The role and potential contribution of clinical research nurses to clinical trials

A novel research competency framework for clinical research nurses and midwives

BACKGROUND

Clinical research nurses and midwives (CRN/Ms) are highly specialised registered nurses. They combine their clinical nursing expertise with research knowledge and skills to aid in the delivery of rigorous, high-quality clinical research to improve health outcomes, the research participant's experience and treatment pathways ( Beer et al 2022 ). However, there is evidence that the transition into a CRN/M role is challenging for registered nurses.

AIM

To discuss the development of a competency framework for CRN/Ms.

DISCUSSION

The authors identified a gap in their organisation for standards that would support the development of CRN/Ms new to the role. The standards needed to be clear and accessible to use while encompassing the breadth of scope of CRN/Ms' practice. The authors used a systematic and inclusive process drawing on Benner's ( 1984 ) theory of competence development to develop a suitable framework. Stakeholders engaged in its development included research participants, inclusion agents and CRN/Ms.

CONCLUSION

The project identified 15 elements that are core to the CRN/M role and the knowledge, skills and behaviours associated with it.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

A large NHS trust has implemented the framework. It is also being shown to national and regional networks. Evaluation is under way.

Characteristics and duties of clinical research nurses: a scoping review

Introduction

The characteristics and duties of clinical research nurses (CRNs) are constantly developing and changing with the progress of medical technology and increasing needs in patient care. With the continuous deepening and standardization of clinical trials, the importance and status of CRNs during the whole process of clinical trials are also increasingly valued.

Methods

A scoping review of studies related to the characteristics and duties of CRNs was conducted to clarify relevant roles and concepts. An electronic search was conducted on three English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase) and two Chinese databases (CNKI and Wanfang database) in December 2023. Two authors independently screened the literature, extracted information from the included literature, and summarized and reported the findings.

Results

A total of 26 articles published between 1991 and 2023 were analyzed, and four characteristics of CRNs were identified as participants and managers of clinical trials, caregivers and protectors of subjects, coordinators of research teams, and educators. Basic knowledge, skills and literacy, communication and coordination ability, and advanced research ability are the competencies required for CRNs.

Conclusion

Further studies should focus on the importance of various characteristics of CRNs, so as to improve the quality of clinical trials and promote clinical evidence-based practice.

Clarifying the role of clinical research nurses working in Sweden, using the Clinical Trial Nursing Questionnaire - Swedish version

Aim

To explore the role of CRNs in Sweden and differences in competences and tasks, using the Clinical Trial Nursing Questionnaire – Swedish version (CTNQ‐SWE).

Design

A cross‐sectional survey.

Methods

Participants were identified through strategic sampling. Data were analysed by descriptive and comparative statistics.

Results

The respondents were experienced nurses who felt proficient in their role, they felt more acceptance by the principal investigators than by nursing colleagues. A majority of CRNs are involved in all procedures specified in the CTNQ‐SWE. The most often performed tasks, also rated as the most important by the CRNs, concerned informed consent and management of investigational products. The education was often informal: with a lack of job descriptions and professional development plans. Need of formal specialist education was expressed.

Conclusions

Knowledge about the role description can be used by clinical research enterprise internationally and healthcare organizations aiming to support CRNs in their role.

The Un-meeting approach to stimulate collaborative adult learning: an application for clinical research professionals

We used a Zoom Un-meeting as an educational approach to provide experienced clinical research professional (CRP) adult learners a collaborative learning space to learn more about current issues for academic medical center (AMC) clinical research workforce development and collaborate on solution finding. CRPs operationalize the conduct of clinical trials and represent a significant brain trust for the Clinical and Translational Science (CTSA) consortium hubs with their vast knowledge base, extensive experience, understanding of relevant institutional policy, organizational culture, and clinical research operations. Un-meetings are an intentionally organized and coordinated group activity that encourages participants to focus on a topic and incorporate an open flow of ideas through brainstorming and an open discussion format, setting the stage for future collaborative action. We divided topics into a series of six consecutive monthly Un-meeting Zoom workshops. Ultimately, one resulting output from the meeting was the Center for Leading Innovation and Collaborations (CLIC) synergy paper award to support continued collaborative work. Currently, work teams have emerged to analyze qualitative data from brainstorming and breakout session recordings and to identify small-group activities. We describe this adult learning tool as valuable for exploring issues of AMC CRP professional development. This approach encouraged creative/critical thinking and opportunities for leadership, team science, and problem-solving among participants.

Boundary spanning and identity work in the clinical research delivery workforce: a qualitative study of research nurses, midwives and allied health professionals in the National Health Service, United Kingdom

Background

Research nurses, midwives and allied health professionals are members of an important emergent profession delivering clinical research and, in the United Kingdom, have been the focus of considerable investment by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This paper considers the experiences of research nurses, midwives and allied health professionals in relation to professional identity work, recognizing these are coproduced alongside others that they interact with (including patients, clinical staff and other research staff).

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 45 nurses, midwives and allied health professionals in the UK about their experiences of working in research delivery. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically coded and analysed.

Results

Our analysis highlights how research nurses, midwives and allied health professionals adjust to new roles, shift their professional identities and undertake identity work using uniforms, name badges and job titles as they negotiate complex identities.

