Qualitative analysis of clinical research coordinators' role in phase I cancer clinical trials

Navigating the challenges of clinical trial professionals in the healthcare sector

Clinical trials (CTs) are essential for medical advancements but face significant challenges, particularly in professional training and role clarity. Principal investigators, clinical research coordinators (CRCs), nurses, clinical trial pharmacists, and monitors are key players. Each faces unique challenges, such as maintaining protocol compliance, managing investigational products, and ensuring data integrity. Clinical trials' complexity and evolving nature demand specialized and ongoing training for these professionals. Addressing these challenges requires clear role delineation, continuous professional development, and supportive workplace environments to improve retention and trial outcomes. Enhanced training programs and a collaborative approach are essential for the successful conduct of clinical trials and the advancement of medical research.

Crisis of the Clinical Trials Staff Attrition After the COVID-19 Pandemic

A survey of clinical research professionals @SWOG indicate that 80% of clinical trial offices are understaffed. Addressing this is critical so progress for people with cancer continues. Read more about lessons learned in the #COVID19 pandemic and how it informs a path forward.

Clinical research resource support for off-site research coordinators in intensive and specialty care units

Clinical Research Coordinators (CRCs) are vital collaborators in a clinical research project. They often are the primary liaisons between investigators and human participants in studies and are involved in every aspect of many protocols, including participant recruitment, care (both usual medical care and specific study-related monitoring and procedures), data collection, specimen processing, and follow-up. The Clinical Translational Science Award program, which was created by the National Institutes of Health in 2006, has significantly expanded the venues in which Clinical Research Resource (CRR) - based CRCs are embedded. CRCs functioning in these areas, outside of the research-focused in-patient environment of the CRR, are designated as "off-site" CRCs. Many of these locations, such as intensive care units and emergency departments, require that CRCs interact regularly with healthcare providers whose primary functions are focused on providing optimal patient care rather than research and often involving very complex patients. These off-site CRCs require additional training and support outside of the usual research-oriented environment of the CRR. They are required to function within the context of the patient-care team while fostering implementation of collaborative research. This is a description of such a program specifically geared to off-site CRCs with the goal of enhancing the quality of research and experiences of CRCs.

Clinical research coordinators' role in knowledge translation activities in rehabilitation: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Clinical research coordinators (CRCs) facilitate the interaction between researchers and knowledge users in rehabilitation centres to promote and sustain evidence-informed practices. Despite their presence in rehabilitation settings in Quebec for over 20 years, little is known about their profiles and knowledge translation (KT) activities nor how they can best enact their role. This study explored CRCs' roles and perspectives on the barriers, enablers, and strategies for improving KT activities in rehabilitation settings.

METHODS

We conducted a multi-centre, participatory sequential mixed methods study. In the descriptive quantitative phase, we collected data via an online survey to determine CRCs' role in research and KT. In the subsequent qualitative phase, we conducted an in-person focus group to elicit CRCs' perspectives regarding factors influencing their work in KT, and potential solutions for overcoming these challenges. We used a descriptive and an inductive content analysis approach for the data analysis. The data synthesis was inspired by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework.

RESULTS

All nine CRCs from five partner health regions of a large rehabilitation research centre agreed to participate in the study. The data suggest that CRCs are like knowledge brokers and boundary spanners. As information managers, linkage agents and facilitators, CRCs play a pivot role in diffusion, dissemination, synthesis and tailoring of knowledge to improve evidence informed practices and quality of care in rehabilitation. The factors influencing CRCs' KT activities are mostly linked to the context such as the receptivity of the organization as well as the lack of time and resources, and limited understanding of their roles by stakeholders. Two main suggestions made to enhance CRCs' contribution to KT activities include the harmonisation of expectations between the large research centre and their partner health regions, and better promotion of their role to clinical and research teams.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides valuable insights into the scope of CRCs' role. The results shed light on the challenges that they face and potential solutions to overcome them. The knowledge generated in this study can be used to implement this role with similar duties in rehabilitation settings or other health care domains.

Motivations and experiences of patients with advanced cancer participating in Phase 1 clinical trials: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Persons with advanced cancer may participate in Phase 1 clinical trials - first-in-human trials that are conducted with the main objectives of safety and dosing. The motivations for participation are not well understood and may include hope for cure.

AIM

To explore the perspectives of persons with advanced cancer in order to understand the motivations for participating in Phase 1 clinical trials, experiences while being on trial and views on palliative care provision.

DESIGN

Qualitative study with a constructivist stance, using thematic analysis based upon the grounded theory approach.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

20 persons with advanced cancer who were participating in a Phase 1 clinical trial.

RESULTS

Many participants described how Phase 1 clinical trial participation was their last hope, as they were cognisant of their advanced disease. Information-seeking needs differed - some needed comprehensive information while others relied on the doctor's recommendation. Participants experienced varied negative and positive physical and psycho-emotional concerns, and needed to draw on multiple sources of support such as family, friends and healthcare professionals. Some could list potential benefits of palliative care but felt they did not require it yet. The overarching theme was hope and positive thinking as a way of coping.

CONCLUSIONS

The concepts of hope as a way of coping and the supportive presence of healthcare professionals could be weaved into a future model of palliative care to improve the illness journey for patients considering Phase 1 clinical trial participation and other persons with advanced cancer.

Propensity-matched comparisons of factors negatively affecting research activities during the COVID-19 pandemic between nursing researchers working in academic and clinical settings in Japan

Aim

To determine the factors associated with reduced research activities during the COVID‐19 pandemic in 2020 by comparing nursing researchers working in academic and clinical settings.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of data collected by the Japan Academy of Nursing Sciences, which conducted a cross‐sectional online survey when the pandemic began. We included respondents who worked in either academic or clinical settings and responded that the pandemic negatively affected their research activities. First, we computed a propensity score (PS) using a logistic regression model. Then we performed a one‐to‐one ratio matching between the groups based on the PS to control imbalances between the groups. We identified the factors negatively affecting research activities and who to consult about research concerns by comparing the groups using Chi‐square or Fisher's exact tests.

Results

There were 1,532 participants, with a response rate of 16.1%. After PS matching, 214 participants (107 for each group) were included. We identified three significant factors associated with reduced research activities: (i) time required for learning new information and communication technology (ICT) skills; (ii) time required for supporting colleagues with ICT issues; and (iii) time required for preparing and evaluating teaching materials. Approximately 20% of our participants in both settings had nobody to consult regarding research concerns.

Conclusion

We found that the time spent on ICT‐related issues negatively affected the research activities of nursing researchers when the pandemic began in Japan. In such an emergency, nursing researchers needed an opportunity to share their difficulties as a part of a support service.

Participation in and withdrawal from cancer clinical trials: A survey of clinical research coordinators

Objective

Poor accrual and withdrawal are the main reasons for the failure of cancer clinical trials. As clinical research coordinators (CRCs) work at the frontlines of clinical trials, CRCs can best identify the main factors that influence patient participation and dropout and suggest potential remedial measures. This study aimed to investigate participation and withdrawal in cancer clinical trials through a survey of CRCs. Furthermore, we collected suggestions of CRCs to increase patient participation and reduce withdrawal from cancer clinical trials.

Methods

This cross-sectional survey among 100 CRC nurses currently coordinating cancer clinical trials and having more than six months of experience was conducted at four hospitals in South Korea between March and August 2021. We designed a questionnaire based on prior studies, and the key items included characteristics of respondents, characteristics of clinical trials, clinical trial participation, and withdrawal.

Results

Patients refused to participate due to concern about adverse events (46.5%) and negative perception of clinical trials (44.4%). The main reasons for study withdrawal were disease progression (71.5%), adverse events (10.6%), and withdrawal of consent due to personal issues (5.5%). The provision of sufficient explanation was suggested as a remedial measure for increasing consent to participate (67.4%) and reducing withdrawal (21.8%).

Conclusions

A survey of CRCs revealed the reasons governing patient participation and withdrawal in cancer clinical trials, thereby providing a novel insight into strategies for promoting subject enrollment and reducing withdrawal from cancer clinical trials.

Infirmière de recherche clinique en oncologie : revue exploratoire

En ce 21e siècle, le cancer est une maladie qui suscite particulièrement l’attention en raison de sa complexité ainsi que des impacts physiques, émotionnels et financiers sur notre vie. L’attention portée à la recherche et les investissements dans le traitement contre le cancer en font la maladie la plus étudiée dans les essais cliniques à l’échelle mondiale. Les infirmières de recherche clinique font partie de l’équipe de recherche en oncologie et sont un élément fondamental de réussite des essais. Leurs relations directes avec les participants d’une étude de recherche sont essentielles pour les activités des essais cliniques en première ligne. De façon générale, l’afflux et la complexité des essais cliniques en oncologie ont transformé la pratique infirmière en oncologie et ont mené à la création de la sous-spécialité unique qu’est l’infirmière de recherche clinique en oncologie. La présente revue exploratoire s’est penchée sur le rôle et la pratique futurs de l’infirmière de recherche clinique.

Oncology clinical trials nursing: A scoping review

In the 21st century, cancer is a disease that captures much of our attention for its complexity, and its physical, emotional, and financial impacts on one's life. Research attention and investment in cancer management has made it the most studied disease in clinical trials globally. Clinical trials nurses are part of the oncology research team and a fundamental factor in trial success. Their direct relationship with research subjects is the key connection in the operation of clinical trials at the front line. The influx and complexity of oncology clinical trials has transformed both oncology nursing practice in general and led to the development of the unique subspecialty of the oncology clinical trials nurse. This scoping review investigated the role and future practice of the clinical trials nurse.

Empowering the Clinical Research Coordinator in Academic Medical Centers

Objective

To identify factors associated with job satisfaction and retention, we surveyed a large cohort of clinical research coordinators (CRCs). In recent years, the clinical research coordinator has changed from a semi-permanent role to one that has a high turnover rate. The CRCs are integral to clinical research and instability in this role can cause patient stress and increase the burden on clinical teams through unnecessary delegation of resources toward hiring and retraining new talent. The cultural shift toward CRCs as a temporary position may be driven by the perspective that the role positions an individual for other health care careers, but understanding what influences low retention rates are necessary.

Methods

A survey containing 13 multiple choice or open-ended and 32 Likert scale questions was distributed to previous and current CRCs using REDCap. The questionnaires were self-administered and completed over a 12-month period between October 11, 2017, and September 16, 2018.

Results

A total of 85 CRCs completed the study. From the 32 potential predictors of retention, we investigated 9 significant predictors: salary, work setting, understanding the role, level of CRC, understanding protocol development, actively engaged principal investigator (PI), having a collaborative role with PI, feeling respected by PI, and having a close relationship with PI. Adequate salary, greater respect, collaboration, and engagement from the PI were significantly associated with higher retention. Surprisingly, greater workload and lack of opportunity for professional growth were not associated with retention.

Conclusion

The CRCs who feel respected and engaged by the PI and are adequately compensated are more likely to have higher job satisfaction and retention.

The Oncology Clinical Research Nurse Study Co-Ordinator: Past, Present, and Future

Clinical research nursing is a specialty practice that has evolved over the past century. Clinical research nurses (CRNs) work directly (e.g., direct care provider and advance clinician) or indirectly (e.g., manager, educator, and study co-ordinator) to support clinic research. For more than 50 years, oncology nurses have contributed to the body of evidence describing and validating the responsibilities and importance of the nurse in clinical research, especially the study co-ordinator role. This article will focus on the CRN study co-ordinator role in oncology clinical trials highlighting the historical evolution of the role, the contributions of dedicated members of the Oncology Nursing Society, and the future landscape of clinical research nursing through the International Association of CRNs.

The validation of a questionnaire to delineate clinical research coordinator roles in China

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the roles of the clinical research coordinator (CRC) in clinical oncology trials.

DESIGN AND METHODS

An E-questionnaire that includes 10 sections with 155 items total and is based on the Clinical Trials Nursing Questionnaire (CTNQ) was designed to determine the conditions of demographics, competences, activities, and psychology for Chinese CRCs. Eighty-two CRCs from three different provinces in China were invited to join this study anonymously. Cronbach's α and split-half reliability were calculated to assess the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. Additionally, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to find the similarity and difference between the importance of the roles of CRCs and their frequency. The STROBE checklist for observational research has been following for presenting the research (see File S1).

FINDINGS

Cronbach's α values of the Chinese version of the questionnaire for the frequency scale and the importance scale were .965 and .961, respectively. The split-half reliability coefficients were 0.866 and 0.805, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficients of the subscales indicated that the correlation between each item and its dimension was greater than its correlation with the other components (P < .05). Exploratory factor analysis results show that three common factors were extracted by principal component analysis and had eigenvalues greater than 1 and that the cumulative contribution rate was 69.415%.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The Chinese version of the questionnaire has good reliability and validity for CRCs in China, which could be promoted in evaluating clinical research coordinator roles in China.