Qualitative analysis of the interdisciplinary interaction between data analysis specialists and novice clinical researchers.

BACKGROUND: The inherent complexity of statistical methods and clinical phenomena compel researchers with diverse domains of expertise to work in interdisciplinary teams, where none of them have a complete knowledge in their counterpart's field. As a result, knowledge exchange may often be characterized by miscommunication leading to misinterpretation, ultimately resulting in errors in research and even clinical practice. Though communication has a central role in interdisciplinary collaboration and since miscommunication can have a negative impact on research processes, to the best of our knowledge, no study has yet explored how data analysis specialists and clinical researchers communicate over time. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted qualitative analysis of encounters between clinical researchers and data analysis specialists (epidemiologist, clinical epidemiologist, and data mining specialist). These encounters were recorded and systematically analyzed using a grounded theory methodology for extraction of emerging themes, followed by data triangulation and analysis of negative cases for validation. A policy analysis was then performed using a system dynamics methodology looking for potential interventions to improve this process. Four major emerging themes were found. Definitions using lay language were frequently employed as a way to bridge the language gap between the specialties. Thought experiments presented a series of "what if" situations that helped clarify how the method or information from the other field would behave, if exposed to alternative situations, ultimately aiding in explaining their main objective. Metaphors and analogies were used to translate concepts across fields, from the unfamiliar to the familiar. Prolepsis was used to anticipate study outcomes, thus helping specialists understand the current context based on an understanding of their final goal. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The communication between clinical researchers and data analysis specialists presents multiple challenges that can lead to errors.

What leads Indians to participate in clinical trials? A meta-analysis of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: With the globalization of clinical trials, large developing nations have substantially increased their participation in multi-site studies. This participation has raised ethical concerns, among them the fear that local customs, habits and culture are not respected while asking potential participants to take part in study. This knowledge gap is particularly noticeable among Indian subjects, since despite the large number of participants, little is known regarding what factors affect their willingness to participate in clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of all studies evaluating the factors and barriers, from the perspective of potential Indian participants, contributing to their participation in clinical trials. We searched both international as well as Indian-specific bibliographic databases, including Pubmed, Cochrane, Openjgate, MedInd, Scirus and Medknow, also performing hand searches and communicating with authors to obtain additional references. We enrolled studies dealing exclusively with the participation of Indians in clinical trials. Data extraction was conducted by three researchers, with disagreement being resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Six qualitative studies and one survey were found evaluating the main themes affecting the participation of Indian subjects. Themes included Personal health benefits, Altruism, Trust in physicians, Source of extra income, Detailed knowledge, Methods for motivating participants as factors favoring, while Mistrust on trial organizations, Concerns about efficacy and safety of trials, Psychological reasons, Trial burden, Loss of confidentiality, Dependency issues, Language as the barriers. CONCLUSION: We identified factors that facilitated and barriers that have negative implications on trial participation decisions in Indian subjects. Due consideration and weightage should be assigned to these factors while planning future trials in India.