Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study

Authors: Caroline Hurley, Carol Sinnott, Mike Clarke, Patricia Kearney, Emmy Racine, Joseph Eustace, Frances Shiely

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In November 2016, the ICH published a requirement for sponsors to develop a systematic, prioritised, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. This approach is more commonly known as risk-based monitoring (RBM). However, recent evidence suggests that a ‘gold standard’, validated approach to RBM does not exist and it is unclear how sponsors will introduce RBM into their organisations. A first step needed to inform the implementation of RBM is to explore academic trialists’ readiness and ability to perform RBM. The aim of this paper is to identify the attitudes and perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials in Ireland.

Methods

This is a mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design, with quantitative survey followed by semistructured interviews. Academic clinical researchers (N = 132) working in Ireland were surveyed to examine their use and perceptions of RBM. A purposive sample of survey participants (n = 22) were then interviewed to gain greater insight into the quantitative findings. The survey and interview data were merged to generate a list of perceived barriers and facilitators to RBM implementation, with suggestions for, and solutions to, these issues.

Results

Survey response rate was 49% (132/273). Thirteen percent (n = 18) of responders were not familiar with the term risk-based monitoring and less than a quarter of respondents (21%, n = 28) had performed RBM in a clinical trial. Barriers to RBM implementation included lack of RBM knowledge/training, increased costs caused by greater IT demands, increased workload for trial staff and lack of evidence to support RBM as an effective monitoring approach. Facilitators included participants’ legal obligation to perform RBM under the new ICH-GCP guidelines, availability of RBM guidance and perception of cost savings by performing RBM in future trials.

Conclusion

The results of this study demonstrate a need for training and regulatory-endorsed guidelines to support the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials. The study provides valuable insights to inform interventions and strategies by policy-makers and clinical trial regulators to improve RBM uptake.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Smith CT, Stocken DD, Dunn J, Cox T, Ghaneh P, Cunningham D, et al. The value of source data verification in a cancer clinical trial. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51623.CrossRef
3.
Ven K, Mannaert H. Challenges and strategies in the use of open source software by independent software vendors. Inf Softw Technol. 2008;50(9):991–1002.CrossRef
4.
5.
6.
Journot VPJ, Gaultier C, Daurat V, Bouxin-Métro A, Giraudeau B, Preux PM, Tréluyer JM, Chevret S, Plättner V, Thalamas C, Clisant S, Ravaud P, Chêne G. Optimon Collaborative Group. Validation of a risk-assessment scale and a risk-adapted monitoring plan for academic clinical research studies—the Pre-Optimon study. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32(1):16–24.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Brosteanu OHP, Ihrig K, Ohmann C, Paulus U, Pfistner B, Schwarz G, Strenge-Hesse A, Zettelmeyer U. Risk analysis and risk adapted on-site monitoring in noncommercial clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2009;6(6):585–96.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
10.
Shukla BK, Khan MS, Nayak V. Barriers, adoption, technology, impact and benefits of risk based monitoring. Int J Clin Trials. 2016;3(1):9–14.CrossRef
11.
Baigent C, Harrell FE, Buyse M, Emberson JR, Altman DG. Ensuring trial validity by data quality assurance and diversification of monitoring methods. Clin Trials. 2008;5(1):49–55.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD recommendation on the governance of clinical trials. 2013. [cited 2013 March 20]. Accessed on 20 Mar 2013.
13.
Hurley C, Shiely F, Power J, Clarke M, Eustace JA, Flanagan E, et al. Risk based monitoring (RBM) tools for clinical trials: a systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2016;51:15–27.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Patkar S, Dalal J. Challenges to the implementation of risk-based monitoring. Clin Res. 2016;30(3):57–60.
15.
Ivankova NV, Creswell JW, Stick SL. Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):3–20.CrossRef
16.
O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(1):85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Morrison BW, Cochran CJ, White JG, Harley J, Kleppinger CF, Liu A, et al. Monitoring the quality of conduct of clinical trials: a survey of current practices. Clin Trials. 2011;8(3):342–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Lemaire F, Bion J, Blanco J, Damas P, Druml C, Falke K, et al. The European Union Directive on Clinical Research: present status of implementation in EU member states’ legislations with regard to the incompetent patient. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(3):476–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
21.
Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. Encyclopedia of critical psychology. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 1947–52.
22.
Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.CrossRef
23.
24.
Kincaid D, Childs K, Blase KA, Wallace F. Identifying barriers and facilitators in implementing schoolwide positive behavior support. J Posit Behav Interv. 2007;9(3):174–84.CrossRef
25.
Cameron RA, Trudy D, Scott R, Ezaz A, Aswini S. Lessons from the field: applying the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) framework. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2013;11(2):58-59.
26.
Driscoll DL, Appiah-Yeboah A, Salib P, Rupert DJ. Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research: how to and why not. Ecological and Environmental Anthropology. 2007;3(1).
27.
Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6pt2):2134–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
29.
von Niederhäusern B, Orleth A, Schädelin S, Rawi N, Velkopolszky M, Becherer C, et al. Generating evidence on a risk-based monitoring approach in the academic setting–lessons learned. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):26.CrossRef
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Bakobaki JM, Rauchenberger M, Joffe N, McCormack S, Stenning S, Meredith S. The potential for central monitoring techniques to replace on-site monitoring: findings from an international multi-centre clinical trial. Clin Trials. 2012;9(2):257–64.CrossRefPubMed
36.
CluePoints. FDA signs agreement with CluePoints to explore a data-driven approach to quality oversight in clinical trials. 2016.
37.
Hadi MA, Closs SJ. Applications of mixed-methods methodology in clinical pharmacy research. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):635–40.PubMed
38.
39.
Collier D, Mahoney J. Insights and pitfalls: selection bias in qualitative research. World Polit. 1996;49(01):56–91.CrossRef
40.
Sturges JE, Hanrahan KJ. Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res. 2004;4(1):107–18.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Perceived barriers and facilitators to Risk Based Monitoring in academic-led clinical trials: a mixed methods study
Authors
Caroline Hurley
Carol Sinnott
Mike Clarke
Patricia Kearney
Emmy Racine
Joseph Eustace
Frances Shiely
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2148-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Trials 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

Mechanical wrist traction as a non-invasive treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Does motivation matter in upper-limb rehabilitation after stroke? ArmeoSenso-Reward: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Acute effects of foam rolling on passive tissue stiffness and fascial sliding: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

INfluence of Successful Periodontal Intervention in REnal Disease (INSPIRED): study protocol for a randomised controlled pilot clinical trial

Study protocol

Vascular Impulse Technology versus elevation in the treatment of posttraumatic swelling of extremity fractures: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Magnetic resonance Adenosine perfusion imaging as Gatekeeper of invasive coronary intervention (MAGnet): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial