Skip to main content
Top
Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Research

Exploring implementation outcomes in the clinical trial context: a qualitative study of physician trial stakeholders

Authors: Kristian D. Stensland, Anne E. Sales, Varsha K. Vedapudi, Laura J. Damschroder, Ted A. Skolarus

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Cancer clinical trials can be considered evidence-based interventions with substantial benefits, but suffer from poor implementation leading to low enrollment and frequent failure. Applying implementation science approaches such as outcomes frameworks to the trial context could aid in contextualizing and evaluating trial improvement strategies. However, the acceptability and appropriateness of these adapted outcomes to trial stakeholders are unclear. For these reasons, we interviewed cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders to explore how they perceive and address clinical trial implementation outcomes.

Methods

We purposively selected 15 cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders from our institution representing different specialties, trial roles, and trial sponsor types. We performed semi-structured interviews to explore a previous adaptation of Proctor’s Implementation Outcomes Framework to the clinical trial context. Emergent themes from each outcome were developed.

Results

The implementation outcomes were well understood and applicable (i.e., appropriate and acceptable) to clinical trial stakeholders. We describe cancer clinical trial physician stakeholder understanding of these outcomes and current application of these concepts. Trial feasibility and implementation cost were felt to be most critical to trial design and implementation. Trial penetration was most difficult to measure, primarily due to eligible patient identification. In general, we found that formal methods for trial improvement and trial implementation evaluation were poorly developed. Cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders referred to some design and implementation techniques used to improve trials, but these were infrequently formally evaluated or theory-based.

