Bridging the gaps between tertiary and community care networks: Results from a southern California survey research analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1538-1538
Author(s):  
Alex Chehrazi-Raffle ◽  
Nicholas Salgia ◽  
Joann Hsu ◽  
Zeynep Busra Zengin ◽  
Sabrina Salgia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Southern California ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Community Practice ◽  
Electronic Data Capture System ◽  
Tertiary Center

1538 Background: Although many tertiary cancer centers offer access to myriad research protocols, the majority of patients nevertheless receive treatment at community practices. We sought to examine the barriers that hamper clinical collaboration between tertiary and community practice environments in Southern California. Methods: A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists using REDCap, a browser-based electronic data capture system. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge pertaining to clinical trials, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices. Results: The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it in full. The most common institutional affiliations were City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center (58%), University of California, Los Angeles (10%), and Cedars Sinai Medical Center (8%). In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for pt referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners as compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Of note, while a majority of tertiary center providers (52%) described the primary value of community practices to be a source of referrals for clinical trials, most community oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers. Conclusions: Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients’ access to clinical trials.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patterns of care: Implications for clinical trial design

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4079-4079 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. S. Denlinger ◽  
M. A. Collins ◽  
Y. Wong ◽  
S. Litwin ◽  
N. J. Meropol
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Treatment Change ◽  
Therapy Regimen

4079 Background: New approaches have expanded options for patients (pts) with mCRC. To characterize current practice paradigms that might bear on clinical trial design, we analyzed decision-making and treatment patterns in pts treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center since the introduction of cetuximab (CET), and bevacizumab (BV). Methods: A retrospective review of all pts diagnosed with mCRC between 3/1/04 and 8/28/06 treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center. Results: 160 pts were treated, with 157 pts receiving at least one therapy regimen by 10 attending oncologists. There were 350 changes in therapy with 246 (70%) including continuation of at least one prior drug (92 BV, 111 fluoropyrimidines, 43 other). The most common reasons for treatment change were toxicity (33%), progressive disease (PD) (29%), treatment breaks (15%), and metastasectomy (11%) ( Table ). PD was a more common cause for treatment discontinuation in later phases of treatment (18% initial regimen vs. 36% subsequent regimens, p=0.0002). 24% of pts treated with oxaliplatin (OX) discontinued due to neuropathy. Hypersensitivity caused discontinuation in 5% of pts with OX and 7% of pts with CET. Resection of metastases was undertaken in 38% of pts. 43% of these pts received neoadjuvant therapy, and 56% received adjuvant therapy. 30% of pts have died, 29% remain on active treatment, 28% are on a treatment break, 3% are on hospice, and 11% are lost to follow-up. Conclusions: PD is no longer the primary reason for change of therapy in pts with mCRC. Metastasectomy is common and OX neuropathy is often treatment-limiting. These findings have important implications for endpoint selection and design of clinical trials in mCRC. Future clinical trials in mCRC must recognize treatment complexities and capture key components of decision-making that may result in prolonged survival. Furthermore, treatment breaks represent a potential window for the evaluation of new drugs. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Accelerating the clinical trial start-up process for early-phase cancer studies: A test of process change to support rapid activation in an academic medical center.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17507-e17507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheilah K Hurley ◽  
Therica M Miller ◽  
Rebecca Flores Stella ◽  
Keren Dunn ◽  
Ryan Schroeder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Small Series ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
One Year ◽  
Activation Times ◽  
High Level

