Debra Parker Oliver1, Karla T Washington2, George Demiris3, Patrick White4. 1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA. Electronic address: oliverdr@missouri.edu. 2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA. 3. Penn Innovates Knowledge Professor, Department of Biobehavioral Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Palliative Medicine and Supportive Care, Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Numerous changes can occur between the original design plans for clinical trials, the submission of funding proposals, and the implementation of the clinical trial. In the hospice setting, environmental changes can present significant obstacles, which require changes to the original plan designs, recruitment, and staffing. The purpose of the study was to share lessons and problem-solving strategies that can assist in future hospice trials. METHODS: This study uses one hospice clinical trial as an exemplar to demonstrate challenges for clinical trial research in this setting. Using preliminary data collected during the first months of a trial, the research team details the many ways their current protocol reflects changes from the originally proposed plans. Experiences are used as an exemplar to address the following questions: 1) How do research environments change between the initial submission of a funding proposal and the eventual award? 2) How can investigators maintain the integrity of the research and accommodate unexpected changes in the research environment? RESULTS: The changing environment within the hospice setting required design, sampling, and recruitment changes within the first year. The decision-making process resulted in a stronger design with greater generalization. As a result of necessary protocol changes, the study results are positioned to be translational following the study conclusion. CONCLUSION: Researchers would do well to review their protocol and statistics early in a clinical trial. They should be prepared for adjustments to accommodate market and environmental changes outside their control. Ongoing data monitoring, specifically related to recruitment, is advised.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Numerous changes can occur between the original design plans for clinical trials, the submission of funding proposals, and the implementation of the clinical trial. In the hospice setting, environmental changes can present significant obstacles, which require changes to the original plan designs, recruitment, and staffing. The purpose of the study was to share lessons and problem-solving strategies that can assist in future hospice trials. METHODS: This study uses one hospice clinical trial as an exemplar to demonstrate challenges for clinical trial research in this setting. Using preliminary data collected during the first months of a trial, the research team details the many ways their current protocol reflects changes from the originally proposed plans. Experiences are used as an exemplar to address the following questions: 1) How do research environments change between the initial submission of a funding proposal and the eventual award? 2) How can investigators maintain the integrity of the research and accommodate unexpected changes in the research environment? RESULTS: The changing environment within the hospice setting required design, sampling, and recruitment changes within the first year. The decision-making process resulted in a stronger design with greater generalization. As a result of necessary protocol changes, the study results are positioned to be translational following the study conclusion. CONCLUSION: Researchers would do well to review their protocol and statistics early in a clinical trial. They should be prepared for adjustments to accommodate market and environmental changes outside their control. Ongoing data monitoring, specifically related to recruitment, is advised.
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: CMAJ Date: 2009-04-16 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Debra Parker Oliver; Robin L Kruse; Kyle Pitzer; Karla T Washington; Lauren T Starr; Jingxia Liu; Jamie Smith; Lucas Jorgenson; George Demiris Journal: J Gerontol Nurs Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 1.436
Authors: Debra Parker Oliver; Karla T Washington; Jacquelyn Benson; Patrick White; Dulce Cruz Oliver; Jamie B Smith; Joshua Mazur; Abeba Lakew; Alexandra Lewis; George Demiris Journal: J Soc Work End Life Palliat Care Date: 2022-03-12
Authors: Karla T Washington; George Demiris; Patrick White; Holly C Mathis; John E Forsythe; Debra Parker Oliver Journal: J Palliat Care Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 1.980
Authors: Debra Parker Oliver; Karla T Washington; Kyle Pitzer; Lori Popejoy; Patrick White; Audrey S Wallace; Amy Grimsley; George Demiris Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Rebecca Antonacci; Carol Barrie; Sharon Baxter; Sarah Chaffey; Srini Chary; Pamela Grassau; Chad Hammond; Mehrnoush Mirhosseini; Raza M Mirza; Kate Murzin; Christopher A Klinger Journal: J Aging Res Date: 2020-11-05
Authors: Karla T Washington; Amy Piontek; JoAnn Jabbari; Jacquelyn J Benson; George Demiris; Paul E Tatum; Debra Parker Oliver Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 5.576
Authors: Lisa C Lindley; Jessica Keim-Malpass; Radion Svynarenko; Melanie J Cozad; Jennifer W Mack; Pamela S Hinds Journal: J Hosp Palliat Nurs Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.131