Conclusions

Research nurses, midwives and allied health professionals experience considerable challenges as they enter and transition to a research delivery role, with implications for their sense of professional identities. A change in the work that they undertake and how they are (or perceive they are) viewed by others (including clinical non-research colleagues and patients) has implications for their sense of professional and individual identity. The tensions involved extend to their views on symbols of professional identity, such as uniforms, and as they seek to articulate and demonstrate the value of their conjoined role in research and as a healthcare professional, within the unfolding landscape of health research. We embed our study findings in the context of the newly emerging clinical research practitioner workforce, which further exacerbates and complicates the role and identity complexity for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals in research delivery.

Clinical research and burnout syndrome in Italy - only a physicians' affair?

Background

The burnout phenomenon has been extensively investigated among health care professionals, particularly focusing on physicians and nurses. However, literature concerning burnout in clinical research is poor and often neglects the other professional categories involved.

Methods

In March 2019, all members of Italian Group of Clinical Research Coordinator were invited to participate to a web survey, consisting of three sections: general information and workload; Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) test; subjective perception of oneself’s work stress and possible causes.

Results

The majority of respondents felt a form of distress. The main source was contract type (31.2%), followed by workload (20.5%) and lack of skills recognition (17.8%).

Results from MBI test confirmed the interviewees’ subjective perception: an intermediate level of emotional exhaustion (19.1 points) and a very high sense of reduced professional achievement (26.8 points) were observed. Both depersonalization and sense of reduced professional achievement showed weak to moderate correlations with emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion was associated with contract type with high significance.

Conclusion

It is necessary to act on those qualitative factors that are greatly increasing the level of perceived stress, jeopardizing the quality of clinical research coordinators work and significantly amplifying the phenomenon of migration towards the private sector.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05158-z.

Quality Management Model for Phase I Clinical Drug Trials: A Structural Equation Model

This study aimed to construct a quality management model for phase I clinical drug trials. A cross-sectional survey was conducted and data were collected from 604 respondents at 69 institutions in China engaged in phase I clinical drug trials. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to develop the survey tool. Structural equation modeling was used to construct a quality management model for phase I clinical drug trials. The results showed that the final survey tool had good reliability and validity (Cronbach's α=0.938, root mean square error of approximation=0.074, comparative fit index=0.962, and Tucker-Lewis index=0.955). The model included five dimensions: government regulation, industry management, medical institution management, research team management, and contract research organization (CRO) management. In total, 22 measurement items were obtained. The structural equation model indicated government regulation, industry management, medical institution management, and CRO management significantly affected the quality of phase I clinical drug trials (β=0.195, β=0.331, β=0.279, and β=-0.267, respectively; P<0.05). Research team management had no effect on the quality of trials (β=0.041, P=0.610). In conclusion, the model is valuable for identifying factors influencing phase I clinical drug trials and guiding quality management practices.

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.

Quality of phase I clinical drug trials: Influence of organizational management factors

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Focusing on the tolerance and pharmacokinetics of new drugs, phase I clinical drug trials are characterized by high risk, poor compliance and management difficulties. High-quality clinical drug trials ensure subjects' safety while extending new drug research and development. Many studies have examined micro-level concerns of trial design and implementation rather than macro-level factors. Accordingly, we evaluated the quality of phase I clinical drug trials (trial quality) and analysed the influence of organizational management factors from a macro-level perspective.

METHODS

We surveyed staff at clinical trial institutions engaged in phase I clinical drug trials in China using convenience sampling. We employed a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire, comprising five items on phase I clinical drug trial quality and items on organizational management factors. Data from 604 questionnaires were analysed. We utilized a logistic regression model to estimate the influence of organizational management factors on trial quality, using individual demographic factors as controlling variables.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The trial quality score was 3.81, which indicates that substantial improvement is required. Government regulation, industry management and medical institution management had a positive effect on trial quality: β = 0.842, 0.691 and 0.579, respectively; P < .01. Contract research organization management had a negative effect on trial quality: β = -0.476; P = .013. Research team management had no effect on trial quality: β = 0.325; P = .141.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

This study is the first to model the influence of organizational management factors on the quality of phase I drug trials involving different organizations from a macro-perspective. Efforts are needed to help research teams take responsibility for trial quality and to correct the negative impact of contract research organizations on trial quality.

The current role and perceived benefits and barriers of secondary care pharmacists facilitating patient participation in Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products (CTIMPs) conducted within the NHS: A cross-sectional survey

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Secondary care pharmacists are well positioned within the healthcare system to communicate with patients and provide guidance and advice regarding drug treatments. They are able to broaden the opportunities to raise the profile of Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products (CTIMPs) and positively influence research. This research aimed to investigate the perceived benefits and barriers of secondary care pharmacists being involved in CTIMPs, their current role, and the perceived benefits and barriers of developing their role in facilitating patient participation for CTIMPs (eg, by identifying or recruiting potential participants).

METHODS

A cross-sectional quantitative online survey circulated to pharmacy professionals within the UK.

RESULTS

Involvement in CTIMPs and the facilitation of patient participation offered several benefits including improved communication and relationships with other healthcare professionals, developing the profession, developing training and knowledge, and exploring a personal interest. The main barriers to involvement included a lack of opportunities or awareness of opportunities, time, and funding or resources. Those employed at sites with a larger number of CTIMPs agreed more with the disadvantages; however, they also showed greater agreeance towards the benefits of pharmacy being involved in facilitating patient participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents do not currently have a role in identifying or recruiting potential participants. Despite this, being involved in CTIMPs and the facilitation of patient participation was suggested to offer several benefits. Given many participants agreed there are barriers to their involvement, future research should focus on exploring organizational and individual challenges with the aim of enabling pharmacists to support recruitment activities.

