The post Community Engagement Paves the Way for Reducing Health Disparities in Cancer Research: An Interview with Dr. Katherine Tossas appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>How do you approach underserved communities for collaboration in your health research? With humility and flexibility, says Dr. Katherine Tossas, a cancer epidemiologist and Director of Catchment Area Data Access and Alignment at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Massey Cancer Center. As part of our People of Precision Health Podcast, Vibrent Health recently interviewed Dr. Tossas in her work engaging communities and catchment areas in cancer research as it relates to health disparities.
As a native Puerto Rican, she has used her experience to develop some incredibly useful perspectives and approaches in approaching underserved communities. Some of these included sharing resources with communities, not having preconceptions about communities, understanding the limitations of research data in telling the full story, and more.
At the start of our interview, Dr. Tossas mentioned The Chickahominy TRUTH Project, a powerful example of how the interplay between community engagement and research can make an impact with underserved populations—particularly indigenous populations. “TRUTH is an acronym we created together with the Chickahominy indigenous community that represents Trust, Research, Understand, Teach, and Heal,” Dr. Tossas said. “Trust came first because of the loss of trust that many underrepresented communities have acquired over time in health care and health research that we need to earn back by collaborating and developing the program together.”
Initially, the project came as a concern that the Chickahominy tribe was experiencing high rates of cancer. As an epidemiologist, Dr. Tossas helped them to draw a map of incidence across the community and to investigate the epidemiology of the specific cancers in it. She found that there was in fact a significant cluster of cancers in the community more than what could be expected.
In partnering with the community to do the research, Dr. Tossas’s team has given community members training related to IRBs and qualitative interviewing. Research staff and community members visit the community as a dyad to do interviews about cancer risk perceptions, health care knowledge, et cetera, as well as conducting safety tests to the community’s well water. “By the end of the project, we hope to give the results to the community, so that they can decide what to do,” Dr. Tossas said.
Learn more about the Chickahominy Truth Project Here:
When it comes to engaging communities in research, Dr. Tossas discouraged study teams from seeking to ‘empower’ communities, and instead approaching them in order to align with them. She said that as a researcher, “my job is to align with the community’s power, to stand alongside them so that they make decisions as to what to do.”
She also stressed the importance of cultural humility and flexibility when engaging with communities. When researchers come with an idea and funding to a community, there is immediately a power differential that needs to be acknowledged and redistributed for fair collaboration. Hence the need for humility. One way to redistribute power, Dr. Tossas said, is by sharing resources. While not a popularly held belief in the research community, she believes in equal financial resources sharing with communities, alongside the conventional approach of sharing intelligence.
Humility also means coming in with few or no assumptions as to a community’s shared identity or attitudes. Dr. Tossas remarks how her research team explored the spiritual aspect of how the Chickahominy community attributed causes of cancer. The research team had initial questions that were informed by animistic practices common in many indigenous communities, which did not accord with the traditional Christian practices adopted by the Chickahominy community over time. “It was a great moment of humility where we had to be flexible in adapting our initial assumptions about the community,” she said. Humility was also important as it related to bringing community members in as part of a dyad to help researchers engage and interview other community members.
Watch the full podcast here:
Dr. Tossas remarked that health disparities research is a legitimate science with the same scientific rigor of translational, clinical, and basic research. She said, “There are metrics that have been validated, there are methodologies, and grounding frameworks that demand respect.”
She highlighted that in really collaborating with a community, the value that it can bring to research can be unexpected, and that researchers need to be ready for anything. As an example, Dr. Tossas was recently asked to present on emergent themes in the data of the TRUTH study alongside the Chickahominy community, who presented before her. “I had no need to present, because they shared what I’m seeing on the data as well,” she said. “Data is valuable to researchers in certifying that a problem exists and ways to change outcomes, but the community intelligence is equally valuable.”
For that matter, she pointed to the need for a paradigm shift around how health disparities researchers decide what data is or is not. While researchers design questions to illuminate correlations in certain areas, she reflected that this is to the neglect of other areas that may inform what the data and thus what the results are in a study. And while qualitative scientists focus on words and quantitative researchers focus on numbers, she said, “there’s a lot of data that is simply ‘information’ that isn’t captured.” She mentioned that early in her career, she did a study evaluating performance of a cancer center that had a huge gap in data simply because her surveys and other data capture methods couldn’t account for structural inefficiencies and equipment deficits. Again, this is where flexibility and humility present themselves as viable approaches in community engagement and health disparities research.