e17507 Background: Clinical trial sponsors have strong scientific, financial, and regulatory interests in rapidly activating studies at participating sites. Academic medical centers have difficulty activating trials within a few weeks of sponsor agreement because, among other inefficiencies, they engage the necessary committee reviews, regulatory approvals, contracting, and budgeting in serial fashion. Incremental revisions in such workflows do not result in strong improvements. Methods: We redesigned our institutional workflow to complete clinical trial activation tasks within six weeks. Historical procedures were replaced rather than scrutinized. A high level leadership committee was required to change and integrate procedures across the medical center, and engage sponsors to improve their turnaround times. A web-based collaborative workflow tracking tool was created to help coordinate the necessary tasks and measure performance. Six clinical trials from the Cancer Center portfolio were used to test and improve the new workflow. Results: Clinical trial activation redesign took one year. For the six studies used as tests of change, the activation times were 49, 54, 78, 58, 62, and 32 days. Times in excess of 6 weeks were largely due to sponsor delays. Conclusions: Considerable effort is required to significantly alter a complex workflow like clinical trial activation. Appropriate priorities, leadership, staffing, and tools are required. Markedly shortened study activation for a small series of cancer trials taught our academic medical center lessons that will be useful for improving the process for all clinical trials, and will make us a better partner for pharmaceutical and academic sponsors as well as for investigator initiated research. [Table: see text]

Invisible Barriers to Clinical Trials: The Impact of Structural, Infrastructural, and Procedural Barriers to Opening Oncology Clinical Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (28) ◽  
pp. 4545-4552 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Dilts ◽  
Alan B. Sandler
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Community Practice ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
The Impact

Purpose To investigate the administrative barriers that impact the opening of clinical trials at the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (VICC) and at VICC Affiliate Network (VICCAN) sites. Methods VICC, a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center, and three VICCAN community practice sites were studied. Methodology used was identification and mapping of existing processes and analysis of historical timing data. Results At course granularity, the process steps required at VICC and VICCAN main office plus local sites are 20 v 17 to 30 steps, respectively; this gap widens with finer granularity, with more than 110 v less than 60 steps, respectively. Approximately 50% of the steps are nonvalue added. For example, in the institutional review board (IRB) process, less than one third of the steps add value to the final protocol. The numbers of groups involved in the approval processes are 27 (VICC) and 6 to 14 (VICCAN home office and local sites). The median times to open a trial are 171 days (95% CI, 158 to 182 days) for VICC and 191 days (95% CI, 119 to 269 days) for the VICCAN sites. Contrary to expectations, the time for IRB review and approval (median, 47 days) is the fastest process compared with the scientific review committee review and approval (median, 70 days) and contracts and grants review (median, 78.5 days). Opening a cooperative group clinical trial is significantly (P = .05) more rapid because they require fewer review steps. Conclusion There are numerous opportunities to remove nonvalue-added steps and save time in opening clinical trials. With increasing numbers of new agents, fewer domestic principal investigators, and more companies off-shoring clinical trials, overcoming such barriers is of critical importance for maintenance of core oncology research capabilities in the United States.

scholarly journals Monitoring Twitter Conversations for Targeted Recruitment in Cancer Trials in LA County: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Pilot Study (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katja Reuter ◽  
Praveen Angyan ◽  
NamQuyen Le ◽  
Alicia MacLennan ◽  
Sarah Cole ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
The Social ◽  
Media Intervention ◽  
Twitter Users

BACKGROUND Insufficient recruitment of participants remains a critical roadblock to successful clinical research, in particular clinical trials. Social media (SM) provides new ways for connecting potential participants with research opportunities. Researchers suggested that the social network Twitter may serve as a rich avenue for exploring how patients communicate about their health issues and increasing enrollment in cancer clinical trials. However, there is a lack of evidence that Twitter offers practical utility and impact. OBJECTIVE The objective of this pilot study is to examine the feasibility and impact of using Twitter monitoring data (i.e., user activity and their conversations about cancer-related conditions and concerns expressed by Twitter users in LA County) as a tool for enhancing clinical trial recruitment at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS We will conduct a mixed-methods interrupted time series study design with a before and after SM recruitment intervention. Based on a preliminary analysis of eligible trials, we plan to onboard at least 84 clinical trials across six disease categories: breast cancer, colon cancer, kidney cancer, lymphoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and prostate cancer that are open to accrual at the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center (USC Norris). We will monitor messages about the six cancer conditions posted by Twitter users in LA County. Recruitment for the trials will occur through the Twitter account (@USCTrials). Primary study outcomes include, first, feasibility and acceptance of the social media intervention among targeted Twitter users and the study teams of the onboarded trials, which will be assessed using qualitative interviews and 4-point Likert scale, and calculating the proportion of targeted Twitter users who engaged with outreach messages. Second, impact of the social media intervention will be measured by calculating the proportion of people who enrolled in trials. The enrollment rate will be compared between the active intervention period and the prior 10 months as historical control for each disease trial group. RESULTS This study has been funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) through a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) award. Study approval was obtained from the Clinical Investigations Committee (CIC) at USC Norris and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at USC. Recruitment on Twitter started in February 2018. Data collection will be completed in November 2018. CONCLUSIONS This pilot project will provide preliminary data and practical insight into the application of publicly available Twitter data to identify and recruit clinical trial participants center across six cancer disease types. We will shed light on the acceptance of the SM intervention among Twitter users and study team members of the onboarded trials. If successful, the findings will inform a multisite, randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of the social media intervention across different locations and populations.

