Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

‘We all want to succeed, but we’ve also got to be realistic about what is happening’: an ethnographic study of relationships in trial oversight and their impact

Authors: Anne Daykin, Lucy E. Selman, Helen Cramer, Sharon McCann, Gillian W. Shorter, Matthew R. Sydes, Carrol Gamble, Rhiannon Macefield, J. Athene Lane, Alison Shaw

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The oversight and conduct of a randomised controlled trial involves several stakeholders, including a Trial Steering Committee (TSC), Trial Management Group (TMG), Data Monitoring Committee (DMC), funder and sponsor. We aimed to examine how the relationships between these stakeholders affect the trial oversight process and its rigour, to inform future revision of Good Clinical Practice guidelines.

Methods

Using an ethnographic study design, we observed the oversight processes of eight trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of the trials’ TSCs and TMGs, plus other relevant informants, including sponsors and funders of trials. Data were analysed thematically, and findings triangulated and integrated to give a multi-perspective account of current oversight practices in the UK.

Results

Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed and audio-recorded, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled key informants. Five themes are presented: (1) Collaboration within the TMG and role of the CTU; (2) Collaboration and conflict between oversight committees; (3) Priorities; (4) Communication between trial oversight groups and (5) Power and accountability. There was evidence of collaborative relationships, based on mutual respect, between CTUs, TMGs and TSCs, but also evidence of conflict. Relationships between trial oversight committees were influenced by stakeholders’ priorities, both organisational and individual. Good communication following specific, recognised routes played a central role in ensuring that relationships were productive and trial oversight efficient. Participants described the possession of power over trials as a shifting political landscape, and there was lack of clarity regarding the roles and accountability of each committee, the sponsor and funder. Stakeholders’ perceptions of their own power over a trial, and the power of others, influenced relationships between those involved in trial oversight.

Conclusions

Recent developments in trial design and conduct have been accompanied by changes in roles and relationships between trial oversight groups. Recognising and respecting the value of differing priorities among those involved in running trials is key to successful relationships between committees, funders and sponsors. Clarity regarding appropriate lines of communication, roles and accountability is needed. We present 10 evidence-based recommendations to inform updates to international trial guidance, particularly the Medical Research Council guidelines.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Conroy EJ, Harman NL, Lane JA, Lewis SC, Murray G, Norrie J, Sydes MR, Gamble C. Trial Steering Committees in randomised controlled trials: a survey of registered clinical trials units to establish current practice and experiences. Clin Trials (London, England). 2015;12(6):664–76.CrossRef Conroy EJ, Harman NL, Lane JA, Lewis SC, Murray G, Norrie J, Sydes MR, Gamble C. Trial Steering Committees in randomised controlled trials: a survey of registered clinical trials units to establish current practice and experiences. Clin Trials (London, England). 2015;12(6):664–76.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Medical Research Council. Guidelines for good clinical practice in clinical trials. London: Medical Research Council; 1998. Medical Research Council. Guidelines for good clinical practice in clinical trials. London: Medical Research Council; 1998.
4.
go back to reference Damocles Study Group. A proposed charter for clinical trial data monitoring committees: helping them to do their job well. Lancet. 2005;365(9460):711–22.CrossRef Damocles Study Group. A proposed charter for clinical trial data monitoring committees: helping them to do their job well. Lancet. 2005;365(9460):711–22.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Harman NL, Conroy EJ, Lewis SC, Murray G, Norrie J, Sydes MR, Lane JA, Altman DG, Baigent C, Bliss JM, et al. Exploring the role and function of trial steering committees: results of an expert panel meeting. Trials. 2015;16(1):597.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Harman NL, Conroy EJ, Lewis SC, Murray G, Norrie J, Sydes MR, Lane JA, Altman DG, Baigent C, Bliss JM, et al. Exploring the role and function of trial steering committees: results of an expert panel meeting. Trials. 2015;16(1):597.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Daykin A, Selman LE, Cramer H, McCann S, Shorter GW, Sydes MR, Gamble C, Macefield R, Lane JA, Shaw A. What are the roles and valued attributes of a Trial Steering Committee? Ethnographic study of eight clinical trials facing challenges. Trials. 2016;17(1):307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Daykin A, Selman LE, Cramer H, McCann S, Shorter GW, Sydes MR, Gamble C, Macefield R, Lane JA, Shaw A. What are the roles and valued attributes of a Trial Steering Committee? Ethnographic study of eight clinical trials facing challenges. Trials. 2016;17(1):307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
11.
go back to reference Seale C. The quality of qualitative research. London: SAGE; 1999. Seale C. The quality of qualitative research. London: SAGE; 1999.
12.
go back to reference Patton M. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills: SAGE; 1990. Patton M. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills: SAGE; 1990.
13.
go back to reference McFadden E, Bashir S, Canham S, Darbyshire J, Davidson P, Day S, Emery S, Pater J, Rudkin S, Stead M, et al. The impact of registration of clinical trials units: the UK experience. Clin Trials (London, England). 2015;12(2):166–73.CrossRef McFadden E, Bashir S, Canham S, Darbyshire J, Davidson P, Day S, Emery S, Pater J, Rudkin S, Stead M, et al. The impact of registration of clinical trials units: the UK experience. Clin Trials (London, England). 2015;12(2):166–73.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Data saturation. In: Saumure K, Given LM, editors. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods edn. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2008;1:195–96. Data saturation. In: Saumure K, Given LM, editors. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods edn. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2008;1:195–96.
15.
16.
go back to reference Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990. Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990.
19.
go back to reference Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.CrossRefPubMed Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Technology. POoS. POSTnote 544, Integrity in Research. London, UK: Houses of Parliament; 2017. Technology. POoS. POSTnote 544, Integrity in Research. London, UK: Houses of Parliament; 2017.
22.
go back to reference Smith V, Clarke M, Devane D, Begley C, Shorter G, Maguire L. SWAT 1: what effects do site visits by the principal investigator have on recruitment in a multicentre randomized trial? J Evid Based Med. 2013;6(3):136–7.CrossRefPubMed Smith V, Clarke M, Devane D, Begley C, Shorter G, Maguire L. SWAT 1: what effects do site visits by the principal investigator have on recruitment in a multicentre randomized trial? J Evid Based Med. 2013;6(3):136–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
‘We all want to succeed, but we’ve also got to be realistic about what is happening’: an ethnographic study of relationships in trial oversight and their impact
Authors
Anne Daykin
Lucy E. Selman
Helen Cramer
Sharon McCann
Gillian W. Shorter
Matthew R. Sydes
Carrol Gamble
Rhiannon Macefield
J. Athene Lane
Alison Shaw
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2305-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Trials 1/2017 Go to the issue