A South East Asia Multi-Country Survey Assessing Awareness and Preparedness of the Clinical Investigation Staff on Risk Based Monitoring (RBM) Approach

K. Kumar, M. Jadhav
{"title":"A South East Asia Multi-Country Survey Assessing Awareness and Preparedness of the Clinical Investigation Staff on Risk Based Monitoring (RBM) Approach","authors":"K. Kumar, M. Jadhav","doi":"10.35248/2167-0870.20.10.413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Patient safety being paramount, the global agencies (US-FDA, EMA, MHRA, ICH) have developed various guidance to improve clinical trials quality, conduct, performance and assess these on risk based principles. Among these, Risk Based Monitoring (RBM) has gained a considerable traction globally to be implemented across all phases of clinical trials. Methods: A multi-type survey questionnaire containing 19 elements was developed, validated, and circulated among clinical trial staff, between July 2016-June 2017. The survey consisted questions pertaining to responder’s sex, role, trial experience in past 5 years, utilization of RBM tools, type of trials involved in RBM, opinion on better type of monitoring, timely oversight of trial data by RBM, implications of RBM in subject’s safety, data quality, overall efficiency, cost specifications, understanding of RBM methodologies and its future evaluation, readiness to adopt RBM and anticipating challenges in RBM strategies. The survey responses were collected, compiled and entries were verified by third party, and analyzed. Results: Overall 502 responses were received from 3 countries selected i.e. India (n=282), Malaysia (n=207) and Singapore (n=13); all responses were complete except one. In the survey, 260 (51.79%) males and 242 (48.21%) females participated. Among the responders 114 (28.69%) were investigators, 153(30.48%) were coordinator/research nurse, 134 (26.69%) were CRO personnel and 71 (14.14%) were other clinical staffs. 208 (80%) male participants and 181 (74.79%) female participants were aware about RBM awareness and it was proportionate with number of years of clinical trials experience. Overall, RBM awareness among the responders was 77.49% (n=389). Among the two groups i.e. responses received from Malaysia+Singapore (MS) and India, awareness rate among Investigators MS was 47.88% (n=34) and in India was 65.75% (n=48), among coordinator/research nurse it was 63.95% (n=55) and 85.07% (n=57), among CRO personnel it was 95.24% (n=40) and 95.65% (n=88) and with other clinical staffs it was 90.48% (n=19) and 96% (n=48) respectively. The awareness rate among investigators and coordinator/research nurse was significantly varied between two groups (p<0.03 and p<0.003) respectively. When asked if you will be ready to adopt the RBM concept, 60.45%% (n=133) from MS and 76.59% (n=216) of the participants from India agreed to adopt, 26.36% (n=58) and 12.05% (n=34) were neutral and 10.45% (n=23) and 7.09% (n=20) were not sure about it.Additionally, 77% of the responders agreed on adopting hybrid monitoring (onsite+ remote) approach and if embraced by sponsors this new approach of RBM can improve the trial conduct and minimize the risks. Chi’s Square or Fisher’s exact test used to analysis the significance between twogroups, the significance rate of p<0.001 was determined for demographics, trials involved in past 5 years, trials involve RBM, cost management via RBM, and anticipating challenges in RBM also. Conclusion: This multi country survey carried out across three countries indicated the need for a structured education, training and a phased wise implementation of RBM. Key finding was willingness of study staff for implementation of hybrid model of RBM guidance with an objective to improve better safety of study participants and improved clinical trials data quality and conduct. This warrants more studies with larger sample size to generate robust evidence.","PeriodicalId":15375,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical trials","volume":"146 1","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35248/2167-0870.20.10.413","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