Conclusion

Implementation outcomes adapted to the trial context were acceptable and appropriate to cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders. Use of these outcomes could facilitate the evaluation and design of clinical trial improvement interventions. Additionally, these outcomes highlight potential areas for the development of new tools, for example informatics solutions, to improve the evaluation and implementation of clinical trials.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Stensland K, Kaffenberger S, Canes D, Galsky M, Skolarus T, Moinzadeh A. Assessing genitourinary cancer clinical trial accrual sufficiency using archived trial data. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2020;4:614–22.CrossRefPubMed Stensland K, Kaffenberger S, Canes D, Galsky M, Skolarus T, Moinzadeh A. Assessing genitourinary cancer clinical trial accrual sufficiency using archived trial data. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2020;4:614–22.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Stensland KD, McBride RB, Latif A, Wisnivesky J, Hendricks R, Roper N, et al. Adult cancer clinical trials that fail to complete: an epidemic? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(9):dju229.CrossRefPubMed Stensland KD, McBride RB, Latif A, Wisnivesky J, Hendricks R, Roper N, et al. Adult cancer clinical trials that fail to complete: an epidemic? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(9):dju229.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Stensland KD, Damschroder LJ, Sales AE, Schott AF, Skolarus TA. Envisioning clinical trials as complex interventions. Cancer. 2022;128(17):3145–51.CrossRefPubMed Stensland KD, Damschroder LJ, Sales AE, Schott AF, Skolarus TA. Envisioning clinical trials as complex interventions. Cancer. 2022;128(17):3145–51.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Fraser C, Mitchell E, Sullivan F, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:MR000013.PubMed Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Fraser C, Mitchell E, Sullivan F, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:MR000013.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Healy P, Galvin S, Williamson PR, Treweek S, Whiting C, Maeso B, et al. Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership - the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2018;19:147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Healy P, Galvin S, Williamson PR, Treweek S, Whiting C, Maeso B, et al. Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership - the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2018;19:147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38:65–76.CrossRefPubMed Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38:65–76.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Stensland KD, Sales AE, Damschroder LJ, Skolarus TA. Applying implementation frameworks to the clinical trial context. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3:109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Stensland KD, Sales AE, Damschroder LJ, Skolarus TA. Applying implementation frameworks to the clinical trial context. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3:109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Unger JM, Hershman DL, Till C, Minasian LM, Osarogiagbon RU, Fleury ME, et al. “When offered to participate”: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient agreement to participate in cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113:244–57.CrossRefPubMed Unger JM, Hershman DL, Till C, Minasian LM, Osarogiagbon RU, Fleury ME, et al. “When offered to participate”: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient agreement to participate in cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113:244–57.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Ni Y, Bermudez M, Kennebeck S, Liddy-Hicks S, Dexheimer J. A real-time automated patient screening system for clinical trials eligibility in an emergency department: design and evaluation. JMIR Med Inform. 2019;7: e14185.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ni Y, Bermudez M, Kennebeck S, Liddy-Hicks S, Dexheimer J. A real-time automated patient screening system for clinical trials eligibility in an emergency department: design and evaluation. JMIR Med Inform. 2019;7: e14185.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Sertkaya A, Wong H-H, Jessup A, Beleche T. Key cost drivers of pharmaceutical clinical trials in the United States. Clin Trials. 2016;13:117–26.CrossRefPubMed Sertkaya A, Wong H-H, Jessup A, Beleche T. Key cost drivers of pharmaceutical clinical trials in the United States. Clin Trials. 2016;13:117–26.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Strong S, Paramasivan S, Mills N, Wilson C, Donovan JL, Blazeby JM. “The trial is owned by the team, not by an individual”: a qualitative study exploring the role of teamwork in recruitment to randomised controlled trials in surgical oncology. Trials. 2016;17:212.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Strong S, Paramasivan S, Mills N, Wilson C, Donovan JL, Blazeby JM. “The trial is owned by the team, not by an individual”: a qualitative study exploring the role of teamwork in recruitment to randomised controlled trials in surgical oncology. Trials. 2016;17:212.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference McNair AGK, Choh CTP, Metcalfe C, Littlejohns D, Barham CP, Hollowood A, et al. Maximising recruitment into randomised controlled trials: the role of multidisciplinary cancer teams. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:2623–6.CrossRefPubMed McNair AGK, Choh CTP, Metcalfe C, Littlejohns D, Barham CP, Hollowood A, et al. Maximising recruitment into randomised controlled trials: the role of multidisciplinary cancer teams. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:2623–6.CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
go back to reference Hanrahan V, Biesty L, Lawrie L, Duncan E, Gillies K. Theory-guided interviews identified behavioural barriers and enablers to healthcare professionals recruiting participants to maternity trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2022;145:81–91.CrossRefPubMed Hanrahan V, Biesty L, Lawrie L, Duncan E, Gillies K. Theory-guided interviews identified behavioural barriers and enablers to healthcare professionals recruiting participants to maternity trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2022;145:81–91.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Donovan JL, Jepson M, Rooshenas L, Paramasivan S, Mills N, Elliott D, et al. Development of a new adapted QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI-Two) for rapid application to RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls—to identify previously hidden barriers and improve recruitment. Trials. 2022;23:258.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Donovan JL, Jepson M, Rooshenas L, Paramasivan S, Mills N, Elliott D, et al. Development of a new adapted QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI-Two) for rapid application to RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls—to identify previously hidden barriers and improve recruitment. Trials. 2022;23:258.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Farrar N, Elliott D, Houghton C, Jepson M, Mills N, Paramasivan S, et al. Understanding the perspectives of recruiters is key to improving randomised controlled trial enrolment: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Trials. 2022;23:883.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Farrar N, Elliott D, Houghton C, Jepson M, Mills N, Paramasivan S, et al. Understanding the perspectives of recruiters is key to improving randomised controlled trial enrolment: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Trials. 2022;23:883.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Treweek S, Bevan S, Bower P, Campbell M, Christie J, Clarke M, et al. Trial Forge Guidance 1: what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)? Trials. 2018;19:139.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Treweek S, Bevan S, Bower P, Campbell M, Christie J, Clarke M, et al. Trial Forge Guidance 1: what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)? Trials. 2018;19:139.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ. Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a “trial effect.” J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:217–24.CrossRefPubMed Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ. Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a “trial effect.” J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:217–24.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Denburg A, Rodriguez-Galindo C, Joffe S. Clinical trials infrastructure as a quality improvement intervention in low- and middle-income countries. Am J Bioeth. 2016;16:3–11.CrossRefPubMed Denburg A, Rodriguez-Galindo C, Joffe S. Clinical trials infrastructure as a quality improvement intervention in low- and middle-income countries. Am J Bioeth. 2016;16:3–11.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Exploring implementation outcomes in the clinical trial context: a qualitative study of physician trial stakeholders
Authors
Kristian D. Stensland
Anne E. Sales
Varsha K. Vedapudi
Laura J. Damschroder
Ted A. Skolarus
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07304-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Trials 1/2023 Go to the issue