Using Digital Tools in Clinical, Health and Social Care Research: A Mixed-Methods Study of UK Stakeholders

Sophie Clohessy, Theodoros Arvanitis, Umer Rashid, Carly Craddock, Mark Evans, Carla Toro, Mark T. Elliott
{"title":"Using Digital Tools in Clinical, Health and Social Care Research: A Mixed-Methods Study of UK Stakeholders","authors":"Sophie Clohessy, Theodoros Arvanitis, Umer Rashid, Carly Craddock, Mark Evans, Carla Toro, Mark T. Elliott","doi":"10.1101/2023.12.20.23300220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated changes to clinical research methodology, with clinical studies being carried out via online/remote means. This mixed-methods study aimed to identify which digital tools are currently used across all stages of clinical research by stakeholders in clinical, health and social care research and investigate their experience using digital tools. Design: Two online surveys followed by semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically.\nSetting, Participants To explore the digital tools used since the pandemic, survey participants [Researchers and Related Staff (n=41), Research and Development staff (n=25)], needed to have worked on clinical, health or social care research studies over the past two years (2020-2022) in an employing organisation based in the West Midlands region of England (due to funding from a regional clinical research network). Survey participants had the opportunity to participate in an online qualitative interview to explore their experiences of digital tools in greater depth (n=8).\nResults: Six themes were identified in the qualitative interviews: \"Definition of a Digital Tool in Clinical Research\"; \"Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic\"; \"Perceived Benefits/Drawbacks of Digital Tools\"; \"Selection of a Digital Tool\"; \"Barriers and Overcoming Barriers\" and \"Future Digital Tool Use\". The context of each theme is discussed, based on the interview results. Conclusions: Findings demonstrate how digital tools are becoming embedded in clinical research, as well as the breadth of tools used across different research stages. The majority of participants viewed the tools positively, noting their ability to enhance research efficiency. Several considerations were highlighted; concerns about digital exclusion; need for collaboration with digital expertise/clinical staff, research on tool effectiveness and recommendations to aid future tool selection. There is a need for the development of resources to help optimise the selection and use of appropriate digital tools for clinical research staff and participants.","PeriodicalId":501387,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Medical Education","volume":"114 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.20.23300220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated changes to clinical research methodology, with clinical studies being carried out via online/remote means. This mixed-methods study aimed to identify which digital tools are currently used across all stages of clinical research by stakeholders in clinical, health and social care research and investigate their experience using digital tools. Design: Two online surveys followed by semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Setting, Participants To explore the digital tools used since the pandemic, survey participants [Researchers and Related Staff (n=41), Research and Development staff (n=25)], needed to have worked on clinical, health or social care research studies over the past two years (2020-2022) in an employing organisation based in the West Midlands region of England (due to funding from a regional clinical research network). Survey participants had the opportunity to participate in an online qualitative interview to explore their experiences of digital tools in greater depth (n=8). Results: Six themes were identified in the qualitative interviews: "Definition of a Digital Tool in Clinical Research"; "Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic"; "Perceived Benefits/Drawbacks of Digital Tools"; "Selection of a Digital Tool"; "Barriers and Overcoming Barriers" and "Future Digital Tool Use". The context of each theme is discussed, based on the interview results. Conclusions: Findings demonstrate how digital tools are becoming embedded in clinical research, as well as the breadth of tools used across different research stages. The majority of participants viewed the tools positively, noting their ability to enhance research efficiency. Several considerations were highlighted; concerns about digital exclusion; need for collaboration with digital expertise/clinical staff, research on tool effectiveness and recommendations to aid future tool selection. There is a need for the development of resources to help optimise the selection and use of appropriate digital tools for clinical research staff and participants.
在临床、健康和社会护理研究中使用数字工具:对英国利益相关者的混合方法研究
目的:COVID-19 大流行加速了临床研究方法的变革,临床研究通过在线/远程方式进行。这项混合方法研究旨在确定临床、健康和社会护理研究领域的相关人员目前在临床研究的各个阶段使用哪些数字工具,并调查他们使用数字工具的经验。设计:进行了两次在线调查,随后进行了半结构化访谈。为了探究大流行后使用的数字工具,调查参与者[研究人员及相关人员(n=41)、研发人员(n=25)]需要在过去两年(2020-2022年)中在英格兰西米德兰兹地区的用人机构中从事过临床、健康或社会护理研究工作(由于获得了地区临床研究网络的资助)。调查参与者有机会参加在线定性访谈,以更深入地了解他们使用数字工具的经验(8 人):定性访谈确定了六个主题:结果:在定性访谈中确定了六个主题:"临床研究中数字工具的定义"、"COVID-19 大流行的影响"、"数字工具的优点/缺点"、"数字工具的选择"、"障碍和克服障碍 "以及 "未来数字工具的使用"。根据访谈结果,讨论了每个主题的来龙去脉。结论:研究结果表明了数字化工具是如何融入临床研究的,以及不同研究阶段所使用工具的广泛性。大多数参与者对这些工具持积极态度,认为它们能够提高研究效率。与会者强调了一些注意事项:对数字排斥的担忧;与数字专家/临床人员合作的必要性;对工具有效性的研究以及有助于未来工具选择的建议。有必要开发资源,帮助临床研究人员和参与者优化选择和使用适当的数字工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信