Career orientation and perceived professional competence among clinical research coordinators

Introduction:

This study identified underlying career orientation types of clinical research coordinators (CRCs) using cluster analysis. Select career (satisfaction, engagement, and planning) and competency-related (perceived competence) information was used to identify four distinct career orientation types.

Method:

A web-based survey was administered to CRCs employed in one of four research institutions affiliated with a National Institutes of Health-funded Clinical and Translational Research Award (CTSA) in the southeastern USA. Each respondent completed a survey containing questions about personal background, individual attributes, perceived professional competence, and career orientation.

Results:

The first CRC type (35.2%) possessed a positive, knowledge-seeking orientation, characterized by high career-related scores but a conservative assessment of perceived competence. The second CRC type (18.6%) represented an optimistic and confident career orientation reflected in moderate to high scores on each of the four identifying factors. The third CRC type (27.6%) reflected an inconsistent career orientation highlighted by lowered perceived competence. The final CRC type (18.6%) reflected a disengaged orientation characterized by negative responses to all career and competence factors.

Conclusion:

Understanding the career orientation of CRCs can be helpful to institutional administrators and clinical investigators as they seek to support the professional development of CRCs through tailored training efforts or work-related supports. Knowledge of career orientation may also inform individual CRCs as they manage their personal career paths by assessing current levels of functioning, career-related strengths or weaknesses, and training needs.

What are research nurses' experiences of obtaining consent from or for patients participating in emergency care research? A qualitative review

INTRODUCTION

If studies are to be valid, recruitment of representative samples is essential. In 2012, 28% of UK emergency departments met the 80% standard for recruitment to trials set by the National Institute for Health Research. Research nurses play a vital role in the conduct of high-quality research, and it has been argued that dedicated research nurses are needed if clinical trials are to recruit successfully to target.

REVIEW QUESTION

What are research nurses' experiences of obtaining consent from or for patients participating in emergency care research? A qualitative evidence review.

METHODS

A qualitative integrative literature review with a narrative synthesis of the evidence. PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic qualitative reviews (Appendix S1) were followed. A search of five electronic databases was performed in December 2018 along with a hand search which yielded 125 citations: 10 papers and one PhD thesis met the review eligibility criteria. Methodological quality of the selected studies was evaluated, and data were extracted and synthesised.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: Access, Organisation and Timing. Research nurses encountered both general and specific barriers when seeking to obtain consent for participation in research. In particular, it was found there was lack of experience among staff of working in emergency research and with securing deferred consent. The distinction between nurse researchers with a clinical role and those dedicated to solely to research only is often not clear and warrants further investigation.

CONCLUSION

Nurse researchers with and without a clinical role can make a positive difference in recruitment to trials in emergency care. The involvement of dedicated research nurses in the consent process can increase recruitment to emergency care research. Experience of recruiting to clinical trials in nonemergency settings does not seem to help when recruiting for trials in emergency care.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

There is a need for greater understanding of the experiences of dedicated research nurses in emergency care settings and in particular with regard to deferred consent.

"Like a nurse but not a nurse": Clinical Research Practitioners and the evolution of the clinical research delivery workforce in the NHS

BACKGROUND

Clinical research is increasing across the United Kingdom. Within the context of a shortage of nurses, trusts have struggled to maintain research capacity. In order to meet staffing demands, trusts have increasingly turned to Clinical Research Practitioners (CRPs) to assist in the delivery of clinical research. Initially an ad hoc workforce, the CRP role is being formalised and professionalised. This study is a close examination of the clinical research delivery workforce at one research-intensive acute trust in the United Kingdom, with a focus on the emerging CRP staff group.

METHODS

The study was conducted in a large inner-city teaching hospital (acute trust) in London, United Kingdom. Data were collected between September and December 2017. Twenty-five staff were interviewed across 11 different directorates. Interviews were semi-structured with an overall focus on research staff backgrounds and roles, as well as their perceptions and experiences of careers in research. The data were managed using NVivo 11 software and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

CRPs are drawn from a wider pool of educational and employment backgrounds than their nurse colleagues, and actively seek out work in health research. CRPs receive on-the-job training to acquire the competencies that are necessary for them to carry out their work. The CRP role, which began in an ad hoc manner, has become regularised, yet remains to be well defined, which can be a source of frustration for CRPs and those who work with them.

CONCLUSIONS

The professionalisation of the CRP workforce represents an opportunity for the health research system to employ research workers who possess a range of in-demand skills and to shore up research capacity in the context of the shortage of nurses.

Ward-Based Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Clinical Trials: A Survey Study in Taiwan

PURPOSES

Clinical trial education has not been extensively integrated into nursing education systems. Acute care nurses may lack sufficient knowledge when caring for admitted trial patients, which may negatively influence their attitudes toward clinical trials. The aim of this study was to explore ward-based nurses' knowledge and attitudes toward clinical trials.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Ward-based nurses working in medical, surgical, and intensive care units in a medical center in Taiwan were approached to complete a questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed by the research team and included four parts: demographics, experience with clinical trials, clinical trial knowledge, and attitudes toward clinical trials.

