BPI21-005: Barriers and Facilitators for Clinical Trial Enrollment: A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Healthcare Providers

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (3.5) ◽  
pp. BPI21-005
Author(s):  
Gaurav Kumar ◽  
Priyanka Chaudhary ◽  
Aiden Quinn ◽  
Dejun Su
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment

scholarly journals Barriers to clinical trial enrollment of older adults with cancer: A qualitative study of the perceptions of community and academic oncologists

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 327-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mina S. Sedrak ◽  
Supriya G. Mohile ◽  
Virginia Sun ◽  
Can-Lan Sun ◽  
Bihong T. Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment

Barriers and facilitators for the usage of a personal health record for medication reconciliation: a qualitative study among patients (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise van der Nat ◽  
Victor J B Huiskes ◽  
Margot Taks ◽  
Bart J F van den Bemt ◽  
Hein A W van Onzenoort
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Medication Reconciliation ◽  
Data Exchange ◽  
Personal Health Record ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Theoretical Domains Framework ◽  
Information Provision ◽  
Perceived Usefulness ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Personal Health

BACKGROUND Transitions in care are a risk factor for medication discrepancies, which can be identified and solved with medication reconciliation (MR). However, MR is a time consuming process, its effect on clinical outcomes is limited and a central role for patients is missing. As multiple organizations stimulate a more central role for patients in healthcare, personal health records (PHRs) are more often applied in medical care. However, patients’ adoption rate of using a PHR for MR is low. OBJECTIVE Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide insight into patients’ barriers and facilitators for the usage of a PHR for MR prior to an in- or outpatient visit. METHODS A qualitative study was conducted among PHR users and non-users who had a planned visit at the in- or outpatient clinic. About one week after the visit, patients were interviewed about barriers and facilitators for the use of a PHR for MR using a semi-structured interview guide based on the theoretical domains framework. Afterwards, data were analysed following thematic content analysis. RESULTS In total, 10 PHR users and 10 PHR non-users were interviewed. The barriers and facilitators were classified in four domains: 1) patient, consisting of the barriers: limited (health) literacy and/or computer skills, limited perceived usefulness and/or motivation, concerns about data safety, no computer/smartphone, and poor memory, and the facilitators: perceived importance/usefulness and place and time independent; 2) application, consisting of the barriers: practical and technical issues, poor usability and missing functionalities, and the facilitators: improve usability and add functionalities; 3) process, consisting of the barrier: ambiguity about who is responsible, the patient or the healthcare provider, and the facilitators: check by healthcare providers, more frequent update of medication list by healthcare providers and target patients who benefit most and/or have sufficient skills; 4) context, consisting of the barriers: lack of data exchange and connectivity between ICT applications, privacy concerns, healthcare professional do not use the requested data, insufficient information provision and bad (timing) of invitations and reminders, and the facilitators: integration of different applications, information provision by healthcare providers and support of professionals and/or family. CONCLUSIONS Patients reported barriers and facilitators for using a PHR to perform MR are identified at the patient, application, process and context level. Furthermore, patients indicated that they become more engagement in their own healthcare when they use a PHR. To improve the implementation of MR by using PHRs, the barriers and facilitators need to be addressed to effectively develop and implement PHRs in the MR process.

scholarly journals Psychosocial Barriers and Facilitators to Clinical Trial Enrollment and Adherence for Adolescents With Cancer

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 133 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. S123-S130 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. D. Buchanan ◽  
R. Block ◽  
A. W. Smith ◽  
E. Tai
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Psychosocial Barriers ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment

scholarly journals Exploring barriers and facilitators to clinical trial enrollment in the context of sickle cell anemia and hydroxyurea