scholarly journals Trial Prospector: Matching Patients with Cancer Research Studies Using an Automated and Scalable Approach

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. CIN.S19454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satya S. Sahoo ◽  
Shiqiang Tao ◽  
Andrew Parchman ◽  
Zhihui Luo ◽  
Licong Cui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Dramatic Improvement ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Physician Participation ◽  
Time Required

Cancer is responsible for approximately 7.6 million deaths per year worldwide. A 2012 survey in the United Kingdom found dramatic improvement in survival rates for childhood cancer because of increased participation in clinical trials. Unfortunately, overall patient participation in cancer clinical studies is low. A key logistical barrier to patient and physician participation is the time required for identification of appropriate clinical trials for individual patients. We introduce the Trial Prospector tool that supports end-to-end management of cancer clinical trial recruitment workflow with (a) structured entry of trial eligibility criteria, (b) automated extraction of patient data from multiple sources, (c) a scalable matching algorithm, and (d) interactive user interface (UI) for physicians with both matching results and a detailed explanation of causes for ineligibility of available trials. We report the results from deployment of Trial Prospector at the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Case Comprehensive Cancer Center (Case CCC) with 1,367 clinical trial eligibility evaluations performed with 100% accuracy.

Comparison of the demographics of patients enrolled (E) versus those not enrolled (NE) on therapeutic clinical trials at a comprehensive cancer center

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17065-17065
Author(s):  
S. Goodin ◽  
D. C. Vamos ◽  
M. P. Kane ◽  
J. Nishioka ◽  
S. Lisi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Enrollment Rates

17065 Background: In the U.S., representation of minorities and the elderly in clinical trials has been low yet few reports have evaluated this potential barrier to enrollment by comparing the demographics of patients E vs NE within an institution. Therefore, we compared these groups to determine if there were significant differences in demographics at our center. Methods: For all E patients, demographic data is collected in a clinical trial database. For evaluated NE patients, data was captured through a ‘non-protocol’ form. A univariate analysis was performed on the demographic data, including gender, age, race, and insurance status, for each year to determine if there were differences in patients E vs NE on a therapeutic clinical trial. Results: From June 2003 through December 2005, there were 912 E patients and data available on 474 NE patients. The results were consistent for each year from 2003 to 2005, and therefore combinable, with no statistical difference in any parameter for E patients versus NE patients during any year with the exception of gender (p=0.05; Chi-square). The distribution of patients E by gender is 52% (474/912) female vs 48% (438/912) male and NE is 69% (325/474) female vs 31% (149/474) male. The mean age of E patients was 55 vs 56 years for NE patients, with 32% vs 33% representing those >65years, respectively. For the E patients, 84% were white, 7.2% black, 4.6% Asian, 4.2% unknown, and 0.4% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (H/PI). For the NE patients, where race was not consistently available, 65% were white, 9.3% black, 3.2% Asian, 20.5% unknown, and 2.1% H/PI. In both groups, most patients had private insurance (E 60%, NE 54%), followed by Medicare (E 27.5%, NE 29%), Medicaid (E 4%, NE 9%), self pay (E 7.5%, NE 7.4%), and unknown (E 1.3%, NE 0.4%). Conclusions: When comparing E vs NE patients, gender was the only factor that differed significantly. Although this result suggests that males were more likely to be E in a clinical trial, this finding should be interpreted with caution, since this difference might relate to differences in trial availability. While lower enrollment rates for the elderly and minority patients have been identified nationally, enrolling this group of patients does not appear to be a barrier at our center. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Stepwise examination of prostate clinical trials participation to reduce accrual barriers.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 157-157
Author(s):  
Dare Olatoye ◽  
Michael Anthony Carducci ◽  
Norma Kanarek
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Local Therapy ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Therapeutic Trial ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation

157 Background: Adequate and representative enrollment in therapeutic clinical trials is important to an NCI cancer center. Clinical trial participation is a string of 6 sequential patient and physician decisions beginning with an available therapeutic trial to enrollment in the trial. Opportunities for participation may be lost at any one of these steps. The objective of this study was to calculate transitional probabilities that measure patient, especially minority patient, accrual to clinical trials at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center and to describe the barriers for those dropping out at each step. Methods: Records for “first visit” medical oncology patients seen by three SKCCC physicians from January to April 2010 were abstracted. Prostate cancer case reports from the hospital cancer registry and a medical record review provided age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, place of residence, tumor characteristics, and prior treatment history. At each transition step, we calculated the proportion of patients who remained enrollable. Results: Overall, prostate cancer clinical trial participation was 17% (16/94). Minority accrual was similar to Caucasian accrual at 19% and 17% , respectively. Retention at each step of trial participation was highest for “discussed” (98%), “enrolled” (94%), “eligibility” for available trials (79%), and “consented” (71%). Two bottlenecks were qualitatively identified: “trial availability” (65%) and “patient interest” (51%). Forty-two percent of those for whom there was no trial available were older than 70 years and 33% were patients with rising PSA after local therapy and hormone-naïve. The “patient interest” step was shaped primarily by disinterest due to distance to SKCCC (83%). Conclusions: For prostate cancer patients, recruitment to medical oncology clinical trials is robust. Minority patients however are only 17% of all patients seen and half drop out when no trial is available and half of those remaining judged distance to be a problem (hence, no interest). This study approach has clarified which factors are likely to be barriers to participation and is likely useful to making adjustments that can reduce identified barriers by adding to trial portfolio as an example.

The cancer care network clinical trials program: Rising from the camp fire ashes.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 168-168
Author(s):  
Ofilio Ramon Vigil ◽  
Dana Ann Little ◽  
Kristin J. Mensonides ◽  
Richard J. Bold
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Rural Communities ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Care Network ◽  
Research Oversight ◽  
The City

168 Background: The UC Davis Health Cancer Care Network (CCN) in Sacramento improves quality through partnerships with community cancer centers and the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center (UCDCCC). The UCDCCC, as an NCI Lead Academic Participating Site (LAPS) grant recipient, lists Adventist Health Rideout Cancer Center (RCC) in Marysville (42 miles north of Sacramento) as a component. The Adventist Health Feather River Cancer Center (FRCC) and the town of Paradise were devastated by the 2018 Camp Fire, forcing FRCC’s relocation to the city of Chico (49 miles north of Marysville). FRCC was forced to disband its local IRB and unable to continue clinical trials research operations during the aftermath of this natural disaster. The CCN established an affiliation with the FRCC in April 2019. Future plans include establishing an IRB agreement and adding FRCC as a LAPS component. The CCN identified strategies to facilitate the participation of FRCC patients in clinical trials. Methods: The CCN identified 13 NCTN clinical trials with 34 enrolled patients that were in need of appropriate research oversight. Four of these trials were previously never activated at the UCDCCC or its affiliates. CCN staff engaged leaders at the various institutions involved: Quality Assurance (QA) Managers at each NCTN research base, the CIRB, the local IRB, the CTSU, and other leaders within UC Davis and Adventist Health. Results: Stakeholders acknowledged the unusual and urgent nature of our requests and questions, while contributing to the development of a plan allowing patients to continue clinical trial participation. QA managers approved a plan transferring patients to the RCC, allowing research staff to collect and submit data while patients continue receiving care closer to home. Together we developed a notification letter to inform patients of this plan. Conclusions: The relocation of facilities and patients brought rare challenges while conducting clinical research in rural communities. We learned that the cooperation and flexibility of all parties involved was crucial in supporting the continued care for FRCC's clinical trial patients and research contributions.