FINDINGS

A total of 161 nurses responded. Nearly 90% of the nurses accessed trial information in their workplace. Nearly 80% of the respondents had experience with caring for trial patients, but the mean score of clinical trial knowledge was 4.5 out of a possible score of 10. For attitudes toward clinical trials, the mean score for positive beliefs was 39.7, and the mean score for negative expectations was 42.5, both out of a possible score of 55. The results indicated that respondents typically tended to hold a negative attitude toward clinical trials, especially in regard to the side effects of study drugs and communication with investigators.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge deficits of ward-based nurses concerning trial participation is apparent. Continuing education for ward-based nurses is necessary to promote implementation of clinical trials and reduce negative expectations related to clinical trials.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

One way to improve nurses' knowledge is to integrate clinical trial education into nursing education systems, which will provide more channels through which nurses can understand how a trial works, including the risks, benefits, and participant protection. Through such educational initiatives, ward-based nurses may develop more positive beliefs regarding clinical trials and provide higher quality clinical trial care to participants.

A National Study of Oncology Nurses Discussing Cancer Clinical Trials With Patients

In the United States less than 10% of cancer patients engage in clinical trials. Although most oncology nurses have multiple opportunities to discuss clinical trials with patients, barriers including attitudes and social norms may impede these discussions. Guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior, we developed and evaluated measures for attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control of nurses for discussing clinical trials with cancer patients. Of the 18,000 Oncology Nurse Society members invited, 1,964 completed the survey. Structural equation modeling and internal consistency reliability were used to evaluate items and constructs. We found that overall model fit and reliability was good: Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI) = 0.91, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05; attitudes, 21 items, alpha = 0.84; perceived behavioral control, 10 items, alpha = 0.85; and subjective norms, 9 items, alpha = 0.89. These measures of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control show good reliability and initial evidence of validity.

Present Status and Perspectives on Future Roles of Japanese Clinical Research Coordinators

Background

The new Clinical Trials Act that recently came into effect in Japan emphasizes the reliability of investigator-initiated clinical trials. Although Japanese clinical research coordinators have been mainly engaged in operational roles in industry-initiated clinical trials for drug approval (registration trials), broadening their contribution to cover more types of clinical research may lead to quality improvement of clinical research. To ultimately establish a clinical research infrastructure that meets the needs of the new era of Clinical Trials Act, here we gathered basic information on how clinical research coordinators might make such contributions.

Methods

We conducted a survey using self-reporting questionnaires in clinical research-related personnel to examine present status and the perspectives toward broader contribution of clinical research coordinators. The study participants were attendee of group discussion of a clinical research-related meeting in Shikoku area of Japan held in August 2017.

Results

Among 88 participants, 69 responded (response rate: 78.4%) and 68 respondents (98.6%) were engaged in support and management of clinical research. The main area of involvement was industry-initiated registration trials (48, 69.7%), and main roles of involvement were cooperators who plays roles under the guidance of investigators (41, 59.5%). When divided by occupation into clinical research coordinators (n = 41) and other clinical research-related personnel (n = 28), approximately half of the respondents in each group replied positively to wanting broader involvement of clinical research coordinators as a clinical research professional.

Conclusion

The present study revealed that about half of the clinical research coordinators and other clinical research-related personnel view a broadening of involvement of clinical research coordinators in research activities positively. Accordingly, a structured practical program aimed at encouraging such involvement may help to expand and strengthen their contribution into the future. Whether greater involvement of clinical research coordinators in clinical research will help to ensure the reliability of investigator-initiated clinical research warrants further study.

Factors affecting recruitment and retention of nurses who deliver clinical research: A qualitative study

AIM

To provide a better understanding of the factors affecting recruitment and retention of clinical research nurses.

DESIGN

Qualitative exploratory design.

METHODS

An on-line questionnaire comprising open-ended and fixed-choice questions was completed by 121 clinical research nurses. Seven focus groups were held with a subgroup of 26 participants. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants were attracted to a research nurse post by an interest in research itself, a desire for a change or to achieve personal objectives. The majority expected to continue in a research post for the next 5 years, while others expected to move on to research management, a clinical post or retirement; few had ambitions to become an independent researcher. Factors identified in focus groups as leading to intentions to leave research included desire for further change, concern about loss of clinical skills, rebalancing family/work responsibilities, short-term contracts, unsupportive employers and limited career progression.

When Nursing Care and Clinical Trials Coincide: A Qualitative Study of the Views of Nordic Oncology and Hematology Nurses on Ethical Work Challenges

This study investigated the kinds of ethical challenges experienced by nurses in oncology and hematology when nursing care and research overlap in clinical trials, and how the nurses handle such challenges. Individual interviews with 39 nurses from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland indicated that all nurses were positive about research, considering it essential for developing the best care. Ethical challenges exist, however; the most difficult were associated with the end-of-life patients, no longer responsive to standard therapy, who eagerly volunteer for cutting-edge drug trials in the hope of gaining therapeutic benefit. Many nurses lacked systematic strategies for addressing such challenges but found support from their nursing colleagues and relied on the research protocols to guide them.

The Role of Oncology Nurses in Discussing Clinical Trials

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To describe oncology nurses' experiences discussing clinical trials with their patients, and to assess barriers to these discussions.
.

RESEARCH APPROACH

A qualitative study designed to elicit narratives from oncology nurses. 
.

SETTING

Community- and academic-based oncology clinics throughout the United States.
.