2013 ◽  
Vol 60 (8) ◽  
pp. 1333-1337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey D. Lebensburger ◽  
Robert F. Sidonio ◽  
Michael R. DeBaun ◽  
Monika M. Safford ◽  
Thomas H. Howard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Sickle Cell ◽  
Sickle Cell Anemia ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment

scholarly journals Systematic review of barriers and facilitators to clinical trial enrollment among adolescents and young adults with cancer: Identifying opportunities for intervention

Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 126 (5) ◽  
pp. 949-957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth J. Siembida ◽  
Holli A. Loomans‐Kropp ◽  
Neha Trivedi ◽  
Ann O’Mara ◽  
Lillian Sung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Adolescents And Young Adults ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment

scholarly journals Stakeholder Perspectives on Barriers and Facilitators for the Adoption of Virtual Clinical Trials: Qualitative Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romée Melanie Helena Coert ◽  
James Kenneth Timmis ◽  
André Boorsma ◽  
Wilrike J Pasman
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Research Organization ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Health Organizations ◽  
Activity Measurements ◽  
Patient Reported

BACKGROUND Conventional clinical trials are essential for generating high-quality evidence by measuring the efficacy of interventions in rigorously controlled clinical environments. However, their execution can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, clinical trials face several logistical challenges regarding the identification, recruitment, and retention of participants; consistent data collection during trials; and adequate patient follow-up. This might lead to inefficient resource utilization. In order to partially address the current problems with conventional clinical trials, there exists the need for innovations. One such innovation is the virtual clinical trial (VCT). VCTs allow for the collection and integration of diverse data from multiple information sources, such as electronic health records, clinical and demographic data, patient-reported outcomes, anthropometric and activity measurements, and data collected by digital biomarkers or (small) samples that participants can collect themselves. Although VCTs have the potential to provide substantial value to clinical research and patients because they can lower clinical trial costs, increase the volume of data collected from patients’ daily environment, and reduce the burden of patient participation, so far VCT adoption is not commonplace. OBJECTIVE This paper aims to better understand the barriers and facilitators to VCT adoption by determining the factors that influence individuals’ considerations regarding VCTs from the perspective of various stakeholders. METHODS Based on online semistructured interviews, a qualitative study was conducted with pharmaceutical companies, food and health organizations, and an applied research organization in Europe. Data were thematically analyzed using Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory. RESULTS A total of 16 individuals with interest and experience in VCTs were interviewed, including persons from pharmaceutical companies (n=6), food and health organizations (n=4), and a research organization (n=6). Key barriers included a potentially low degree of acceptance by regulatory authorities, technical issues (standardization, validation, and data storage), compliance and adherence, and lack of knowledge or comprehension regarding the opportunities VCTs have to offer. Involvement of regulators in development processes, stakeholder exposure to the results of pilot studies, and clear and simple instructions and assistance for patients were considered key facilitators. CONCLUSIONS Collaboration among all stakeholders in VCT development is crucial to increase knowledge and awareness. Organizations should invest in accurate data collection technologies, and compliance of patients in VCTs needs to be ensured. Multicriteria decision analysis can help determine if a VCT is a preferred option by stakeholders. The findings of this study can be a good starting point to accelerate the development and widespread implementation of VCTs.

scholarly journals Barriers and Facilitators to Kangaroo Mother Care Implementation in Côte D’Ivoire: A Qualitative Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kadidiatou Raissa Kourouma ◽  
Marie Laurette Agbré Yacé ◽  
Daouda Doukouré ◽  
Lassina Cissé ◽  
Chantière Somé-Meazieu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Cote D'ivoire ◽  
Côte D’Ivoire ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Kangaroo Mother Care ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Cote D’Ivoire ◽  
Côte D'ivoire

