and comparability of the received answers. The survey aimed to describe the landscape of academic training opportunities, to facilitate the exchange of expertise and experience among countries and to identify new fields of action. Results The survey found that training for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and investigator training is offered in all but one country. A specific training for study nurses or study coordinators is also either provided or planned in ten out of eleven countries. A majority of countries train in monitoring and clinical pharmacovigilance and offer specific training for principal investigators but only few countries also train operators of clinical research organisations (CRO) or provide training for methodology and quality management systems (QMS). Minimal requirements for study-specific functions cover GCP in ten countries. Only three countries issued no requirements or recommendations regarding the continuous training of study personnel. Yet, only four countries developed a national strategy for training in clinical research and the career options for clinical researchers are still limited in the majority of countries. Conclusions There is a substantial and impressive investment in training and education of clinical research in the individual ECRIN countries. But so far, a systematic approach for (top-down) strategic and overarching considerations and cross-network exchange is missing. Exchange of available curricula and sets of core competencies between countries could be a starting point for improving the situation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document