PARTICIPANTS

33 oncology nurses involved in direct patient care in community-based and large hospital-based settings. The sample was drawn from members of the Oncology Nursing Society. 
.

METHODOLOGIC APPROACH

In-depth interviews were conducted and analyzed using a 
immersion/crystallization approach to identify themes and patterns. The analyses highlight specific issues, examples, and contexts that present challenges to clinical trial discussions with patients.
.

FINDINGS

Oncology nurses view their roles as patient educators and advocates to be inclusive of discussion of clinical trials. Barriers to such discussions include lack of knowledge and strategies for addressing patients' common misconceptions and uncertainty about the timing of discussions.
.

INTERPRETATION

These data indicate that enabling nurses to actively engage patients in discussions of clinical trials requires educational interventions to build self-efficacy and close knowledge gaps. 
.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Oncology nurses can play a critical role in advancing cancer care by supporting patients in decision making about clinical trial participation. This will require training and education to build their knowledge, reduce barriers, and increase their self-efficacy to fulfill this responsibility in various clinical settings.

Resolving Rivalries and Realigning Goals: Challenges of Clinical and Research Multiteam Systems

This article describes the care processes for a 64-year-old man with newly diagnosed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who was enrolled in a first-line clinical trial of a new immunotherapy regimen. The case highlights the concept of multiteam systems in cancer clinical research and clinical care. Because clinical research represents a highly dynamic entity-with studies frequently opening, closing, and undergoing modifications-concerted efforts of multiple teams are needed to respond to these changes while continuing to provide consistent, high-level care and timely, accurate clinical data. The case illustrates typical challenges of multiteam care processes. Compared with clinical tasks that are routinely performed by single teams, multiple-team care greatly increases the demands for communication, collaboration, cohesion, and coordination among team members. As the case illustrates, the described research team and clinical team are separated, resulting in suboptimal function. Individual team members interact predominantly with members of their own team. A considerable number of team members lack regular interaction with anyone outside their team. Accompanying this separation, the teams enact rivalries that impede collaboration. The teams have misaligned goals and competing priorities that create competition. Collective identity and cohesion across the two teams are low. Research team and clinical team members have limited knowledge of the roles and work of individuals outside their team. Recommendations to increase trust and collaboration are provided. Clinical providers and researchers may incorporate these themes into development and evaluation of multiteam systems, multidisciplinary teams, and cross-functional teams within their own institutions.

Once a clinician, always a clinician: a systematic review to develop a typology of clinician-researcher dual-role experiences in health research with patient-participants

Background

Many health researchers are clinicians. Dual-role experiences are common for clinician-researchers in research involving patient-participants, even if not their own patients. To extend the existing body of literature on why dual-role is experienced, we aimed to develop a typology of common catalysts for dual-role experiences to help clinician-researchers plan and implement methodologically and ethically sound research.

Methods

Systematic searching of Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase and Scopus (inception to 28.07.2014) for primary studies or first-person reflexive reports of clinician-researchers’ dual-role experiences, supplemented by reference list checking and Google Scholar scoping searches. Included articles were loaded in NVivo for analysis. The coding was focused on how dual-role was evidenced for the clinician-researchers in research involving patients. Procedures were completed by one researcher (MB) and independently cross-checked by another (JHS). All authors contributed to extensive discussions to resolve all disagreements about initial coding and verify the final themes.

Results

Database searching located 7135 records, resulting in 29 included studies, with the addition of 7 studies through reference checks and scoping searches. Two overarching themes described the most common catalysts for dual-role experiences – ways a research role can involve patterns of behaviour typical of a clinical role, and the developing connection that starts to resemble a clinician-patient relationship. Five subthemes encapsulated the clinical patterns commonly repeated in research settings (clinical queries, perceived agenda, helping hands, uninvited clinical expert, and research or therapy) and five subthemes described concerns about the researcher-participant relationship (clinical assumptions, suspicion and holding back, revelations, over-identification, and manipulation). Clinician-researchers use their clinical skills in health research in ways that set up a relationship resembling that of clinician-patient. Clinicians’ ingrained orientation to patients’ needs can be in tension with their research role, and can set up ethical and methodological challenges.

Conclusion

The typology we developed outlines the common ways dual-role is experienced in research involving clinician-researchers and patient-participants, and perhaps the inevitability of the experience given the primacy accorded to patient well-being. The typology offers clinician-researchers a framework for grappling with the ethical and methodological implications of dual-role throughout the research process, including planning, implementation, monitoring and reporting.

A qualitative study examining healthcare managers and providers' perspectives on participating in primary care implementation research

BACKGROUND

Primary care reforms should be supported by high-quality evidence across the entire life cycle of research. Front-line healthcare providers play an increasing role in implementation research. We recently evaluated two interventions for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in partnership with four Primary Care Networks (PCNs) in Alberta, Canada. Here, we report healthcare professionals perspectives on participating in primary care implementation research.

METHODS

Guided by the RE-AIM framework, we collected qualitative data before, during, and after both interventions. We conducted 34 in-person or telephone interviews with 17 individual PCN professionals. We used content analysis to identify emerging codes and concepts.