Dr. Tossas mentioned her upcoming Catchment Area Data Conference as the first of its kind to discuss cancer center catchment area analytics. In the last ten years, Dr. Tossas remarked, cancer centers have been pushed from the National Cancer Institute to define the catchment areas where their patients come from as a way to define how they are allocating their money and serving their communities. The conference, in service of this effort, seeks to further support national efforts to develop tools and methods designed to define catchment areas and inform what research, outreach, and clinical services cancer centers perform to hold these institutions accountable.
In closing, Dr. Tossas highlighted to value that technology collaborators like Vibrent bring to the table in the digital methods we use to help researchers measure how researchers engage communities and collect the data vital to their projects. Technology, she said, is vital to help researchers improve their methodologies, and to help them share lessons learned on a research software platform like Vibrent’s in a way that is easily systematized, maximizing the benefit of data for many research teams instead of one. Ultimately, she says, technology has the potential to increase the impact that researchers have on communities.
The post Community Engagement Paves the Way for Reducing Health Disparities in Cancer Research: An Interview with Dr. Katherine Tossas appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>The post How to Use Digital Methods for Data Collection and Remote Monitoring in Clinical Trials appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>Above all, finding ways to notify participants in an automated way, structuring surveys and forms for organization and clarity, properly educating participants when it comes to certain data collection activities, and integrating external data sources easily are some of the ways you can aim for more efficient data collection.
When it comes to case report forms, it’s important to think early on how you want the information to be structured and make sure that forms can be filled out easily. Since the purpose of a case report form is to capture safety and efficacy data, designing the form to ensure ease of use and accuracy is paramount to capturing data effectively.
Digital methods are incredibly useful for remote patient monitoring in helping you educate and notify participants. And with the right solution in place, you can integrate wearable data into your data collection for remote monitoring and make the experience mobile-friendly.
Ensuring that participants comply with treatments in your clinical trials is, like remote monitoring, a matter of reminding them. It also warrants verification in some instances. While you want to be sure you can notify participants in an easy and automated way to keep up with their treatments, you also want to find a way to make sure they are confirming they complied with the treatment protocol.
Symptom management is also about notification, but it is more nuanced when it comes to getting the right responses from participants. Offering automated notifications for daily, weekly, or monthly symptom tracking can help your study staff by reducing their time filling out measures manually. It’s important of course to make sure your surveys follow best practices so that participants can understand and answer questions easily.
Documenting symptom management in an EDC also allows you to automate care triaging in the case of adverse events, serious adverse events, or persistent symptoms. Since monitoring symptoms over time can show significant increases in specific symptoms, you can set up triggers to alert nurses or other care staff who can follow up with participants individually as they experience these events. In this case, you can also trigger notifications back to patients to share information with them to help them manage their symptoms, and to notify them if a nurse or clinical staff will be in touch with them.
Wearables are also highly valuable in managing symptoms that are easily trackable values like heart rate, respiration rate, and so on.
Getting participants to answer electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs) like surveys or ecological momentary assessments correctly is all about organizing and wording the questions in a way that makes sense to the participants. You have to consider the age and general health literacy of the populations you are engaging when creating the survey or choosing the right instruments to use.
By integrating EHR, genomics, and wearables data you are simultaneously unlocking opportunities for more data and insights, but it’s important to integrate them carefully. First of all, it’s important to make sure you are properly consenting participants to collect these data.
Platforms like Vibrent’s allow you to give participants the ability to connect their EHR and wearable data to the study, and to order genomics kits directly from sequencing providers. These are done through integrations which allow the data to be accessed by study teams. The data, especially EHR, needs to be harmonized so that all data points fit together in a way that makes sense to the study. While some EHR data points are easily harmonized with software like Vibrent’s, we recommend mapping dispersed datasets using a data dictionary according to FL7/FHIR standards.
Optimizing digital data collection for efficiency is not always a straightforward process and can take some time for you and your research teams to experiment with different methodologies and different ways of engaging your participants. Remember that different studies can call for different strategies, and it’s important to consider what data is necessary to your study and start there. From that point, finding a good case for nice-to-have data that will further help you accomplish your aims, and figuring out a way to collect that data in as easy a manner as possible can be beneficial to gleaning deeper insights from your studies.
Overall, it’s important to find ways to automate your communication with participants to collect data more easily, to structure information for optimal clarity and organization, and to consider integrating datasets in a way that is easy for your study teams to manage. You may choose to do this work with internal resources, or partner with a company like Vibrent Health who can offer tools and expertise designed to allow you to collect more data with a higher quality with less work from your team.
