Attitudes and other barriers to the utilization of clinical research findings by American physicians: A systematic review

Background: The Institute of Medicine estimates that only a maximum of 25% of clinical research findings are incorporated into practice by physicians. To improve clinical practice, efforts have been made to promote evidence-based medicine and the use of clinical guidelines. Despite these efforts, the gap between research and clinical practice remains wide.^ Objective: To systematically review the literature describing the factors which influence the use of clinical research recommendations by American physicians.^ Hypothesis: Barriers exist in the application of clinical research into clinical practice, and are multifactorial. The establishment of the Clinical and Translational Awards (CTSA; special federal grants awarded to selected institutions to support clinical and translational research) has reduced the effect of these barriers and improved the process of clinical research translation into practice among American physicians.^ Aims: Identify barriers and facilitators of the use of research findings in clinical practice by American physicians. Contrast studies published six years before and after the creation of the CTSA.^ Methods: The sources of data include published literature from Medline, PubMed and PsycINFO. Selected studies must be qualitative, a survey of American clinicians, based on evidence-based medicine practice, clinical guidelines or treatment pathways. Systematic reviews and reports were excluded, as well as studies with less than 100 respondents.^ Results: In total, 1036 abstracts were reviewed; 115 full text potential articles were identified and reviewed, and a total of 31 studies met all criteria for inclusion in the final review.^ Conclusions: The barriers against the application of clinical research findings, in the forms of clinical guidelines, evidence-based medicine guides and clinical pathways, can be divided broadly into physician barriers, practice/system barriers and patient barriers. Physician barriers are the most common barriers, especially the lack of familiarity with guidelines and the lack of time. Of the factors which improve the use of research based guidelines, physician factors such as younger age, lower duration of clinical practice, specialty training, and practice in large group Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) settings with fewer patients seen were the most commonly cited.^

Hemorrhage and transfusion; an experimental and clinical research,

Bibliography: p. [537]-549.

Cerebellar language and cognitive functions in childhood: A comparative review of the clinical research

Background: Recent research addressing evidence from functional neuroimaging studies, neurophysiological research, and new advances in neuropsychology together with traditional cerebellar lesion studies have recently implicated the cerebellum in adult language and cognitive functions. However, more limited information is currently available in describing the functional connectivity present in the paediatric population. Aims: It is the purpose of this paper to review recent clinical research pertaining to paediatric populations, outlining the impact of site of lesion and specific associated clinical changes in children with cerebellar disturbances. Main contribution: The specific contribution of the right cerebellar hemisphere to language function is identified to also exist in the paediatric population, highlighting the existence of functional connections between this region of the brain and left frontal cortical areas early in development. Conclusions: Implications for future research in paediatric populations are extensive, as a greater awareness and an understanding of the recently acknowledged involvement of the cerebellum in cognition and nonmotor linguistic function is anticipated to also add new dimension and direction to the analysis of childhood language outcomes associated with the cerebellum.

Occupational therapy and clinical research in mental health rehabilitation

Practitioners working in Australian mental health services are faced with the challenge of providing appropriate evidence-based interventions that lead to measurable improvement and good outcomes. Current government policy is committed to the development of strategic mental health research. One focus has been on under-researched practice areas, which include the development of psychosocial rehabilitation systems and models that facilitate recovery. To meet this challenge, an Australian rehabilitation service formed a collaborative partnership with a university. The purposes of the collaboration were to implement new forms of service delivery based on consumer need and evidence and to design research projects to evaluate components of the rehabilitation programme. This article examines the process of developing the collaboration and provides examples of how research projects have been used to inform practice and improve the effectiveness of service delivery. Challenges to the sustainability of this kind of collaboration are considered.

A Framework to Support the Sharing and Reuse of Computable Phenotype Definitions Across Health Care Delivery and Clinical Research Applications.

INTRODUCTION: The ability to reproducibly identify clinically equivalent patient populations is critical to the vision of learning health care systems that implement and evaluate evidence-based treatments. The use of common or semantically equivalent phenotype definitions across research and health care use cases will support this aim. Currently, there is no single consolidated repository for computable phenotype definitions, making it difficult to find all definitions that already exist, and also hindering the sharing of definitions between user groups. METHOD: Drawing from our experience in an academic medical center that supports a number of multisite research projects and quality improvement studies, we articulate a framework that will support the sharing of phenotype definitions across research and health care use cases, and highlight gaps and areas that need attention and collaborative solutions. FRAMEWORK: An infrastructure for re-using computable phenotype definitions and sharing experience across health care delivery and clinical research applications includes: access to a collection of existing phenotype definitions, information to evaluate their appropriateness for particular applications, a knowledge base of implementation guidance, supporting tools that are user-friendly and intuitive, and a willingness to use them. NEXT STEPS: We encourage prospective researchers and health administrators to re-use existing EHR-based condition definitions where appropriate and share their results with others to support a national culture of learning health care. There are a number of federally funded resources to support these activities, and research sponsors should encourage their use.

The principle of benefit from drug development for patients in clinical research

From an ethical perspective, clinical research involving humans is only acceptable if it involves the potential for benefit. Various characteristics can be applied to differentiate research benefit. Often benefit is categorized in direct or indirect benefit, whereby indirect benefit might be further differentiated in collective or benefit for the society, excluding or including the trial patient in the long term. Ethical guidelines, such as the Declaration of Helsinki in its latest version, do not precisely favor a particular type of benefit.

Clinical Research and Standard of Care — An Unresolved Question?

Ever since the 1996 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, the World Medical Association has attempted to address ethical and scientific concerns of its diverse stakeholders for Articles 33 (use of placebo) and 34 (posttrial provisions), most recently in 2013. Both are inextricably linked to standard of care, an essential element of any comparative, interventional clinical trial. But has this now 20-year-long ethical debate truly been put to rest? The choice of standard of care in clinical trials remains a complex issue, particularly for comparative trials conducted in emerging countries.

Curricular training report: clinical studies coordination in a clinical research organization vs an investigational site perspective

This report describes my experience of nine months as a trainee of a CRO (Eurotrials, Scientific Consultants), as well as a trainee of a clinical research site (Clinical Academic Center – Braga, Association). This document describes the European framework about clinical research and the Portuguese situation compared to similar countries. The activities developed during this internship are also described. These activities are divided in two phases. The first one occurred in Eurotrials, Scientific Consultants, a CRO specialized in clinical research and scientific advice. The first weeks were dedicated to intensive self-training needed to perform CTA tasks. These tasks included qualification, initiation and monitoring activities related to clinical trials, as well as the development of a quality management system. The second phase took place on 2CA-Braga, a clinical research center located in Hospital of Braga. Clinical studies coordination was the main focus of this second phase of my internship, as well as negotiation of clinical studies agreements. I had also the opportunity to participate in “1as Jornadas de Investigação Clínica e Inovação” (1st Clinical Investigation and Innovation Conference) organized by 2CA-Braga. Globally, this internship was a great opportunity to get knowledge and experience in the implementation and management of clinical trials, in a CRO and clinical research site perspectives. These two perspectives provided an interesting overview about the scientific needs of different players involved in clinical research. To conclude, this internship strengthened the knowledge acquired from my academic background, which make me able to face and overcome new challenges in the clinical research area.

Curricular trainig report as study coordinator in Blueclinical Ltd.

The present report describes in detail the activities and knowledge aquired during my internship as study coordinator in Blueclinical – Investigação e Desenvolvimento em Saúde, Ltd., in order to obtain the master degree in Pharmaceutical Biomedicine. According to the type of services provided, Blueclinical is formed by three business units: Blueclinical Clinical Research Partnership, Blueclinical Phase I and Blueclinical Research and Development. The fact of belonging to such a company gave me the opportunity to be in touch with different areas of pharmaceutical development and to contact with different research teams, which for me was an added advantage to the integration and consolidation of knowledge, as well as in the development and improvement of soft and hard skills. The main activity developed was the coordination of clinical studies, in Unidade Local de Saúde de Matosinhos, E.P.E., which was one of the institutions that established a partnership with Blueclinical, Ltd. During my internship I was able to contact with various stages of development and coordination of clinical trials, which will be reported in this report.

How Psychiatry Journals Support the Unbiased Translation of Clinical Research. A Cross-Sectional Study of Editorial Policies

Introduction: Reporting guidelines (e. g. CONSORT) have been developed as tools to improve quality and reduce bias in reporting research findings. Trial registration has been recommended for countering selective publication. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) encourages the implementation of reporting guidelines and trial registration as uniform requirements (URM). For the last two decades, however, biased reporting and insufficient registration of clinical trials has been identified in several literature reviews and other investigations. No study has so far investigated the extent to which author instructions in psychiatry journals encourage following reporting guidelines and trial registration. Method: Psychiatry Journals were identified from the 2011 Journal Citation Report. Information given in the author instructions and during the submission procedure of all journals was assessed on whether major reporting guidelines, trial registration and the ICMJE's URM in general were mentioned and adherence recommended. Results: We included 123 psychiatry journals (English and German language) in our analysis. A minority recommend or require 1) following the URM (21%), 2) adherence to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE (23%, 7%, 4%), or 3) registration of clinical trials (34%). The subsample of the top-10 psychiatry journals (ranked by impact factor) provided much better but still improvable rates. For example, 70% of the top-10 psychiatry journals do not ask for the specific trial registration number. Discussion: Under the assumption that better reported and better registered clinical research that does not lack substantial information will improve the understanding, credibility, and unbiased translation of clinical research findings, several stakeholders including readers (physicians, patients), authors, reviewers, and editors might benefit from improved author instructions in psychiatry journals. A first step of improvement would consist in requiring adherence to the broadly accepted reporting guidelines and to trial registration.

Assessment of the quality of sample labelling for clinical research

Objective: To assess the quality of the labels for clinical trial samples through current regulations, and to analyze its potential correlation with the specific characteristics of each sample. Method: A transversal multicenter study where the clinical trial samples from two third level hospitals were analyzed. The eleven items from Directive 2003/94/EC, as well as the name of the clinical trial and the dose on the label cover, were considered variables for labelling quality. The influence of the characteristics of each sample on labelling quality was also analyzed. Outcome: The study included 503 samples from 220 clinical trials. The mean quality of labelling, understood as the proportion of items from Appendix 13, was of 91.9%. Out of these, 6.6% did not include the name of the sample in the outer face of the label, while in 9.7% the dose was missing. The samples with clinical trial-type samples presented a higher quality (p < 0.049), blinding reduced their quality (p = 0.017), and identification by kit number or by patient increased it (p < 0.01). The promoter was the variable which introduced the highest variability into the analysis. Conclusions: The mean quality of labelling is adequate in the majority of clinical trial samples. The lack of essential information in some samples, such as the clinical trial code and the period of validity, is alarming and might be the potential source for dispensing or administration errors.