RESULTS

Two major themes emerged from the data. First, healthcare managers were eager to conduct implementation research in a primary care setting. Second, regardless of willingness to conduct research, there were challenges to implementing experimental study designs for both interventions. PCN professionals presumed the interventions were better than usual care, expressed role conflict, and reported administrative burdens related to research participation. Perceptions of patient vulnerability and an obligation to intervene exacerbated these issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals with limited practical research experience might not foresee the challenges in implementing experimental study designs in primary care settings to generate high-quality evidence. These issues are intensified when healthcare professionals perceive target patient populations as vulnerable and in need of intervention based on the presenting illness. Possible solutions include further research training, involving healthcare professionals in study design development, and using non-clinical staff to conduct research activities, particularly among acutely unwell patient populations.

Experiences of staff members participating in primary care research activities: a qualitative study

Background

The aim of this paper was to study primary care staff members’ experiences and perceptions of participating in a randomized controlled trial concerning Internet therapy.

Methods

Data were collected via five focus groups, each containing four to eight nurses or general practitioners. The systematic text condensation method described by Malterud was used for thematic analysis of meaning and content of data across cases.

Results

The informants believed it was important to conduct research within the primary care setting, but it was difficult to combine clinical work and research. They stressed also that there was a need for continuous information and communication between primary care centers and researchers as well as internally at each primary care center.

Conclusion

Staff members’ experiences of participating in a research study were positive, although associated with various difficulties. It is important to include staff members when designing clinical studies; information should be given continuously during the study and communication facilitated between different occupational groups working at the primary care center.

Patient advocacy and patient centredness in participant recruitment to randomized-controlled trials: implications for informed consent

CONTEXT

With the routinization of evidence-based medicine and of the randomized-controlled trial (RCT), more patients are becoming 'sites of evidence production' yet, little is known about how they are recruited as participants; there is some evidence that 'substantively valid consent' is difficult to achieve.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the views and experiences of nurses recruiting patients to randomized-controlled trials and to examine the extent to which their recruitment practices were patient-centred and patient empowering.

DESIGN

Semi-structured in-depth interviews; audio recording of recruitment appointments; thematic interactional analysis (drawing on discourse and conversation analysis).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Nurses recruiting patients to five publicly funded RCTs and patients consenting to the recording of their recruitment sessions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The views of recruiting nurses about their recruitment role; the extent to which nurse-patient interactions were patient-centred; the nature of the nurses' interactional strategies and the nature and extent of patient participation in the discussion.

RESULTS

The nurses had a keen sense of themselves as clinicians and patient advocates and their perceptions of the trial and its interventions were inextricably linked to those of the patients. However, many of their recruitment practices made it difficult for patients to play an active and informed part in the discussion about trial participation, raising questions over the quality of consent decisions.

CONCLUSION

Nurses working in patient recruitment to RCTs need to reconcile two different worlds with different demands and ethics. Evidence production, a central task in evidence-based medicine, poses a challenge to patient-centred practice and more research and relevant training are needed.

Strengths and weaknesses of guideline approaches to safeguard voluntary informed consent of patients within a dependent relationship

BACKGROUND

It is thought that a dependent relationship between patients and physicians who enroll their own patients in research compromises voluntary informed consent. Therefore, several ethical guidelines for human subject research provide approaches to mitigate these compromises. Currently, these approaches have not been critically evaluated. In this article, we analyze the approaches of ethical guidelines to manage the influence of a dependent relationship between patients and physicians on voluntary informed consent and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches.

METHODS

We performed a review of international ethical guidance documents on human subject research, listed in the Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics and found through cross referencing. We also searched Global Ethics Observatory (GEObs) and the World Health Organization (WHO) website. Guidelines from all years were eligible for inclusion. The date last searched was December 2013.

DISCUSSION

We identified two basic guideline approaches: 1. A process approach, which focuses on the person who obtains informed consent, that is, an independent individual, such as a research nurse or counselor; and 2. A content approach, emphasizing the voluntary nature of participation. Both approaches are valuable, either because the influence of the physician may diminish or because it empowers patients to make voluntary decisions. However, the approaches also face challenges. First, research nurses are not always independent. Second, physician-investigators will be informed about decisions of their patients. Third, involvement of a counselor is sometimes unfeasible. Fourth, the right to withdraw may be difficult to act upon in a dependent relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Current guideline approaches to protect voluntary informed consent within a dependent relationship are suboptimal. To prevent compromises to voluntary informed consent, consent should not only be obtained by an independent individual, but this person should also emphasize the voluntary nature of participation. At the same time, dependency as such does not imply undue influence. Sometimes the physician may be best qualified to provide information, for example, for a very specialized study. Still, the research nurse should obtain informed consent. In addition, patients should be able to consult a counselor, who attends the informed consent discussions and is concerned with their interests. Finally, both physicians and research nurses should disclose research interests.

Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials

Background

Recruitment of sufficient participants in an efficient manner is still widely acknowledged to be a major challenge to the mounting and completion of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Few recruitment interventions have involved staff undertaking recruitment. This study aimed i) to understand the recruitment process from the perspective of recruiters actively recruiting RCT participants in six pragmatic RCTs, and ii) to identify opportunities for interventions to improve recruitment.

Methods

Interviews were undertaken with 72 individuals (32 doctors or RCT Chief investigators (CIs); 40 nurses/other health professionals) who were actively recruiting participants in six RCTs to explore their experiences of recruitment. The RCTs varied in scale, duration, and clinical contexts. Interviews were fully transcribed and analysed using qualitative content and thematic analytic methods derived from grounded theory. For this analysis, data were systematically extracted from each RCT and synthesised across all six RCTs to produce a detailed and nuanced understanding of the recruitment process from the perspectives of the recruiters.

