Resende Catarina, Abreu Marta, Presa Ramos José, Carda José, Costa Luís, Cardoso Fátima, Pereira Deolinda, Teixeira Encarnação, Tonin Fernanda S, Duarte-Ramos Filipa
Medicine, University of Coimbra, Agencia de Investigação Clínica e Inovação Biomédica (AICIB), Coimbra, PRT.
Medical Oncology, AstraZeneca, Lisbon, PRT.
Cureus. 2024 Nov 15;16(11):e73720. doi: 10.7759/cureus.73720. eCollection 2024 Nov.
Introduction Over the past decades, clinical research has evolved significantly, driven by advances in regulatory frameworks, technological innovations, and methodological approaches. In Portugal, while there has been progress - such as increased regulatory alignment with European standards and the adoption of digital trial management tools - various challenges remain. These may include, among others, limited access to funding, slower patient recruitment rates, and regulatory hurdles that can delay trial approvals. Our goal was to identify key areas for improvement toward the optimization of clinical research practices in the country. Methods A modified three-round Delphi study was conducted online (2023-2024) to achieve a nationwide expert consensus. The scientific committee, composed of seven experts, developed 45 initial statements across five topics: dedication time to clinical research, organization of integrated research centers, conditions for implementing clinical trials, the role of institutional authorities, and patient recruitment and referral. A five-point Likert-type scale was used (1 - 'strongly disagree', 2 - 'disagree', 3 - 'neither agree nor disagree', 4 - 'agree', and 5 - 'strongly agree') to rate each statement. The consensus threshold was established as a percentage of agreement among participants (≥90% in the first round and ≥85% in the second round). The level of consensus achieved by the panel was discussed by the scientific committee during virtual meetings. Results Fifty-one experts completed the exercise (86.4% response rate). Consensus was reached on 32 of the 45 initial statements (71.1%) in the first round, with most of them (n = 20, or 62.5%) presenting high concordance rates (>95%). Four new statements were added for the second round, grounded on the feedback from the experts. By the end of the study, consensus was achieved on 45 out of the 49 final statements (91.8%), with the greatest agreement on the organization of integrated research centers and conditions for implementing clinical trials. Three statements regarding patient recruitment and referral, and one statement on the role of institutional authorities to promote clinical research, did not reach consensus, highlighting the need for further dialogue and innovative solutions in these fields. Conclusion The insights of this study can inform health organizations, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders about the barriers and opportunities to improve clinical research in Portugal. By learning from global best practices and tailoring strategies to local contexts, the country can become a more prominent player in the international community.
引言 在过去几十年中,在监管框架、技术创新和方法学方法进步的推动下,临床研究有了显著发展。在葡萄牙,虽然取得了一些进展,如在监管方面与欧洲标准的一致性提高以及采用了数字试验管理工具,但仍存在各种挑战。其中可能包括资金获取有限、患者招募率较低以及可能延迟试验批准的监管障碍。我们的目标是确定该国临床研究实践优化的关键改进领域。
方法 2023年至2024年在线开展了一项经过改进的三轮德尔菲研究,以达成全国范围的专家共识。由七名专家组成的科学委员会围绕五个主题制定了45条初始陈述:投入临床研究的时间、综合研究中心的组织、开展临床试验的条件、机构当局的作用以及患者招募和转诊。使用五点李克特量表(1 - “强烈不同意”,2 - “不同意”,3 - “既不同意也不反对”,4 - “同意”,5 - “强烈同意”)对每条陈述进行评分。共识阈值设定为参与者之间的同意百分比(第一轮≥90%,第二轮≥85%)。科学委员会在虚拟会议期间讨论了专家小组达成的共识水平。
结果 51名专家完成了此项工作(回复率为86.4%)。在第一轮中,45条初始陈述中的32条(71.1%)达成了共识,其中大多数(n = 20,即62.5%)呈现出高一致率(>95%)。根据专家反馈,第二轮增加了四条新陈述。到研究结束时,49条最终陈述中的45条(91.8%)达成了共识,在综合研究中心的组织和开展临床试验的条件方面达成的共识最多。关于患者招募和转诊的三条陈述以及关于机构当局促进临床研究作用的一条陈述未达成共识,这凸显了在这些领域进行进一步对话和创新解决方案的必要性。
结论 本研究的见解可为卫生组织、监管机构和其他利益相关者提供有关葡萄牙临床研究改进的障碍和机遇的信息。通过借鉴全球最佳实践并根据当地情况调整策略,该国可以在国际社会中成为更突出的参与者。