Suppr超能文献

使用电子健康记录的实用随机临床试验:全科医生对事先同意模式的看法。

Pragmatic randomised clinical trials using electronic health records: general practitioner views on a model of a priori consent.

作者信息

Hills Thomas, Semprini Alex, Beasley Richard

机构信息

Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Private Bag 7902, Wellington, 6242, New Zealand.

出版信息

Trials. 2018 May 16;19(1):278. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2658-8.

Abstract

Pragmatic randomised clinical trials could use existing electronic health records (EHRs) to identify trial participants, perform randomisation, and to collect follow-up data. Achieving adequate informed consent in routine care and clinician recruitment have been identified as key barriers to this approach to clinical trials. We propose a model where written informed consent for a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial is obtained in advance by the research team, recorded in the EHR, and then confirmed by the general practitioner (GP) at the time of enrolment. The EHR software then randomly assigns a patient to one of two treatments. Follow-up data is collected in the EHR. Twenty-two of 23 GPs surveyed (96%) were 'definitely' or 'probably' comfortable with confirming consent. Twenty-one out of 23 GPs (91%) were 'definitely' or 'probably' comfortable with a patient being randomised to one of two comparable drugs during a routine consultation. Twenty-two out of 23 GPs (96%) were 'definitely' or 'probably' comfortable with allowing the electronic system to randomise a patient to drug A or drug B and generate a prescription. Ten out of 23 GPs (43%) identified time constraints as the main hurdle to conducting this sort of research in the primary care setting. On average, it was felt that 6.5 min, in addition to a usual consult, would be acceptable to complete enrolment. Our survey found this model of a comparative effectiveness trial to be acceptable to the majority of GPs.

摘要

实用随机临床试验可以利用现有的电子健康记录(EHRs)来识别试验参与者、进行随机分组并收集随访数据。在常规护理中获得充分的知情同意以及招募临床医生已被确定为这种临床试验方法的主要障碍。我们提出一种模式,即由研究团队提前获得实用比较效果试验的书面知情同意,记录在电子健康记录中,然后在患者登记时由全科医生(GP)确认。电子健康记录软件随后将患者随机分配到两种治疗方法之一。随访数据在电子健康记录中收集。接受调查的23名全科医生中有22名(96%)“肯定”或“可能”愿意确认同意。23名全科医生中有21名(91%)“肯定”或“可能”愿意在常规会诊期间将患者随机分配到两种可比药物之一。23名全科医生中有22名(96%)“肯定”或“可能”愿意允许电子系统将患者随机分配到药物A或药物B并生成处方。23名全科医生中有10名(43%)认为时间限制是在初级保健环境中开展此类研究的主要障碍。平均而言,人们认为除了常规会诊外,再用6.5分钟来完成登记是可以接受的。我们的调查发现,这种比较效果试验模式为大多数全科医生所接受。

相似文献

5
Patients' beliefs regarding informed consent for low-risk pragmatic trials.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Sep 18;17(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0424-3.
6
Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 8. Data collection and management.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Nov;91:13-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.07.003. Epub 2017 Jul 14.
8
Ethical Acceptability of Postrandomization Consent in Pragmatic Clinical Trials.
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Dec 7;1(8):e186149. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.6149.
10
Who is willing to participate in low-risk pragmatic clinical trials without consent?
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Dec;73(12):1557-1563. doi: 10.1007/s00228-017-2332-1. Epub 2017 Sep 12.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Pragmatic Trials.
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 4;375(5):454-63. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1510059.
2
The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose.
BMJ. 2015 May 8;350:h2147. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2147.
4
Informed consent in randomized quality improvement trials: a critical barrier for learning health systems.
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 May;174(5):668-70. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13297.
5
Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care.
N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 20;370(8):766-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhle1313674.

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