Results

Recruiters readily identified organisational difficulties, fewer than expected eligible patients, and patients’ treatment preferences as the key barriers to recruitment. As they described their experiences of recruitment, several previously hidden issues related to their roles as researchers and clinicians emerged, imbued with discomfort and emotion. The synthesis across the RCTs showed that doctors were uncomfortable about aspects of patient eligibility and the effectiveness of interventions, whereas nurses were anxious about approaching potential RCT participants and conflicts between the research and their clinical responsibilities. Recruiters seemed unaware that their views contributed to recruitment difficulties. Their views were not known to RCT CIs. Training and support needs were identified for both groups of staff.

Conclusions

The synthesis showed that recruitment to these RCTs was a complex and fragile process. Clear obstacles were identified but hidden challenges related to recruiters’ roles undermined recruitment, unbeknown to RCT CIs. Qualitative research can elicit and identify the hidden challenges. Training and support are then needed for recruiters to become more comfortable with the design and principles of RCTs, so that they can engage more openly with potentially eligible participants and create a more resilient recruitment process.

How to improve the implementation of academic clinical pediatric trials involving drug therapy? A qualitative study of multiple stakeholders

OBJECTIVE

The need for encouraging pediatric drug research is widely recognized. However, hospital-based clinical trials of drug treatments are extremely time-consuming, and delays in trial implementation are common. The objective of this qualitative study was to collect information on the perceptions and experience of health professionals involved in hospital-based pediatric drug trials.

METHODS

Two independent researchers conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with principal investigators (n = 17), pharmacists (n = 7), sponsor representatives (n = 4), and drug regulatory agency representatives (n = 3) who participated in institutionally sponsored clinical trials of experimental drugs in pediatric patients between 2002 and 2008.

RESULTS

Dissatisfaction was reported by 67% (16/24) of principal investigators and pharmacists: all 7 pharmacists felt they were involved too late in the trial implementation process, whereas 11 (65%) principal investigators complained of an excessive regulatory burden and felt they were insufficiently involved in the basic research questions. Both groups perceived clinical trial implementation as burdensome and time-consuming. The sponsor and regulatory agency representatives reported a number of difficulties but were not dissatisfied.

CONCLUSIONS

The heavy burden related to regulatory requirements, and suboptimal communication across disciplines involved, seem to be the main reasons for the major delays in pediatric drug trial implementation. The pharmaceutical aspects are intrinsically tied to trial methodology and implementation and must therefore be examined, in particular by involving Clinical Research Pharmacists at early stages of study conception.

Evolution of the study coordinator role: the 28-year experience in Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC)

BACKGROUND

The role of the study coordinator (SC) in multicenter studies of long duration has received limited attention.

PURPOSE

To describe the evolution of the SC's role during the 28-year Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and its follow-up study, the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study.

METHODS

The evolution of the SC's position from the traditional role of protocol implementation to that of research collaborator and co-investigator, based on personal experience and observation, is described in detail. Findings from a survey regarding professional demographics and job satisfaction, completed by all 28 SCs in 2010, provided additional information. We used dimensions of the SC's role specific to DCCT/EDIC to construct a classification schema of functions and responsibilities that describe the SC's role.

RESULTS

Among the 28 SCs, 24 were nurses, 12 held bachelor's degrees, 11 had a master's degree, 19 were certified diabetes educators (CDEs), 12 had worked with DCCT/EDIC for more than 20 years, and 5 had been with the study since its inception (>26 years). Responses confirmed a high degree of functional consistency across sites with data acquisition, performing study procedures, recruitment and consent for additional ancillary studies, regulatory management, scheduling, clinical consultation, and ongoing contact with study participants frequently reported. Study-wide leadership activities, a category not generally included in the usual SC role, were reported by approximately 30% of the SCs. The level of professional satisfaction was high with two-thirds being very satisfied, one-third moderately to quite satisfied, and none dissatisfied.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations include a relatively small sample size, self-reported data, and a single long-term multicenter trial and observational follow-up study on which we based our findings and conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

By optimizing their organizational and scientific contributions to the overall research endeavor, SCs in DCCT/EDIC have made major contributions to the unprecedented success of the study and report high job satisfaction. The efforts of the SCs have been integral to the remarkably high participant retention and data completion rates. The DCCT/EDIC experience may serve as a model for the role of the SC in future diabetes and other multicenter clinical trials.

Clinical research nursing: a critical resource in the national research enterprise

Translational clinical research has emerged as an important priority for the national research enterprise, with a clearly stated mandate to more quickly deliver prevention strategies, treatments and cures based on scientific innovations to the public. Within this national effort, a lack of consensus persists concerning the need for clinical nurses with expertise and specialized training in study implementation and the delivery of care to research participants. This paper reviews efforts to define and document the role of practicing nurses in implementing studies and coordinating clinical research in a variety of clinical settings, and differentiates this clinical role from the role of nurses as scientists and principal investigators. We propose an agenda for building evidence that having nurses provide and coordinate study treatments and procedures can potentially improve research efficiency, participant safety, and the quality of research data. We also provide recommendations for the development of the emerging specialty of clinical research nursing.

