临床研究人员对临床研究中资格筛选关键数据的见解。

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2024-10-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2024.617
Betina Idnay, Emily R Gordon, Aubrey S Johnson, Jordan G Nestor, Karen Marder, Chunhua Weng
{"title":"临床研究人员对临床研究中资格筛选关键数据的见解。","authors":"Betina Idnay, Emily R Gordon, Aubrey S Johnson, Jordan G Nestor, Karen Marder, Chunhua Weng","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical research is critical for healthcare advancement, but participant recruitment remains challenging. Clinical research professionals (CRPs; e.g., clinical research coordinator, research assistant) perform eligibility prescreening, ensuring adherence to study criteria while upholding scientific and ethical standards. This study investigates the key information CRP prioritizes during eligibility prescreening, providing insights to optimize data standardization, and recruitment approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a freelisting survey targeting 150 CRPs from diverse domains (i.e., neurological disorders, rare diseases, and other diseases) where they listed essential information they look for from medical records, participant/caregiver inquiries, and discussions with principal investigators to determine a potential participant's research eligibility. We calculated the salience scores of listed items using Anthropac, followed by a two-level analytic procedure to classify and thematically categorize the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of participants were female (81%), identified as White (44%) and as non-Hispanic (64.5%). The first-level analysis universally emphasized age, medication list, and medical history across all domains. The second-level analysis illuminated domain-specific approaches in information retrieval: for instance, history of present illness was notably significant in neurological disorders during participant and principal investigator inquiries, while research participation was distinctly salient in potential participant inquiries within the rare disease domain.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study unveils the intricacies of eligibility prescreening, with both universal and domain-specific methods observed. Variations in data use across domains suggest the need for tailored prescreening in clinical research. Incorporating these insights into CRP training and refining prescreening tools, combined with an ethical, participant-focused approach, can advance eligibility prescreening practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"8 1","pages":"e167"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11604510/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical researchers' insights on key data for eligibility screening in clinical studies.\",\"authors\":\"Betina Idnay, Emily R Gordon, Aubrey S Johnson, Jordan G Nestor, Karen Marder, Chunhua Weng\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cts.2024.617\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical research is critical for healthcare advancement, but participant recruitment remains challenging. Clinical research professionals (CRPs; e.g., clinical research coordinator, research assistant) perform eligibility prescreening, ensuring adherence to study criteria while upholding scientific and ethical standards. This study investigates the key information CRP prioritizes during eligibility prescreening, providing insights to optimize data standardization, and recruitment approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a freelisting survey targeting 150 CRPs from diverse domains (i.e., neurological disorders, rare diseases, and other diseases) where they listed essential information they look for from medical records, participant/caregiver inquiries, and discussions with principal investigators to determine a potential participant's research eligibility. We calculated the salience scores of listed items using Anthropac, followed by a two-level analytic procedure to classify and thematically categorize the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of participants were female (81%), identified as White (44%) and as non-Hispanic (64.5%). The first-level analysis universally emphasized age, medication list, and medical history across all domains. The second-level analysis illuminated domain-specific approaches in information retrieval: for instance, history of present illness was notably significant in neurological disorders during participant and principal investigator inquiries, while research participation was distinctly salient in potential participant inquiries within the rare disease domain.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study unveils the intricacies of eligibility prescreening, with both universal and domain-specific methods observed. Variations in data use across domains suggest the need for tailored prescreening in clinical research. Incorporating these insights into CRP training and refining prescreening tools, combined with an ethical, participant-focused approach, can advance eligibility prescreening practices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"e167\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11604510/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.617\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.617","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

临床研究是医疗保健进步的关键,但参与者招募仍然具有挑战性。临床研究专业人员(CRPs;例如,临床研究协调员,研究助理)进行资格预筛选,确保遵守研究标准,同时坚持科学和道德标准。本研究调查了CRP在资格预审过程中优先考虑的关键信息,为优化数据标准化和招聘方法提供了见解。方法:我们对来自不同领域(即神经系统疾病、罕见疾病和其他疾病)的150名crp进行了一项自由列表调查,他们列出了他们从医疗记录、参与者/护理者询问以及与主要研究者讨论中寻找的基本信息,以确定潜在参与者的研究资格。我们使用Anthropac计算所列项目的显著性分数,然后采用两级分析程序对数据进行分类和主题分类。结果:大多数参与者为女性(81%),白人(44%)和非西班牙裔(64.5%)。第一级分析普遍强调年龄、用药清单和所有领域的病史。二级分析阐明了信息检索中的特定领域方法:例如,在参与者和主要研究者询问期间,神经系统疾病的现有病史显著显著,而在罕见疾病领域的潜在参与者询问中,研究参与明显显著。结论:本研究揭示了资格预筛选的复杂性,包括普遍和特定领域的方法。跨领域数据使用的差异表明需要在临床研究中进行量身定制的预筛选。将这些见解纳入CRP培训和改进预筛选工具,结合道德的、以参与者为中心的方法,可以推进资格预筛选实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical researchers' insights on key data for eligibility screening in clinical studies.

Introduction: Clinical research is critical for healthcare advancement, but participant recruitment remains challenging. Clinical research professionals (CRPs; e.g., clinical research coordinator, research assistant) perform eligibility prescreening, ensuring adherence to study criteria while upholding scientific and ethical standards. This study investigates the key information CRP prioritizes during eligibility prescreening, providing insights to optimize data standardization, and recruitment approaches.

Methods: We conducted a freelisting survey targeting 150 CRPs from diverse domains (i.e., neurological disorders, rare diseases, and other diseases) where they listed essential information they look for from medical records, participant/caregiver inquiries, and discussions with principal investigators to determine a potential participant's research eligibility. We calculated the salience scores of listed items using Anthropac, followed by a two-level analytic procedure to classify and thematically categorize the data.

Results: The majority of participants were female (81%), identified as White (44%) and as non-Hispanic (64.5%). The first-level analysis universally emphasized age, medication list, and medical history across all domains. The second-level analysis illuminated domain-specific approaches in information retrieval: for instance, history of present illness was notably significant in neurological disorders during participant and principal investigator inquiries, while research participation was distinctly salient in potential participant inquiries within the rare disease domain.

Conclusion: This study unveils the intricacies of eligibility prescreening, with both universal and domain-specific methods observed. Variations in data use across domains suggest the need for tailored prescreening in clinical research. Incorporating these insights into CRP training and refining prescreening tools, combined with an ethical, participant-focused approach, can advance eligibility prescreening practices.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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