Literature DB >> 26374683

Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials.

Danielle M Whicher1, Jennifer E Miller2, Kelly M Dunham3, Steven Joffe4.   

Abstract

To successfully implement a pragmatic clinical trial, investigators need access to numerous resources, including financial support, institutional infrastructure (e.g. clinics, facilities, staff), eligible patients, and patient data. Gatekeepers are people or entities who have the ability to allow or deny access to the resources required to support the conduct of clinical research. Based on this definition, gatekeepers relevant to the US clinical research enterprise include research sponsors, regulatory agencies, payers, health system and other organizational leadership, research team leadership, human research protections programs, advocacy and community groups, and clinicians. This article provides a framework to help guide gatekeepers' decision-making related to the use of resources for pragmatic clinical trials. Relevant ethical considerations for gatekeepers include (1) concern for the interests of individuals, groups, and communities affected by the gatekeepers' decisions, including protection from harm and maximization of benefits; (2) advancement of organizational mission and values; and (3) stewardship of financial, human, and other organizational resources. Separate from these ethical considerations, gatekeepers' actions will be guided by relevant federal, state, and local regulations. This framework also suggests that to further enhance the legitimacy of their decision-making, gatekeepers should adopt transparent processes that engage relevant stakeholders when feasible and appropriate. We apply this framework to the set of gatekeepers responsible for making decisions about resources necessary for pragmatic clinical trials in the United States, describing the relevance of the criteria in different situations and pointing out where conflicts among the criteria and relevant regulations may affect decision-making. Recognition of the complex set of considerations that should inform decision-making will guide gatekeepers in making justifiable choices regarding the use of limited and valuable resources.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gatekeeper; comparative effectiveness research; deliberative democracy; pragmatic clinical trial; research ethics

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26374683      PMCID: PMC4592478          DOI: 10.1177/1740774515597699

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  23 in total

1.  What makes clinical research ethical?

Authors:  E J Emanuel; D Wendler; C Grady
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000 May 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy.

Authors:  Sean R Tunis; Daniel B Stryer; Carolyn M Clancy
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-09-24       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers.

Authors:  Kevin E Thorpe; Merrick Zwarenstein; Andrew D Oxman; Shaun Treweek; Curt D Furberg; Douglas G Altman; Sean Tunis; Eduardo Bergel; Ian Harvey; David J Magid; Kalipso Chalkidou
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  The role of private industry in pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials.

Authors:  Don P Buesching; Bryan R Luce; Marc L Berger
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.744

5.  Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  Robert M Califf; Jeremy Sugarman
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  Generating evidence for comparative effectiveness research using more pragmatic randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  C Daniel Mullins; Danielle Whicher; Emily S Reese; Sean Tunis
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Pragmatic clinical trials: U.S. payers' views on their value.

Authors:  Jonathan Ratner; Daniel Mullins; Don P Buesching; Ronald A Cantrell
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 2.229

8.  Successful recruitment to trials: a phased approach to opening gates and building bridges.

Authors:  Sue Patterson; Hilary Mairs; Rohan Borschmann
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-05-19       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ben Fletcher; Adrian Gheorghe; David Moore; Sue Wilson; Sarah Damery
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Rationale and design of the glycemia reduction approaches in diabetes: a comparative effectiveness study (GRADE).

Authors:  David M Nathan; John B Buse; Steven E Kahn; Heidi Krause-Steinrauf; Mary E Larkin; Myrlene Staten; Deborah Wexler; John M Lachin
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 19.112

View more
  17 in total

1.  Physicians' perspectives regarding pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  Rachel Topazian; Juli Bollinger; Kevin P Weinfurt; Rachel Dvoskin; Debra Mathews; Kathleen Brelsford; Matthew DeCamp; Jeremy Sugarman
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2016-07-15       Impact factor: 1.744

2.  Ethical responsibilities toward indirect and collateral participants in pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  Jaye Bea Smalley; Maria W Merritt; Sana M Al-Khatib; Debbe McCall; Karen L Staman; Carl Stepnowsky
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

3.  Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  Robert M Califf; Jeremy Sugarman
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Oversight on the borderline: Quality improvement and pragmatic research.

Authors:  Jonathan A Finkelstein; Andrew L Brickman; Alexander Capron; Daniel E Ford; Adrijana Gombosev; Sarah M Greene; R Peter Iafrate; Laura Kolaczkowski; Sarah C Pallin; Mark J Pletcher; Karen L Staman; Miguel A Vazquez; Jeremy Sugarman
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Ethical and Regulatory Issues for Embedded Pragmatic Trials Involving People Living with Dementia.

Authors:  Emily A Largent; Spencer Phillips Hey; Kristin Harkins; Allison K Hoffman; Steven Joffe; Julie C Lima; Alex John London; Jason Karlawish
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 5.562

6.  Ethical and epistemic issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Carole A Federico; Patrick J Heagerty; John Lantos; Pearl O'Rourke; Vasiliki Rahimzadeh; Jeremy Sugarman; Kevin Weinfurt; David Wendler; Benjamin S Wilfond; David Magnus
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 2.261

7.  Think Pragmatically: Investigators' Obligations to Patient-Subjects When Research is Embedded in Care.

Authors:  Stephanie Morain; Emily Largent
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2022-04-18       Impact factor: 14.676

8.  Public Attitudes toward Consent When Research Is Integrated into Care-Any "Ought" from All the "Is"?

Authors:  Stephanie R Morain; Emily A Largent
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 2.683

9.  Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory.

Authors:  Kevin P Weinfurt; Adrian F Hernandez; Gloria D Coronado; Lynn L DeBar; Laura M Dember; Beverly B Green; Patrick J Heagerty; Susan S Huang; Kathryn T James; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Eric B Larson; Vincent Mor; Richard Platt; Gary E Rosenthal; Edward J Septimus; Gregory E Simon; Karen L Staman; Jeremy Sugarman; Miguel Vazquez; Douglas Zatzick; Lesley H Curtis
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Hospital recruitment for a pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial: Lessons learned from the COMPASS study.

Authors:  Anna M Johnson; Sara B Jones; Pamela W Duncan; Cheryl D Bushnell; Sylvia W Coleman; Laurie H Mettam; Anna M Kucharska-Newton; Mysha E Sissine; Wayne D Rosamond
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.