Defining clinical research nursing practice: results of a role delineation study

Clinical research nursing is a specialty nursing practice focused on the care of research subjects and implementation of clinical research. A five-dimensional model (Clinical Practice [CP], Study Management, Care Coordination and Continuity, Contributing to the Science [CS], Human Subjects Protection) has been validated nationally to represent the domain of clinical research nursing practice. The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency and importance of activities within each dimension as performed by nurses in clinical research and to describe differences between roles. One thousand and four nurses from the NIH Intramural Campus in Bethesda, Maryland, were invited to participate in an anonymous web-based survey. Participants (N = 412) were predominantly female (90%) with ≥11 years research experience (70%). Two hundred eighty-eight respondents (70%) identified themselves as clinical research nurses (CRNs) and 74 (18%) as research nurse coordinators (RNCs). CP activities were reported most frequent and important whereas CS activities were least frequent and important. CRN and RNC activity frequency differed across all dimensions (p < 0.001) with CRNs reporting significantly higher levels of CP activities and significantly lower levels in other dimensions. Delineating specialty activities and practice across roles enhances the understanding of nurses' role in clinical research and provides groundwork for role-based training.

Altruism in clinical research: coordinators' orientation to their professional roles

OBJECTIVE

Research coordinators have significant responsibilities in clinical trials that often require them to find unique ways to manage their jobs, thus reshaping their professional identities. The purpose of this study was to identify how research coordinators manage role and ethical conflicts within clinical research trials.

METHODS

A qualitative study combining observation and 63 semistructured interviews at 25 research organizations was used.

RESULTS

Altruism is a recurring theme in how research coordinators define and view their work.

CONCLUSION

Altruism is adopted by research coordinators to: (1) Teach patient-subjects the appropriate reasons to participate in clinical research, (2) minimize the conflict between research and care, and (3) contest the undervaluation of coordinating. Altruism is a strategy used to handle the various conflicts they experience in a difficult job, and it has become part of the professional identity of clinical research coordinators.

Validating the clinical research nursing domain of practice

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a taxonomy for the domain of clinical research nursing.

DESIGN

Survey.

SETTING

Clinical research settings in the United States.

SAMPLE

A purposefully selected expert panel of 22 nurses who were actively practicing or supervising in a clinical research environment.

METHODS

A study team consisting of nurses with experience in clinical research synthesized peer-reviewed articles, academic curricula, professional guidelines, position descriptions, and expert opinion. Using the Delphi technique, three rounds of surveys were conducted to validate the taxonomy. The three sequential questionnaires were completed over five months.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Activities performed by nurses in a clinical research setting.

FINDINGS

A taxonomy for clinical research nursing was validated with five dimensions and 52 activities: Clinical Practice (4 activities), Study Management (23 activities), Care Coordination and Continuity (10 activities), Human Subjects Protection (6 activities), and Contributing to the Science (9 activities).

CONCLUSIONS

This study validated activities for direct care providers and nurses with the primary focus of research coordination. The findings identify a variety of activities that are unique to nurses in a clinical research setting.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Nurses play an integral role in the clinical research enterprise. Validating a taxonomy for the specialty of clinical research nursing allows for roles to be compared across settings, competency requirements to be defined, and nursing organizations to be guided in the development of specialty certification.

Science, technology, and innovation: nursing responsibilities in clinical research

Clinical research is a systematic investigation of human biology, health, or illness involving human beings. It builds on laboratory and animal studies and often involves clinical trials, which are specifically designed to test the safety and efficacy of interventions in humans. Nurses are critical to the conduct of ethical clinical research and face clinical, ethical, and regulatory challenges in research in many diverse roles. Understanding and addressing the ethical challenges that complicate clinical research is integral to upholding the moral commitment that nurses make to patients, including protecting their rights and ensuring their safety as patients and as research participants.

Role of clinical research coordinators in promoting clinical trials of drugs for surgical patients

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials play a central role in the establishment of clinical evidence, and the important role of clinical research coordinators (CRCs) in various processes of clinical trials is now widely recognized. In Japan, many CRCs work under the discretion of their hospital and support clinical trials in various areas. Modification of CRC activity pursuant to the types of clinical trials may make roles of the CRC more effective and meaningful. In the present study, we examine the dedicated role of the CRC considering the specialty of a registration trial of a drug for surgical patients used during the operation period.

METHODS

In 2006, we had a chance to support a registration trial of a drug for surgical patients used during the operation period. Regarding the mental and emotional status of possible participants in the present registration trial, we collected data from the perspective of CRCs by focus group interviews involving four CRCs working under the discretion of Tokushima University Hospital. The four CRCs were all nurses and had 7, 4.5, 1, or 0.5 years experience as CRCs, respectively.

RESULTS

In contrast to clinical trials of drugs for chronic diseases, these often anxious patients must decide whether or not to enter the trial simultaneously with the decision to undergo surgery itself, and all in a relatively limited time after receiving explanation of the trial. Therefore, special attention should be paid to the mental and emotional status of possible participants. Additionally, the cooperation of the relatively large surgical and nursing staff becomes important. In such situations, the following contributions of CRCs were considered to be useful for the harmonious procedure of clinical trials: 1) providing a precise explanation of the trial to the participant and key persons, 2) understanding the needs of the investigators and appropriately assigning themselves roles, and 3) communicating between the investigators and surgical and nursing staff.

CONCLUSION

Further study is warranted to evaluate the benefit of the intervention provided by dedicated CRCs in running high quality clinical trials involving surgical patients.