Abstract

BackgroundFundamental to the success of clinical research that involves human participants is the quality of the data that is generated. To ensure data quality, clinical trials must comply with the Good Clinical Practice guideline which recommends data monitoring. To date, the guideline is broad, requires technology for enforcement, follows strict industry standards, mostly designed for drug-registration trials and based on informal consensus. It is also unknown what challenges clinical trials and researchers face in implementing data monitoring procedures. Thus, this study aimed to describe researcher experiences with data quality monitoring in clinical trials.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured telephone interviews following a guided-phenomenological approach. Participants were recruited from the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry and were researchers affiliated with a listed clinical study. Each transcript was analysed with inductive thematic analysis before thematic categorisation of themes from all transcripts. Primary, secondary and subthemes were categorised according to the emerging relationships.ResultsData saturation were reached after interviewing seven participants. Five primary themes, two secondary themes and 21 subthemes in relation to data quality monitoring emerged from the data. The five primary themes included: education and training, ways of working, working with technology, working with data, and working within regulatory requirements. The primary theme ‘education and training’ influenced the other four primary themes. While ‘working with technology’ influenced the ‘way of working’. All other themes had reciprocal relationships. There was no relationship reported between ‘working within regulatory requirements’ and ‘working with technology’. The researchers experienced challenges in meeting regulatory requirements, using technology and fostering working relationships for data quality monitoring.ConclusionClinical trials implemented a variety of data quality monitoring procedures tailored to their situation and study context. Standardised frameworks that are accessible to all types of clinical trials are needed with an emphasis on education and training.

Highlights

  • Fundamental to the success of clinical research that involves human participants is the quality of the data that is generated

  • To verify that data is of a high quality, guidance is provided to clinical trials from the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guideline [2, 3]

  • From the interviews, we found that Australian organisations conducting intervention clinical trials which are testing new treatment options are implementing a variety of data quality monitoring procedures tailored to their clinical situation and study context

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Fundamental to the success of clinical research that involves human participants is the quality of the data that is generated. The guideline is broad, requires technology for enforcement, follows strict industry standards, mostly designed for drug-registration trials and based on informal consensus. It is unknown what challenges clinical trials and researchers face in implementing data monitoring procedures. The GCP guideline is the international, ethical and scientific standard for designing, conducting, recording and reporting trials that involve human participants. Some studies have suggested that the GCP guideline is too broad, written to follow the strict industry standards, predominantly for drug-registration trials and grounded on an informal consensus rather than scientific evidence [4, 5]. The resulting guideline is not suitable for certain types and contexts of clinical studies, such as non-drug intervention trials and observational studies

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call