BACKGROUND: Following the successful introduction of five topic-specific research networks in the UK, the Comprehensive Local Research Network (CLRN) was established in 2008 in order to provide a blanket level of support across the whole country regardless of the clinical discipline. The role of the CLRN was to facilitate recruitment into clinical trials, and to encourage greater engagement in research throughout the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: This report evaluates the impact of clinical research networks in supporting clinical trials in the UK, with particular reference to our experiences from two non-commercial dermatology trials. It covers our experience of engaging with the CLRN (and other research networks) using two non-commercial dermatology trials as case studies. We present the circumstances that led to our approach to the research networks for support, and the impact that this support had on the delivery of these trials. RESULTS: In both cases, recruitment was boosted considerably following the provision of additional support, although other factors such as the availability of experienced personnel, and the role of advertising and media coverage in promoting the trials were also important in translating this additional resource into increased recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment into clinical trials is a complex task that can be influenced by many factors. A world-class clinical research infrastructure is now in place in England (with similar support available in Scotland and Wales), and it is the responsibility of the research community to ensure that this unique resource is used effectively and responsibly.
BACKGROUND: Following the successful introduction of five topic-specific research networks in the UK, the Comprehensive Local Research Network (CLRN) was established in 2008 in order to provide a blanket level of support across the whole country regardless of the clinical discipline. The role of the CLRN was to facilitate recruitment into clinical trials, and to encourage greater engagement in research throughout the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: This report evaluates the impact of clinical research networks in supporting clinical trials in the UK, with particular reference to our experiences from two non-commercial dermatology trials. It covers our experience of engaging with the CLRN (and other research networks) using two non-commercial dermatology trials as case studies. We present the circumstances that led to our approach to the research networks for support, and the impact that this support had on the delivery of these trials. RESULTS: In both cases, recruitment was boosted considerably following the provision of additional support, although other factors such as the availability of experienced personnel, and the role of advertising and media coverage in promoting the trials were also important in translating this additional resource into increased recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment into clinical trials is a complex task that can be influenced by many factors. A world-class clinical research infrastructure is now in place in England (with similar support available in Scotland and Wales), and it is the responsibility of the research community to ensure that this unique resource is used effectively and responsibly.
Authors: K S Thomas; K Koller; T Dean; C J O'Leary; T H Sach; A Frost; I Pallett; A M Crook; S Meredith; A J Nunn; N Burrows; I Pollock; R Graham-Brown; E O'Toole; D Potter; H C Williams Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Kim S Thomas; Tara Dean; Caroline O'Leary; Tracey H Sach; Karin Koller; Anthony Frost; Hywel C Williams Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Kenneth G Saag; Penny E Mohr; Laura Esmail; Amy S Mudano; Nicole Wright; Timothy Beukelman; Jeffrey R Curtis; Gary Cutter; Elizabeth Delzell; Lisa C Gary; T Michael Harrington; Swapna Karkare; Meredith L Kilgore; Cora Elizabeth Lewis; Rachael Moloney; Ana Oliveira; Jasvinder A Singh; Amy Warriner; Jie Zhang; Marc Berger; Steven R Cummings; Wilson Pace; Daniel H Solomon; Robert Wallace; Sean R Tunis Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Brooke M Winzer; Jennifer D Paratz; Jonathan P Whitehead; David C Whiteman; Marina M Reeves Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-02-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alicia T Morrish; Carmel M Hawley; David W Johnson; Sunil V Badve; Vlado Perkovic; Donna M Reidlinger; Alan Cass Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 10.612