Education and training of clinical research professionals and the evolution of the Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competency

Clinical research professionals play a critical role in the design, conduct, and oversight of clinical trials, and they must have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure that trials are conducted ethically, safely, and in accordance with regulatory requirements. As clinical research has evolved from being a necessary activity for the development and regulatory approval of new medicines to an accredited academic discipline and, more recently, to a globally recognized profession, the methods of education and training of professionals have also evolved. Initially, on-the-job informal coaching and specialized training organizations led to formalized and accredited academic degree programs and, more recently, to international competency standards and competency maintenance through continuous professional development. The Joint Task Force (JTF) for Clinical Trial Competency is a multidisciplinary, international group of experts who came together to aggregate and refine competency standards for clinical research professionals, first published in 2014. The 8 domains and 49 specific core competencies of the JTF Framework have become a globally recognized standard upon which education and training programs, role descriptions, and upward mobility criteria for professionals are now based. The JTF meets regularly and, through its workgroups, continues to evolve in response to the changing needs of the profession. The JTF is committed to continuous improvement to ensure that clinical research professionals have the competence necessary to conduct safe, ethical, and high-quality clinical research

When Is a Change Significant? The Update Problem of Apps in Medical and Behavioral Research

Digital applications (apps) are commonly used across the research ecosystem. While apps are frequently updated in the course of clinical and behavioral research, there is limited guidance as to when an app update should trigger action related to human research participant protections and who should be responsible for monitoring and reviewing these updates. We term this the “update problem” and argue that, while it is the principal investigator\u27s duty to track all relevant updates, the level of involvement and re-review by the institutional review board (IRB) of an approved research protocol should vary depending on whether the update may be classified as minor, not minor, or significant. Minor updates require at most annual notification of the IRB, updates that are not minor require prompt notification of the IRB, and significant updates may require full board re-review or another response. We also suggest how these policies might be implemented

Enhancing diversity of clinical trial populations in multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND: Demographic characteristics, social determinants of health (SDoH), health inequities, and health disparities substantially influence the general and disease-specific health outcomes of people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Participants in clinical trials do not represent all people with MS treated in practice. Objective: To provide recommendations for enhancing diversity and inclusion in clinical trials in MS. METHODS: We held an international workshop under the Auspices of the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in MS (the “Committee”) to develop recommendations regarding diversity and inclusivity of participants of clinical trials in MS. Workshop attendees included members of the Committee as well as external participants. External participants were selected based on expertise in trials, SDoH, health equity and regulatory science, and diversity with respect to gender, race, ethnicity, and geography. RESULTS: Recommendations include use of diversity plans, community engagement and education, cultural competency training, biologically justified rather than templated eligibility criteria, adaptive designs that allow broadening of eligibility criteria over the course of a trial, and logistical and practical adjustments to reduce study participant burden. Investigators should report demographic and SDoH characteristics of participants. CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide sponsors and investigators with methods of improving diversity and inclusivity of clinical trial populations in MS

Site staff perspectives on communicating trial results to participants: Cost and feasibility results from the Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed-methods trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. Show RESPECT (ISRCTN96189403) tested ways of sharing results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Sharing results via a printed summary improved patient satisfaction. Little is known about staff experience and the costs of communicating results with participants. We report the costs of communication approaches used in Show RESPECT and the views of site staff on these approaches. METHODS: We allocated 43 hospitals (sites) to share results with trial participants through one of eight intervention combinations (2 × 2 × 2 factorial; enhanced versus basic webpage, printed summary versus no printed summary, email list invitation versus no invitation). Questionnaires elicited data from staff involved in sharing results. Open- and closed-ended questions covered resources used to share results and site staff perspectives on the approaches used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview and free-text data were analysed thematically. The mean additional site costs per participant from each intervention were estimated jointly as main effects by linear regression. RESULTS: We received questionnaires from 68 staff from 41 sites and interviewed 11 site staff. Sites allocated to the printed summary had mean total site costs of sharing results £13.71/patient higher (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.19, 30.60; p = 0.108) than sites allocated no printed summary. Sites allocated to the enhanced webpage had mean total site costs £1.91/patient higher (95% CI: -14, 18.74; p = 0.819) than sites allocated to the basic webpage. Sites allocated to the email list had costs £2.87/patient lower (95% CI: -19.70, 13.95; p = 0.731) than sites allocated to no email list. Most of these costs were staff time for mailing information and handling patients' queries. Most site staff reported no concerns about how they had shared results (88%) and no challenges (76%). Most (83%) found it easy to answer queries from patients about the results and thought the way they were allocated to share results with participants would be an acceptable standard approach (76%), with 79% saying they would follow the same approach for future trials. There were no significant effects of the randomised interventions on these outcomes. Site staff emphasised the importance of preparing patients to receive the results, including giving opt-in/opt-out options, and the need to offer further support, particularly if the results could confuse or distress some patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a printed summary to a webpage (which significantly improved participant satisfaction) may increase costs to sites by ~£14/patient, which is modest in relation to the cost of trials. The Show RESPECT communication interventions were feasible to implement. This information could help future trials ensure they have sufficient resources to share results with participants

Testing approaches to sharing trial results with participants : The Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed methods trial

Funding: The Show RESPECT study was funded by the Medical Research Council through core grants to MRS at the MRC CTU at UCL for Trial Conduct Methodology (MC_UU12023/24 and MC_UU_00004/08) https://mrc.ukri.org/. The funder had no role in the study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the report and the decision to submit the article for publication. All authors had full access to the study data, including statistical reports and tables, and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Acknowledgments We are very thankful to the patients who participated in this study and the people who contributed to our Patient and Public Involvement activities. We are very grateful for the work of the Show RESPECT site teams in carrying out this study. A list of team members from sites can be found in S10 Table. We thank Eva Burnett, who is a patient representative on the Study Steering Group for Show RESPECT and ICON8, for her input on the design and conduct of this study and for her comments on this manuscript, and Amanda Hunn for her contributions to the steering group. We also acknowledge the hard work and diligence of Sierra Santana and Ania Spurdens, who were data managers for Show RESPECT. We also wish to thank the ICON8 trial team for their support of this project, particularly Andrew Clamp, Babasola Popoola, Francesca Schiavone, Jonathan Badrock, and Rick Kaplan. We also thank Julia Bailey for her advice and guidance on the qualitative aspect of this study.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants’ locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant’s real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas