Summary document: Learning from COVID-19 related trial adaptations to inform efficient trial design - a sequential mixed methods study

Background Activities related to clinical trials (recruitment of participants, delivery of the intervention and follow up appointments) are usually undertaken in person, some of which, including measuring blood pressure, or prescribing medications, are difficult to undertake remotely. COVID-19 pandemic related social distancing has meant that to continue, clinical trials have had to adapt the way they undertake trial procedures. The aim of this study was to understand the adaptations that have been made by clinical trials units (CTUs) during the pandemic, and whether these adaptations have the potential to improve the efficiency of trials after the pandemic. An online survey was distributed to 53 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered CTUs to identify the adaptations that have been made to trials as a result of the pandemic up until early 2021 (work package 1, WP1). Case studies were then selected for further investigation by reviewing the survey responses, selecting relevant and promising adaptations whilst ensuring variation in key characteristics (e.g., CTU, disease area). Staff involved in the selected case studies were interviewed to discuss the changes that have been made, lessons learnt, and the potential for the adaptation to improve the efficiency of future trials post-pandemic (WP2). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed qualitatively. Findings were reviewed by a group of CTU and patient representatives at an online workshop (WP3) that focused on the potential of these adaptations to improve efficiencies in trials post-pandemic.

[1]  L. Marsch,et al.  Using digital technologies in clinical trials: Current and future applications. , 2020, Contemporary clinical trials.

[2]  I. Huys,et al.  Implementation of Electronic Informed Consent in Biomedical Research and Stakeholders’ Perspectives: Systematic Review , 2020, Journal of medical Internet research.

[3]  Emily Skelton,et al.  Electronic consenting for conducting research remotely: A review of current practice and key recommendations for using e-consenting , 2020, International Journal of Medical Informatics.

[4]  Thomas R. Campion,et al.  Replacing Paper Informed Consent with Electronic Informed Consent for Research in Academic Medical Centers: A Scoping Review. , 2020, AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science.

[5]  Jacqui Thornton,et al.  Clinical trials suspended in UK to prioritise covid-19 studies and free up staff , 2020, BMJ.

[6]  Y. Hasegawa,et al.  Comparison between electronic and paper versions of patient-reported outcome measures in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an observational study with a cross-over administration , 2019, BMJ Open.

[7]  Sean Khozin,et al.  Decentralized Trials in the Age of Real‐World Evidence and Inclusivity in Clinical Investigations , 2019, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[8]  N. Nassar,et al.  Comparing a Mobile Phone Automated System With a Paper and Email Data Collection System: Substudy Within a Randomized Controlled Trial , 2019, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[9]  C. Rizzo,et al.  Digital tools in the informed consent process: a systematic review , 2019, BMC medical ethics.

[10]  S. Steinhubl,et al.  Digital recruitment and enrollment in a remote nationwide trial of screening for undiagnosed atrial fibrillation: Lessons from the randomized, controlled mSToPS trial , 2019, Contemporary clinical trials communications.

[11]  H. Williams,et al.  Feasibility of weekly participant-reported data collection in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care: experiences from the BATHE trial (Bath Additives for the Treatment of cHildhood Eczema) , 2018, Trials.

[12]  Paula R. Williamson,et al.  Trial Forge Guidance 1: what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)? , 2018, Trials.

[13]  A. Presson,et al.  Remote Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Outpatient Hand Surgery: A Randomized Trial of Telephone, Mail, and E-Mail. , 2017, The Journal of hand surgery.

[14]  A. Klovning,et al.  Survey Email Scheduling and Monitoring in eRCTs (SESAMe): A Digital Tool to Improve Data Collection in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials , 2016, Journal of medical Internet research.

[15]  B. Specker,et al.  Feasibility and Acceptability of Alternate Methods of Postnatal Data Collection , 2014, Maternal and Child Health Journal.

[16]  A. Krügel,et al.  Effects of phone versus mail survey methods on the measurement of health-related quality of life and emotional and behavioural problems in adolescents , 2009, BMC public health.

[17]  C. Shaw,et al.  Mode of data elicitation, acquisition and response to surveys: a systematic review. , 2012, Health technology assessment.

[18]  A. Dadich,et al.  Effective recruitment strategies in primary care research: a systematic review. , 2012, Quality in primary care.