Looking to collect other kinds of data? Reach out to us with your questions and to see what’s possible.
The post How to Use Digital Methods for Data Collection and Remote Monitoring in Clinical Trials appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>The post Addressing Barriers to Cancer Research Participation for Underserved Populations appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>How do we address the barriers to cancer research participation among patients, especially underrepresented populations? How do we create partnerships with underserved communities to foster more trust, greater recruitment, and better retention rates among these populations?
In our most recent People of Precision Health podcast episode, we sat down with Porscha Johnson, PharmD, CPGx to address these questions.
Currently, Dr. Johnson leads Northside Hospital’s genomic oncology advisory board and has been developing their precision oncology program. She specializes in cancer pharmacogenomics to understand how patient genetics informs their response to medications. In addition to overseeing a team of oncology pharmacists and focuses on educating her patients about therapeutic treatments for cancer.
When pointing to the biggest obstacle to optimizing care, Dr. Johnson cited a lack of understanding, saying, “Genomic literacy has been the most challenging obstacle to overcome not just for our providers, but for patients and caregivers as well.” She remarked that providing advocacy resources to educate these different groups as succinctly as possible on things like the difference between genetics and genomics, how certain testing impacts health and life insurance as well as people’s jobs, as well as how much control people have over their healthcare data can empower them to move forward in the care journey.
For many in the cancer care continuum and even beyond, there’s been the view that suggesting a clinical trial to a patient is a last-ditch effort. “It’s not at all; it’s actually included in the standard-of-care guidelines and should be spoken about from the very beginning of a patient’s care journey,” Dr. Johnson said. When having these conversations around participation in cancer studies alongside more conventional treatment avenues. For this, Dr. Johnson noted above all the importance of creating an open and safe environment where patients feel supported.
To address underrepresentation of minority groups in clinical studies, Dr. Johnson recommends engaging with community organizations to leverage the trust of community leaders and to tailor culturally relevant recruitment strategies to target populations. Establishing partnerships that prioritize inclusivity such as with historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) can be a proving ground for establishing the benefits of active participation in studies. Actively listening to community concerns can move the needle on participation rates from underrepresented populations. Recognizing the impacts of social determinants of health and how disparities in housing, transportation, historical discrimination and a general fear of the unknown are also key to educating the medical community to address care more empathically.
Aside from racial/ethnic and cultural barriers, there are barriers as it relates to socioeconomic status, age, as well as gender identity that may play a role in discouraging participation or neglecting to address the needs of specific populations. The hope is that addressing these barriers from a more culturally informed and trauma-aware perspective can help to improve retention rates. But this is data that, Dr. Johnson notes, must be collected and analyzed in health systems willing and ready to address inherent disparities in order to prove the impact of these improvements.
In describing how to overcome some of the more significant barriers to participation, Dr. Johnson cited the slogan “nothing about us without us” as a principle whereby underrepresented groups need to be actively involved in the design of research studies and in the creation/testing of medicines that address their populations’ needs. “Having a patient advisory board or focus group can help researchers and clinicians to understand what challenges or concerns that potential participants have,” Dr. Johnson said.
Dr. Johnson pointed out that collaboration with patient advisors and focus groups needs to be an end-to-end approach. “Before you even begin to recruit, you need to make sure that the literacy, comfortability, and willingness to help their community is there with focus groups of patient advisory boards,” she said. And the momentum needs to be kept throughout the clinical trial development, the research process, and at the study’s closeout to understand what went well and what warrants improvement. It is also important, she noted, to tell the patient advisors how they contributed to the overall results of recruitment, retention, and the ultimate outcomes of the study.
Watch the full podcast here:
Among the concerns around participation, data privacy and stigmatization loom large for underrepresented populations. For that matter, she mentions that many underrepresented people don’t feel comfortable relaying their financial issues or childcare issues with a provider at hand because the provider may not look like them or represent the same or a similarly marginalized community. This, Dr. Johnson highlights, demonstrates a greater need for a diverse medical workforce and research teams more specifically. She points to her experience, saying, “As a black female, I’m a double minority. And I believe my experiences there as well as my leadership role can contribute to a more inclusive and welcoming environment for people to talk with me and lower their guard within the medical community and the broader clinical trials space.”
Again, she stresses that health literacy is an important barrier, which needs to be addressed by introducing and explaining the clinical benefits of participation in research as well as some of the more abstract benefits such as benefitting one’s family and community by contributing to equitable research opportunities. