Overcoming Challenges in Multisite Trials

Understanding Resilience Among Generation Z Baccalaureate Nursing Students: A Hermeneutical Phenomenology Study

BACKGROUND

Supporting resilience for nursing student success is critical to future health care. This study explored the meaning and process of resilience among Generation Z traditional baccalaureate nursing students.

METHOD

Using a qualitative hermeneutical phenomenology approach, 13 Generation Z nursing students with the lived experience of resilience were surveyed and interviewed. Results were analyzed interpretively.

RESULTS

Themes of resilience among Generation Z nursing students were identified relative to study questions. Identified themes included "Maneuvering the Murky Water" and "This Can Either Ruin Me or I Can Keep Moving With It," as well as a resilience process within the context of nursing education. Open-response data provided further reflective insights on resilience and recommendations for resilience in nursing education programs.

CONCLUSION

Supporting resilience begins with understanding students' individual and generational perspective. Future nursing education research should include innovative interventions wherein the perspectives of Generation Z students are central to design. [J Nurs Educ. 2024;63(7):460-469.].

Mindfulness-based intervention for depression and insulin resistance in adolescents: Protocol for BREATHE, a multisite, pilot and feasibility randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Elevated depression symptoms have been associated with higher insulin resistance in adolescents, and consequently, greater risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D). Mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) may be suited for adolescents at risk for T2D given its potential to decrease depression and improve stress-related behavior/physiology underpinning insulin resistance. To prepare for a future multisite efficacy randomized controlled trial, a rigorous, multisite, pilot and feasibility study is needed to test this approach. The current paper describes the design and protocol for a multisite, pilot and feasibility randomized controlled trial of six-week MBI, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and health education (HealthEd) group interventions, to assess multisite fidelity, feasibility, and acceptability.

METHODS

Participants are N = 120 adolescents ages 12-17, with body mass index (BMI) ≥85th percentile, elevated depression symptoms (20-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale total score > 20), and family history of diabetes. Enrollment occurs across four United States (US) sites, two in Colorado, one in Washington, D·C., and one in Maryland. Group interventions are delivered virtually by trained psychologists and co-facilitators. Assessments occur at baseline, six-week follow-up, and one-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Primary outcomes are intervention implementation fidelity, based upon expert ratings of audio-recorded sessions (≥80% adherence/competence), and recruitment feasibility, based upon percentage enrollment of eligible youth (≥80%). Secondary outcomes are intervention training fidelity/feasibility/acceptability, recruitment timeframe, and retention/assessment feasibility.

CONCLUSION

Findings will inform optimization of training, recruitment, intervention delivery, retention, and assessment protocols for a multisite, efficacy randomized controlled trial evaluating MBI for decreasing depression and improving insulin resistance in adolescents at risk for developing T2D.

Enhancing multi-site autism research through the development of a collaborative data platform

Data repositories, particularly those storing data on vulnerable populations, increasingly need to carefully consider not only what data is being collected, but how it will be used. As such, the Autism Intervention Research Network on Physical Health (AIR-P) has created the Infrastructure for Collaborative Research (ICR) to establish standards on data collection practices in Autism repositories. The ICR will strive to encourage inter-site collaboration, amplify autistic voices, and widen accessibility to data. The ICR is staged as a three-tiered framework consisting of (1) a request for proposals system, (2) a REDCap-based data repository, and (3) public data dashboards to display aggregate de-identified data. Coupled with a review process including autistic and non-autistic researchers, this framework aims to propel the implementation of equitable autism research, enhance standardization within and between studies, and boost transparency and dissemination of findings. In addition, the inclusion of a contact registry that study participants can opt into creates the base for a robust participant pool. As such, researchers can leverage the platform to identify, reach, and distribute electronic materials to a greater proportion of potential participants who likely fall within their eligibility criteria. By incorporating practices that promote effective communication between researchers and participants, the ICR can facilitate research that is both considerate of and a benefit to autistic people.

Handheld Ultrasound Devices for Peripheral Intravenous Cannulation: A Scoping Review

Ultrasound-guided insertion of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) is recommended for patients with difficult intravenous access, but access to ultrasound equipment is often limited to specialty departments. Compact, affordable handheld ultrasound devices are available, but the extent of their clinical adoption and impact on patient outcomes is unknown. This scoping review aimed to explore evidence regarding handheld and pocket ultrasound devices for PIVC insertion. Databases were searched for studies published in English between January 2000 and January 2023 evaluating handheld or pocket ultrasound devices weighing ≤3 kg for PIVC insertion. Data were extracted using standardized forms and summarized using descriptive statistics. Seventeen studies reporting the use of handheld or pocket ultrasound devices were identified. Most studies were conducted in adult inpatient facilities; 3 included pediatrics, and 2 reported out-of-hospital use. Participants with difficult intravenous access featured in 9 studies. Ultrasound training programs were described in 12 studies, with competency defined by number of successful PIVC insertions. Five studies reported clinician and/or patient perspectives. Ultrasound for PIVC insertion is not widely accessible in nonspecialist areas, but more compact and affordable handheld models could provide a solution, especially for patients with difficult access. More research evidence using handheld ultrasound is needed.

IRB challenges in multisite studies: A case report and commentary from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA)

A shift from single to multi-site health studies enabled a range of research benefits including faster recruitment of larger and more diverse samples; increased statistical power, greater rigour, generalisability, and external reliability; and increased likelihood of impacting policy and clinical practice. However, ethical review of multi-site studies by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) raises specific challenges compared with single site studies, with requirements to apply to multiple local IRBs increasing the burden on research, possibly endangering the integrity of the research process or inhibiting development of multi-site studies. The option of a single centralised IRB may offer a clearer, more consistent and efficient review process. This study presents a case report and commentary from 15 years engaging with IRBs in multiple sites in Ireland by the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA). It examines the ethics review process for IDS-TILDA through its first four waves. While the majority of 48 IRBs granted ethical approval within 13 weeks, six IRBs took 21-47 weeks to approve, leading to delays in data collection of up to 11 months. Despite additional review time, no changes were required to the study protocol. Therefore, a critical impact of the process was the delay in starting data collection within a small number of organisations, and reduced involvement in the study for one organisation. The ethical review process with multiple IRBs increased the degree of complexity of the process, with added bureaucracy and far greater communication required across 48 IRBs, substantially adding to the resource commitment for the review process. The relatively quick approval from the majority of IRBs was partially a result of the longitudinal study building relationships with organisations throughout multiple waves. That other health studies may not accrue this benefit supports calls for a single IRB system for multi-site health studies.

Building research infrastructure and multisite studies in merged health care settings: A framework for nurse scientists and health care leaders

BACKGROUND

Merged healthcare settings, particularly those with Magnet designated sites, present distinct opportunities for PhD nurse scientists developing nursing research infrastructure.

PURPOSE

This article aims to assist nurse scientists and healthcare leaders in defining nurse scientist roles, and in developing research infrastructure for conducting multi-site research in merged settings.

METHOD

Practical strategies and a framework are provided to assist in building and navigating nurse scientist roles and research infrastructure development.

DISCUSSION

Emphasizing the necessity of organizational support, the article underscores the importance of clear role delineation and leadership support.

CONCLUSION

To optimize the contributions of nurse scientists in merged healthcare settings, especially in Magnet organizations, clear role definitions, robust research infrastructure, and strong organizational support are imperative.

Using a Cascading Approach to Improve Multisite Study Procedures

BACKGROUND

Multisite studies offer larger, more diverse samples to successfully capture populations and clinical practices of interest at the point of care. However, investigators face challenges with site recruitment and sampling, differences in clinical practices across sites, and data integrity. Addressing these issues a priori can improve the rigor and reproducibility of the research.

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to describe a cascading approach to multisite research. An exemplar is provided of a study using this approach, which aimed to evaluate the prevalence of pain and the pain management practices provided to critically ill children in pediatric intensive care units in the United States.

METHODS

The cascading approach includes two or more pilot study procedures with a progressively increasing number of sites prior to a full-scale study. Following each pilot, study procedures are evaluated; feedback was obtained from site personnel and content experts; procedures were revised accordingly; approvals were obtained; sites were trained; and the revised procedures are repeated with a larger, more diverse number of sites.

RESULTS

In the exemplar provided, improvements in the efficiency and integrity of data collection were noted for the full-scale study following the pilots. All sites that completed the agreements and approvals for study participation were retained for the duration of the two pilots and full-scale study.

DISCUSSION

Borrowing from principles of process improvement, the cascading approach allows knowledge to be gained regarding site differences and informs the revision of study procedures while potentially maximizing efficiency and data integrity, minimizing site burden, and maintaining site engagement for multisite studies.

Multi-centric clinic trials in evidence-based research - A narrative review on the Indian scenario

Evidence-based health care is gaining prominence since the past many decades. The ultimate goal of evidence-based medicine is providing the best available treatment to patients. The boom in pharmacy sector has seen a rapid rise in randomised controlled clinical trials. Novel medicines or diagnostic tests must be tested before introducing to the target population. Randomised controlled trials are at the top hierarchy of evidence-based health care, especially for testing newly invented drugs. The results obtained from randomised controlled trials cannot be generalised to the entire population. This has led to the evolvement of multi-centre trials in evidence-based research. Multi-centre trials can overcome the barriers associated with single-centre clinical trials. The conduct of multi-centre trials is still in a budding stage in India. Although there are many ongoing multi-centre trials in India, very few trials are conducted among the dental fraternity. The conduct of such trials has its own set of challenges involving funding, ethical committee approval, and logistic requirements. This paper will discuss the growth of multi-centre research, steps involved in conduct of multi-centre trials, and the challenges faced in conducting these trials by the dental specialists in India.

Lessons learned from two clinical trials on nutritional supplements to reduce aggressive behaviour

BACKGROUND

Setting up and conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) has many challenges-particularly trials that include vulnerable individuals with behavioural problems or who reside in facilities that focus on care as opposed to research. These populations are underrepresented in RCTs.

APPROACH

In our paper, we describe the challenges and practical lessons learned from two RCTs in two care settings involving long-stay psychiatric inpatients and people with intellectual disabilities. We describe five main difficulties and how these were overcome: (1) multisite setting, (2) inclusion of vulnerable participants, (3) nutritional supplements and placebos, (4) assessment of behavioural outcomes, and (5) collecting bio samples.

CONCLUSIONS

By sharing these practical experiences, we hope to inform other researchers how to optimally design their trials, while avoiding and minimising the difficulties that we encountered, and to facilitate the implementation of a trial. Both trials were registered in the Clinical Trials Register (RCT A: NCT02498106; RCT B: NCT03212092).