Abstract BackgroundKangaroo Mother Care (KMC) is a key high impact intervention, low technology and cost-effective for the care of preterm and low birth weight newborn. Côte d’Ivoire has adopted the intervention and opened the first KMC unit in 2019. After one year of functioning, we aimed to assess barriers and facilitators of KMC implementation as well as proposed solutions to improve KMC implementation in Côte d’Ivoire.MethodThis was a qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews, carried out in September 2020 in the first KMC unit opened at the Teaching Hospital of Treichville. The study involved healthcare providers providing KMC and mothers of newborn who were receiving or received KMC at the unit. A thematic analysis was performed using Nvivo 12.ResultsA total of 44 semi-structured interviews were conducted, 12 with healthcare providers and 32 with mothers. The barriers identified were lack of supplies, insufficiency of human resources, lack of space for admission, lack of home visits, lack of food for mothers, lack of collaboration between health services involved in newborn care, increased workload, the beliefs of carrying the baby on the chest, partner resistance, low rate of exclusive breastfeeding, lack of community awareness. Facilitators identified were training of healthcare providers, leadership, the cost of the intervention, the value of the intervention for healthcare providers, mothers −healthcare providers relationship, mothers’ adherence to KMC.The proposed solution to improve KMC implementation were volunteer staff motivation, intensifying mothers and families education and counselling, the recruitment of a psychologist and the involvement of all stakeholders.ConclusionsOur study highlighted the challenges to implement KMC in Côte d’Ivoire with unique and specific barriers to implementation. We recommend to researchers and decision makers to respectively design strategies and adopt intervention that specifically address these barriers and facilitators to a better uptake of KMC. Decision makers should also take into account the proposed solution for a better implementation and scaling up of KMC intervention.

scholarly journals Stakeholder Perspectives on Barriers and Facilitators for the Adoption of Virtual Clinical Trials: Qualitative Study

10.2196/26813 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. e26813
Author(s):  
Romée Melanie Helena Coert ◽  
James Kenneth Timmis ◽  
André Boorsma ◽  
Wilrike J Pasman
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Research Organization ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Health Organizations ◽  
Activity Measurements ◽  
Patient Reported

Background Conventional clinical trials are essential for generating high-quality evidence by measuring the efficacy of interventions in rigorously controlled clinical environments. However, their execution can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, clinical trials face several logistical challenges regarding the identification, recruitment, and retention of participants; consistent data collection during trials; and adequate patient follow-up. This might lead to inefficient resource utilization. In order to partially address the current problems with conventional clinical trials, there exists the need for innovations. One such innovation is the virtual clinical trial (VCT). VCTs allow for the collection and integration of diverse data from multiple information sources, such as electronic health records, clinical and demographic data, patient-reported outcomes, anthropometric and activity measurements, and data collected by digital biomarkers or (small) samples that participants can collect themselves. Although VCTs have the potential to provide substantial value to clinical research and patients because they can lower clinical trial costs, increase the volume of data collected from patients’ daily environment, and reduce the burden of patient participation, so far VCT adoption is not commonplace. Objective This paper aims to better understand the barriers and facilitators to VCT adoption by determining the factors that influence individuals’ considerations regarding VCTs from the perspective of various stakeholders. Methods Based on online semistructured interviews, a qualitative study was conducted with pharmaceutical companies, food and health organizations, and an applied research organization in Europe. Data were thematically analyzed using Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory. Results A total of 16 individuals with interest and experience in VCTs were interviewed, including persons from pharmaceutical companies (n=6), food and health organizations (n=4), and a research organization (n=6). Key barriers included a potentially low degree of acceptance by regulatory authorities, technical issues (standardization, validation, and data storage), compliance and adherence, and lack of knowledge or comprehension regarding the opportunities VCTs have to offer. Involvement of regulators in development processes, stakeholder exposure to the results of pilot studies, and clear and simple instructions and assistance for patients were considered key facilitators. Conclusions Collaboration among all stakeholders in VCT development is crucial to increase knowledge and awareness. Organizations should invest in accurate data collection technologies, and compliance of patients in VCTs needs to be ensured. Multicriteria decision analysis can help determine if a VCT is a preferred option by stakeholders. The findings of this study can be a good starting point to accelerate the development and widespread implementation of VCTs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document