Conectar
International trials can be challenging to operationalise due to incompatibilities between country-specific policies and infrastructures. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the operational complexities of conducting international trials and identify potential solutions for overcoming them.
Systematic review.
Medline, Embase and Health Management Information Consortium were searched from 2006 to 30 January 2023.
All studies reporting operational challenges (eg, site selection, trial management, intervention management, data management) of conducting international trials were included.
Search results were independently screened by at least two reviewers and data were extracted into a proforma.
38 studies (35 RCTs, 2 reports and 1 qualitative study) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The median sample size was 1202 (IQR 332–4056) and median number of sites was 40 (IQR 13–78). 88.6% of studies had an academic sponsor and 80% were funded through government sources. Operational complexities were particularly reported during trial set-up due to lack of harmonisation in regulatory approvals and in relation to sponsorship structure, with associated budgetary impacts. Additional challenges included site selection, staff training, lengthy contract negotiations, site monitoring, communication, trial oversight, recruitment, data management, drug procurement and distribution, pharmacy involvement and biospecimen processing and transport.
International collaborative trials are valuable in cases where recruitment may be difficult, diversifying participation and applicability. However, multiple operational and regulatory challenges are encountered when implementing a trial in multiple countries. Careful planning and communication between trials units and investigators, with an emphasis on establishing adequately resourced cross-border sponsorship structures and regulatory approvals, may help to overcome these barriers and realise the benefits of the approach.
osf-registrations-yvtjb-v1.
Early evidence on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy came from randomised trials. Many important questions subsequently about vaccine effectiveness (VE) have been addressed using real-world studies (RWS) and have informed most vaccination policies globally. As the questions about VE have evolved during the pandemic so have data, study design, and analytical choices. This scoping review aims to characterise this evolution and provide insights for future pandemic planning—specifically, what kinds of questions are asked at different stages of a pandemic, and what data infrastructure and methods are used?
We will identify relevant studies in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health VIEW-hub database, which curates both published and preprint VE RWS identified from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the WHO COVID Database, MMWR, Eurosurveillance, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, Europe PMC, Research Square, Knowledge Hub, and Google. We will include RWS of COVID-19 VE that reported COVID-19-specific or all-cause mortality (coded as ‘death’ in the ‘effectiveness studies’ data set).
Information on study characteristics; study context; data sources; design and analytic methods that address confounding will be extracted by single reviewer and checked for accuracy and discussed in a small group setting by methodological and analytic experts. A timeline mapping approach will be used to capture the evolution of this body of literature.
By describing the evolution of RWS of VE through the COVID-19 pandemic, we will help identify options for VE studies and inform policy makers on the minimal data and analytic infrastructure needed to support rapid RWS of VE in future pandemics and of healthcare strategies more broadly.
As data is in the public domain, ethical approval is not required. Findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and working-papers to policy makers.
Implementation science (IS) frameworks, models and theories (FMTs) have gained popularity in guiding the implementation and evaluation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for cancer screening. However, there are significant research gaps in understanding their applications in cancer health disparities contexts. This paper outlines a scoping review protocol designed to explore the utilisation of IS FMTs in cancer screening EBIs to inform intervention designs and adaptations.
This scoping review protocol adheres to Arksey and O’Malley’s five-step methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. Search strategies were conducted in five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and EMBASE. The search was run on 22 June 2023 with an English language filter and a date limit of 2001-current. Two reviewers will independently screen studies for inclusion and exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will be consulted, where appropriate at any of the review stages, to achieve consensus or resolve conflicts. Data will be collected, managed and analysed using Covidence. A narrative synthesis, based on Popay et al’s methodology, will guide reporting and summarisation of results. The review will adhere to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.
This scoping review is a novel approach for examining a growing corpus of research literature on IS FMT applications used in cancer screening EBIs. As a secondary analysis, this scoping review does not require approval from an institutional review board. We anticipate the review will produce insightful information (eg, challenges, key areas for future directions) on the applications of IS TMFs in designing, deploying and testing EBIs for populations experiencing cancer screening disparities. We will disseminate the results through journals and conferences targeting IS and cancer prevention researchers and practitioners.
FreshRSS 