Stakeholder engagement infrastructure to support multicenter research networks: Advances from the clinical research networks participating in PCORnet

Background

The evidence based on the inclusion of patients and other stakeholders as partners in the clinical research process has grown substantially. However, little has been reported on how stakeholders are engaged in the governance of large-scale clinical research networks and the infrastructure used by research networks to support engagement in network-affiliated activities.

Objectives

The objective was to document engagement activities and practices emerging from Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) participating in PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, specifically regarding governance and engagement infrastructure.

Methods

We conducted an environmental scan of PCORnet CRN engagement structures, assets, and services, focusing on network oversight structures for policy development and strategic decision-making. The scan included assets and services for supporting patient/stakeholder engagement. Data were collected by searching web-based literature and tool repositories, review of CRN Engagement Plans, analysis of previously collected key informant interviews, and CRN-based iterative review of structured worksheets.

Results

We identified 87 discrete engagement structures, assets, and services across nine CRNs. All CRNs engage patients/stakeholders in their governance, maintain workgroups and/or staff dedicated to overseeing engagement strategies, and offer one or more services to non-CRN researchers to enhance conducting engaged clinical research.

Conclusions

This work provides an important resource for the research community to explore engagement across peers, reflect on progress, consider opportunities to leverage existing infrastructure, and identify new collaborators. It also serves to highlight PCORnet as a resource for non-CRN researchers seeking to efficiently conduct engaged clinical research and a venue for advancing the science of engagement.

Severe Acute Respiratory Infection-Preparedness: Protocol for a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of Viral Respiratory Infections

Respiratory virus infections cause significant morbidity and mortality ranging from mild uncomplicated acute respiratory illness to severe complications, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiple organ failure, and death during epidemics and pandemics. We present a protocol to systematically study patients with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI), including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, due to respiratory viral pathogens to evaluate the natural history, prognostic biomarkers, and characteristics, including hospital stress, associated with clinical outcomes and severity.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Multicenter cohort of patients admitted to an acute care ward or ICU from at least 15 hospitals representing diverse geographic regions across the United States.

PATIENTS

Patients with SARI caused by infection with respiratory viruses that can cause outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Measurements include patient demographics, signs, symptoms, and medications; microbiology, imaging, and associated tests; mechanical ventilation, hospital procedures, and other interventions; and clinical outcomes and hospital stress, with specimens collected on days 0, 3, and 7-14 after enrollment and at discharge. The primary outcome measure is the number of consecutive days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (VFD) in the first 30 days after hospital admission. Important secondary outcomes include organ failure-free days before acute kidney injury, shock, hepatic failure, disseminated intravascular coagulation, 28-day mortality, adaptive immunity, as well as immunologic and microbiologic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

SARI-Preparedness is a multicenter study under the collaboration of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery, Resilience Intelligence Network, and National Emerging Special Pathogen Training and Education Center, which seeks to improve understanding of prognostic factors associated with worse outcomes and increased resource utilization. This can lead to interventions to mitigate the clinical impact of respiratory virus infections associated with SARI.

Early Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 on Pediatric Clinical Research: A Pan-European and Canadian Snapshot in Time

OBJECTIVE

To capture the early effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on pediatric clinical research.

STUDY DESIGN

Pediatric clinical research networks from 20 countries and 50 of their affiliated research sites completed two surveys over one month from early May to early June 2020. Networks liaised with their affiliated sites and contributed to the interpretation of results through pan-European group discussions. Based on first detection dates of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), countries formed 1 early detecting and 1 late detecting cluster. We tested the hypothesis that this clustering influenced clinical research.

RESULTS

Research sites were first impacted by the pandemic in mid-March 2020 (March 16 ± 10 days, the same date as lockdown initiation; P = .99). From first impact up until early June, site initiation and feasibility analysis processes were affected for >50% of the sites. Staff were redirected to COVID-19 research for 44% of the sites, and 75.5% of sites were involved in pediatric COVID-19 research (only 6.3% reported COVID-19 cases in their other pediatric trials). Mitigation strategies were used differently between the early and late detecting country clusters and between countries with and without a pediatric COVID-19 research taskforce. Positive effects include the development of teleworking capacities.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this collaborative effort from pediatric research networks, we found that pediatric trials were affected and conducted with a range of unequally applied mitigations across countries during the pandemic. The global impact might be greater than captured. In a context where clinical research is increasingly multinational, this report reveals the importance of collaboration between national networks.

Working together to deliver stratified medicine research effectively

INTRODUCTION OR BACKGROUND

Stratified medicine is an important area of research across all clinical specialties, with far reaching impact in many spheres. Despite recently formulated global policy and research programmes, major challenges for delivering stratified medicine studies persist. Across the globe, clinical research infrastructures have been setup to facilitate high quality clinical research.

SOURCES OF DATA

This article reviews the literature and summarizes views collated from a workshop held by the UK Pharmacogenetics and Stratified Medicine Network and the NIHR Clinical Research Network in November 2016.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Stratified medicine is an important area of clinical research and health policy, benefitting from substantial international, cross-sector investment and has the potential to transform patient care. However there are significant challenges to the delivery of stratified medicine studies.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Complex methodology and lack of consistency of definition and agreement on key approaches to the design, regulation and delivery of research contribute to these challenges and would benefit from greater focus.

GROWING POINTS

Effective partnership and development of consistent approaches to the key factors relating to stratified medicine research is required to help overcome these challenges.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

This paper examines the critical contribution clinical research networks can make to the delivery of national (and international) initiatives in the field of stratified medicine. Importantly, it examines the position of clinical research in stratified medicine at a time when pressures on the clinical and social services are mounting.

The Royal College of Physicians Simms Lecture, 6 December 2011: clinical research networks and the benefits of intensive healthcare systems

Clinical research contributes to the evidence base for the planning of improved healthcare services and creates an excellent environment for the delivery of healthcare and the recruitment and retention of excellent and well-motivated staff. In this paper, we consider the evidence that a research-intensive healthcare system might yield improved outcomes as a result of the impact of the process of research on the provision of care. We review progress in establishing clinical research networks for cancer and the evidence of the impact of the conduct of clinical cancer research in the National Health Service.