Literature DB >> 36248212

Evaluating the Revised National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial Definition Impact on Recruitment Progress.

Eugene I Kane1, Gail L Daumit2,3,4, Kevin M Fain5, Roberta W Scherer4, Emma Elizabeth McGinty3.   

Abstract

Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a revised, expanded definition of "clinical trial" in 2014 to improve trial identification and administrative compliance. Some stakeholders voiced concerns that the policy added administrative burden potentially slowing research progress.
Methods: This quasi-experimental study examined the difference-in-differences impact of the new NIH clinical trial definition policy on participant recruitment progress in grants funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).
Results: 132 funded clinical trial grants were identified. While more grants were identified as clinical trials under the revised definition, the difference-in-differences in recruitment progress before and after the policy change was not statistically significant. Conclusions: The revised NIH clinical trial definition had no clear effect on recruitment progress in newly-identified NIMH-funded clinical trials as compared to traditionally-identified clinical trials. Concerns that administrative delays and burden could impact study progress may be alleviated by these initial results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical Trial Oversight; Clinical Trial Policy; Clinical Trial Policy Impact; National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial Definition; Research Policy Evaluation

Year:  2022        PMID: 36248212      PMCID: PMC9558491          DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvac003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Eval        ISSN: 0958-2029


  8 in total

1.  Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: the difference-in-differences approach.

Authors:  Justin B Dimick; Andrew M Ryan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Evaluating the impact of health policies: using a difference-in-differences approach.

Authors:  Sahar Saeed; Erica E M Moodie; Erin C Strumpf; Marina B Klein
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 3.380

3.  National Institute of Mental Health clinical trials: new opportunities, new expectations.

Authors:  Thomas R Insel; Nitin Gogtay
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 21.596

4.  Toward a New Era of Trust and Transparency in Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Kathy L Hudson; Michael S Lauer; Francis S Collins
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Potential benefits and burdens of National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Mental Health clinical trial policies.

Authors:  Eugene I Kane; Gail L Daumit; Kevin M Fain; Roberta W Scherer; Emma Elizabeth McGinty
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Assessing site performance in the Altair study, a multinational clinical trial.

Authors:  Nisha Berthon-Jones; Kymme Courtney-Vega; Anna Donaldson; Hila Haskelberg; Sean Emery; Rebekah Puls
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Monitoring performance of sites within multicentre randomised trials: a systematic review of performance metrics.

Authors:  Kate F Walker; Julie Turzanski; Diane Whitham; Alan Montgomery; Lelia Duley
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Development of a standardised set of metrics for monitoring site performance in multicentre randomised trials: a Delphi study.

Authors:  Diane Whitham; Julie Turzanski; Lucy Bradshaw; Mike Clarke; Lucy Culliford; Lelia Duley; Lisa Shaw; Zoe Skea; Shaun P Treweek; Kate Walker; Paula R Williamson; Alan A Montgomery
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 2.279

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.