Background: Patient safety being paramount, the global agencies (US-FDA, EMA, MHRA, ICH) have developed various guidance to improve clinical trials quality, conduct, performance and assess these on risk based principles. Among these, Risk Based Monitoring (RBM) has gained a considerable traction globally to be implemented across all phases of clinical trials. Methods: A multi-type survey questionnaire containing 19 elements was developed, validated, and circulated among clinical trial staff, between July 2016-June 2017. The survey consisted questions pertaining to responder’s sex, role, trial experience in past 5 years, utilization of RBM tools, type of trials involved in RBM, opinion on better type of monitoring, timely oversight of trial data by RBM, implications of RBM in subject’s safety, data quality, overall efficiency, cost specifications, understanding of RBM methodologies and its future evaluation, readiness to adopt RBM and anticipating challenges in RBM strategies. The survey responses were collected, compiled and entries were verified by third party, and analyzed. Results: Overall 502 responses were received from 3 countries selected i.e. India (n=282), Malaysia (n=207) and Singapore (n=13); all responses were complete except one. In the survey, 260 (51.79%) males and 242 (48.21%) females participated. Among the responders 114 (28.69%) were investigators, 153(30.48%) were coordinator/research nurse, 134 (26.69%) were CRO personnel and 71 (14.14%) were other clinical staffs. 208 (80%) male participants and 181 (74.79%) female participants were aware about RBM awareness and it was proportionate with number of years of clinical trials experience. Overall, RBM awareness among the responders was 77.49% (n=389). Among the two groups i.e. responses received from Malaysia+Singapore (MS) and India, awareness rate among Investigators MS was 47.88% (n=34) and in India was 65.75% (n=48), among coordinator/research nurse it was 63.95% (n=55) and 85.07% (n=57), among CRO personnel it was 95.24% (n=40) and 95.65% (n=88) and with other clinical staffs it was 90.48% (n=19) and 96% (n=48) respectively. The awareness rate among investigators and coordinator/research nurse was significantly varied between two groups (p<0.03 and p<0.003) respectively. When asked if you will be ready to adopt the RBM concept, 60.45%% (n=133) from MS and 76.59% (n=216) of the participants from India agreed to adopt, 26.36% (n=58) and 12.05% (n=34) were neutral and 10.45% (n=23) and 7.09% (n=20) were not sure about it.Additionally, 77% of the responders agreed on adopting hybrid monitoring (onsite+ remote) approach and if embraced by sponsors this new approach of RBM can improve the trial conduct and minimize the risks. Chi’s Square or Fisher’s exact test used to analysis the significance between twogroups, the significance rate of p<0.001 was determined for demographics, trials involved in past 5 years, trials involve RBM, cost management via RBM, and anticipating challenges in RBM also. Conclusion: This multi country survey carried out across three countries indicated the need for a structured education, training and a phased wise implementation of RBM. Key finding was willingness of study staff for implementation of hybrid model of RBM guidance with an objective to improve better safety of study participants and improved clinical trials data quality and conduct. This warrants more studies with larger sample size to generate robust evidence.
东南亚多国调查评估临床调查人员对基于风险的监测(RBM)方法的认识和准备
背景:患者安全是最重要的,全球机构(美国fda、EMA、MHRA、ICH)已经制定了各种指导方针,以提高临床试验的质量、实施、绩效,并根据基于风险的原则对其进行评估。其中,基于风险的监测(RBM)已经在全球范围内获得了相当大的牵引力,可以在临床试验的所有阶段实施。方法:于2016年7月至2017年6月编制、验证并在临床试验人员中发放包含19项内容的多类型调查问卷。调查的问题包括应答者的性别、角色、过去5年的试验经验、RBM工具的使用情况、涉及RBM的试验类型、对更好的监测类型的意见、RBM对试验数据的及时监督、RBM对受试者安全的影响、数据质量、总体效率、成本规格、对RBM方法的理解及其未来评价、采用RBM的准备情况以及预测RBM战略中的挑战。调查结果由第三方收集、整理、验证,并进行分析。结果:总共收到了来自3个国家的502份回复,即印度(n=282)、马来西亚(n=207)和新加坡(n=13);所有的回答都是完整的,除了一个。参与调查的男性260人(51.79%),女性242人(48.21%)。应答者中调查人员114名(28.69%),协调员/研究护士153名(30.48%),CRO人员134名(26.69%),其他临床工作人员71名(14.14%)。208名(80%)男性参与者和181名(74.79%)女性参与者意识到RBM意识,这与临床试验经验年数成正比。总体而言,应答者的RBM知晓率为77.49% (n=389)。在马来西亚+新加坡(MS)和印度两组受访者中,MS调查人员的知知率分别为47.88% (n=34)和65.75% (n=48),协调员/研究护士的知知率分别为63.95% (n=55)和85.07% (n=57), CRO人员的知知率分别为95.24% (n=40)和95.65% (n=88),其他临床工作人员的知知率分别为90.48% (n=19)和96% (n=48)。调查人员和协调员/研究护士的知晓率在两组间差异有统计学意义(p<0.03和p<0.003)。当被问及你是否准备好采用RBM概念时,来自MS的60.45% (n=133)和来自印度的76.59% (n=216)的参与者同意采用,26.36% (n=58)和12.05% (n=34)的参与者持中立态度,10.45% (n=23)和7.09% (n=20)的参与者对此不确定。此外,77%的应答者同意采用混合监测(现场+远程)方法,如果赞助商接受这种新的RBM方法,可以改善试验实施并将风险降至最低。卡方检验或费雪精确检验用于分析两组之间的显著性,对于人口统计学、过去5年的试验、涉及RBM的试验、通过RBM进行成本管理以及预测RBM面临的挑战,确定p<0.001的显著性率。结论:这项在三个国家开展的多国调查表明,需要有组织的教育、培训和分阶段实施RBM。关键发现是研究人员愿意实施RBM指导的混合模型,目的是提高研究参与者的安全性,改善临床试验数据的质量和行为。这需要更多的研究和更大的样本量来产生强有力的证据。
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