Factors Associated With Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Participation and Enrollment at a Large Academic Medical Center

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (11) ◽  
pp. 2046-2052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Simon ◽  
Wei Du ◽  
Lawrence Flaherty ◽  
Philip A. Philip ◽  
Patricia Lorusso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Factors Associated

Purpose The practice patterns of medical oncologists at a large National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center in Detroit, MI were evaluated to better understand factors associated with accrual to breast cancer clinical trials. Patients and Methods From 1996 to 1997, physicians completed surveys on 319 of 344 newly evaluated female breast cancer patients. The 19-item survey included clinical data, whether patients were offered clinical trial (CT) participation and enrollment, and when applicable, reasons why they were not. Multivariate analyses using logistic regression were performed to evaluate predictors of an offer and enrollment. Results The patients were 57% white, 32% black, and 11% other/unknown race. One hundred six (33%) were offered participation and 36 (34%) were enrolled. In multivariate analysis, CTs were less likely offered to older women (mean age, 52 years for those offered v 57 years for those not offered; P = .0005) and black women (21% of blacks offered v 42% of whites; P = .0009). Women with stage 1 disease, poor performance status, and those who were previously diagnosed were also less likely to be offered trials. None of these factors were significant predictors of enrollment. Women were not offered trials because of ineligibility (57%), lack of available trials (41%), and noncompliance (2%). Reasons for failed enrollment included patient refusal (88%) and failed eligibility (12%). Conclusion It is important for cooperative groups to design studies that will accommodate a broader spectrum of patients. Further work is needed to assess ways to improve communication about breast cancer CT participation to all eligible women.

Medication safety in cancer clinical trials: An analysis of medication error reports at a comprehensive cancer center

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6547-6547 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. P. Kane ◽  
K. Fessele ◽  
J. Gordilis-Perez ◽  
S. Schwartz ◽  
S. Lisi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medication Errors ◽  
Education And Training ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Healthcare Team ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
And Training

6547 Background: Although medication errors comprise 10–25% of all medical errors, little is known concerning the occurrence or types of medication errors occurring while treating patients on a clinical trial. Therefore, we retrospectively reviewed the medication errors reported in patients enrolled on clinical trials at our center. Methods: As part of a multidisciplinary continuous quality improvement project, from January 2003 through December 2006, we collected voluntary reports of medication errors in adult and pediatric patients on clinical trials involving both oral and intravenous chemotherapy. All reports were classified prospectively regarding clinical trial involvement, severity category (A to I) per the National Coordination Council on Medical Error Reporting and Prevention, type, cause, and where in the medication use process the error occurred. Results: There were 163 reports involving patients treated on clinical trials. The most common errors were those corrected prior to reaching the patient in 68% of events (Category A&B), while 31% reached the patient but did not result in harm (Category C&D), with 1% resulting in temporary patient harm (Category E&F). The most common type of errors were prescribing (66%), improper dose (42%), and omission errors (9%). Not following an institutional procedure or the protocol was the primary cause for these errors (39%), followed by the written order (30%), and poor communication involving both the healthcare team and the patient (26%). The processes where the errors initiated were in prescribing 47%, administration 10%, dispensing 6%, and monitoring 5%. Conclusion: Medication errors do occur in clinical trials, however the majority of these are corrected prior to reaching the patient or do not result in harm. Not following an institutional procedure or the protocol was the most common cause of error. This is most likely due to the protocol procedures differing from existing standards of care. Protocol-specific education through the Centralized Education and Training Service, a shared resource within our cancer center, addresses this issue enhancing the quality and safety of clinical trials through the education and training of healthcare professionals. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document