Suppr超能文献

“我们都渴望成功,但我们也必须正视正在发生的事情”:一项关于试验监督中各种关系及其影响的人种志研究。

'We all want to succeed, but we've also got to be realistic about what is happening': an ethnographic study of relationships in trial oversight and their impact.

作者信息

Daykin Anne, Selman Lucy E, Cramer Helen, McCann Sharon, Shorter Gillian W, Sydes Matthew R, Gamble Carrol, Macefield Rhiannon, Lane J Athene, Shaw Alison

机构信息

MRC ConDuCT Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

出版信息

Trials. 2017 Dec 22;18(1):612. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2305-9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The oversight and conduct of a randomised controlled trial involves several stakeholders, including a Trial Steering Committee (TSC), Trial Management Group (TMG), Data Monitoring Committee (DMC), funder and sponsor. We aimed to examine how the relationships between these stakeholders affect the trial oversight process and its rigour, to inform future revision of Good Clinical Practice guidelines.

METHODS

Using an ethnographic study design, we observed the oversight processes of eight trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of the trials' TSCs and TMGs, plus other relevant informants, including sponsors and funders of trials. Data were analysed thematically, and findings triangulated and integrated to give a multi-perspective account of current oversight practices in the UK.

RESULTS

Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed and audio-recorded, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled key informants. Five themes are presented: (1) Collaboration within the TMG and role of the CTU; (2) Collaboration and conflict between oversight committees; (3) Priorities; (4) Communication between trial oversight groups and (5) Power and accountability. There was evidence of collaborative relationships, based on mutual respect, between CTUs, TMGs and TSCs, but also evidence of conflict. Relationships between trial oversight committees were influenced by stakeholders' priorities, both organisational and individual. Good communication following specific, recognised routes played a central role in ensuring that relationships were productive and trial oversight efficient. Participants described the possession of power over trials as a shifting political landscape, and there was lack of clarity regarding the roles and accountability of each committee, the sponsor and funder. Stakeholders' perceptions of their own power over a trial, and the power of others, influenced relationships between those involved in trial oversight.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent developments in trial design and conduct have been accompanied by changes in roles and relationships between trial oversight groups. Recognising and respecting the value of differing priorities among those involved in running trials is key to successful relationships between committees, funders and sponsors. Clarity regarding appropriate lines of communication, roles and accountability is needed. We present 10 evidence-based recommendations to inform updates to international trial guidance, particularly the Medical Research Council guidelines.

摘要

背景

随机对照试验的监督与实施涉及多个利益相关者,包括试验指导委员会(TSC)、试验管理小组(TMG)、数据监测委员会(DMC)、资助者和申办者。我们旨在研究这些利益相关者之间的关系如何影响试验监督过程及其严谨性,以为未来修订《药物临床试验质量管理规范》指南提供参考。

方法

采用人种志研究设计,我们观察了八项试验的监督过程,并对试验的TSC和TMG成员以及其他相关信息提供者(包括试验的申办者和资助者)进行了半结构化访谈。对数据进行了主题分析,并对研究结果进行了三角互证和整合,以从多个角度描述英国目前的监督实践。

结果

观察并录音了八项试验的八次TSC会议和六次TMG会议,并对52名经过有目的抽样的关键信息提供者进行了66次半结构化访谈。呈现了五个主题:(1)TMG内部的协作与临床研究单位(CTU)的作用;(2)监督委员会之间的协作与冲突;(3)优先事项;(4)试验监督小组之间的沟通;(5)权力与问责制。有证据表明,CTU、TMG和TSC之间基于相互尊重存在协作关系,但也有冲突的证据。试验监督委员会之间的关系受到利益相关者组织和个人层面优先事项的影响。遵循特定的、公认的途径进行良好沟通在确保关系富有成效和试验监督高效方面发挥着核心作用。参与者将对试验的控制权描述为一个不断变化的政治格局,并且各委员会、申办者和资助者的角色及问责制缺乏明确性。利益相关者对自身对试验的权力以及他人权力的认知影响了参与试验监督者之间的关系。

结论

试验设计和实施方面的最新进展伴随着试验监督小组之间角色和关系的变化。认识并尊重参与试验者不同优先事项的价值是委员会、资助者和申办者之间建立成功关系的关键。需要明确适当的沟通渠道、角色和问责制。我们提出了10条基于证据的建议,以为更新国际试验指南(特别是医学研究理事会指南)提供参考。

相似文献

4
A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues.
Clin Trials. 2020 Feb;17(1):106-112. doi: 10.1177/1740774519881619. Epub 2019 Oct 30.
7
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
8
Recommendations for data monitoring committees from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative.
Clin Trials. 2017 Aug;14(4):342-348. doi: 10.1177/1740774517707743. Epub 2017 May 13.
9
Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials.
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Mar;9(7):1-238, iii-iv. doi: 10.3310/hta9070.

引用本文的文献

1
Formalising the induction of patient and public involvement contributors on trial oversight committees.
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Jun 17;7(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00269-y.
2
'A limpet on a ship': Spatio-temporal dynamics of patient and public involvement in research.
Health Expect. 2021 Jun;24(3):810-818. doi: 10.1111/hex.13215. Epub 2021 Mar 21.
4
A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues.
Clin Trials. 2020 Feb;17(1):106-112. doi: 10.1177/1740774519881619. Epub 2019 Oct 30.

本文引用的文献

4
The impact of registration of clinical trials units: the UK experience.
Clin Trials. 2015 Apr;12(2):166-73. doi: 10.1177/1740774514561242. Epub 2014 Dec 4.
6
Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence.
Lancet. 2009 Jul 4;374(9683):86-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9. Epub 2009 Jun 12.
7
Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography.
BMJ. 2008 Aug 7;337:a1020. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1020.
8
9
Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis.
Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1189-208.
10
Sampling hard to reach populations.
J Adv Nurs. 1997 Oct;26(4):790-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.00371.x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验