Frontier sites in clinical trials: Opportunities, challenges, and models

IF 1.5 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Andrea Bastek , Amanda Zenere , Heather Manley , Camille Finkle , Chad Jaeger , Janet Matthews , Kristie Moffett , Megan Solomon , Paula Underhill
{"title":"Frontier sites in clinical trials: Opportunities, challenges, and models","authors":"Andrea Bastek ,&nbsp;Amanda Zenere ,&nbsp;Heather Manley ,&nbsp;Camille Finkle ,&nbsp;Chad Jaeger ,&nbsp;Janet Matthews ,&nbsp;Kristie Moffett ,&nbsp;Megan Solomon ,&nbsp;Paula Underhill","doi":"10.1016/j.conctc.2025.101581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The clinical trials industry faces a growing capacity gap driven by an increasing number of studies combined with site and staff shortages. The Site Enablement League (SEL) Task Force on Frontier Sites was established to explore the potential of non-traditional research sites—termed \"frontier sites\"—to address these issues by expanding access to underserved populations and embedding clinical research in community settings.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The task force defined frontier sites and conducted a survey to gather perspectives on their benefits, challenges, and support needs. Twenty-nine valid survey responses were collected. Respondents self-identified as having direct experience with frontier sites (“experienced respondents”) or answered based on their perception of working with frontier sites (“perception respondents”). Free-text responses were coded into categories and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Access to new participant populations was the most cited benefit, and experienced respondents noted additional gains in site engagement and education. Operational infrastructure deficiencies were the primary challenge identified by both experienced and perception respondents. Experienced respondents highlighted greater concerns about compliance and community resistance. The primary support need identified was enhanced operational support and quality oversight. Differences between experienced and perception respondent groups suggested the need for broader industry education.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Frontier sites offer significant promise for increasing research capacity and diversity, but require substantial operational, educational, and community engagement support. These survey findings provide a foundation for shared understanding across the industry. From that foundation the industry can work to develop a playbook to guide the successful integration of frontier sites into clinical trial operations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37937,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","volume":"48 ","pages":"Article 101581"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865425001553","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The clinical trials industry faces a growing capacity gap driven by an increasing number of studies combined with site and staff shortages. The Site Enablement League (SEL) Task Force on Frontier Sites was established to explore the potential of non-traditional research sites—termed "frontier sites"—to address these issues by expanding access to underserved populations and embedding clinical research in community settings.

Methods

The task force defined frontier sites and conducted a survey to gather perspectives on their benefits, challenges, and support needs. Twenty-nine valid survey responses were collected. Respondents self-identified as having direct experience with frontier sites (“experienced respondents”) or answered based on their perception of working with frontier sites (“perception respondents”). Free-text responses were coded into categories and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively.

Results

Access to new participant populations was the most cited benefit, and experienced respondents noted additional gains in site engagement and education. Operational infrastructure deficiencies were the primary challenge identified by both experienced and perception respondents. Experienced respondents highlighted greater concerns about compliance and community resistance. The primary support need identified was enhanced operational support and quality oversight. Differences between experienced and perception respondent groups suggested the need for broader industry education.

Conclusion

Frontier sites offer significant promise for increasing research capacity and diversity, but require substantial operational, educational, and community engagement support. These survey findings provide a foundation for shared understanding across the industry. From that foundation the industry can work to develop a playbook to guide the successful integration of frontier sites into clinical trial operations.
临床试验的前沿地点:机遇、挑战和模式
临床试验行业面临着越来越大的能力缺口,原因是研究数量不断增加,加上场地和人员短缺。前沿站点启用联盟(SEL)工作组的成立是为了探索非传统研究站点(称为“前沿站点”)的潜力,通过扩大对服务不足人群的访问和在社区环境中嵌入临床研究来解决这些问题。方法工作组确定了前沿站点,并进行了一项调查,以收集对其利益、挑战和支持需求的看法。收集了29份有效的调查回复。受访者自我认定有直接的边境工作经验(“有经验的受访者”),或根据他们对边境工作的感知来回答(“感知受访者”)。对自由文本回复进行分类,并进行定性和定量分析。结果获得新的参与者群体是被引用最多的好处,有经验的受访者注意到在现场参与和教育方面的额外收益。运营基础设施不足是经验丰富的受访者和有经验的受访者都认为的主要挑战。经验丰富的受访者强调了对合规性和社区阻力的更大担忧。确定的主要支助需要是加强业务支助和质量监督。有经验的受访者和有经验的受访者之间的差异表明,需要进行更广泛的行业教育。前沿站点为提高研究能力和多样性提供了巨大的希望,但需要大量的运营、教育和社区参与支持。这些调查结果为整个行业的共识提供了基础。在此基础上,该行业可以制定一份指南,指导将前沿站点成功整合到临床试验操作中。
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
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
146
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is an international peer reviewed open access journal that publishes articles pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from a wide range of disciplines including medicine, life science, pharmaceutical science, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioral science, and bioethics. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is unique in that it is outside the confines of disease specifications, and it strives to increase the transparency of medical research and reduce publication bias by publishing scientifically valid original research findings irrespective of their perceived importance, significance or impact. Both randomized and non-randomized trials are within the scope of the Journal. Some common topics include trial design rationale and methods, operational methodologies and challenges, and positive and negative trial results. In addition to original research, the Journal also welcomes other types of communications including, but are not limited to, methodology reviews, perspectives and discussions. Through timely dissemination of advances in clinical trials, the goal of Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is to serve as a platform to enhance the communication and collaboration within the global clinical trials community that ultimately advances this field of research for the benefit of patients.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书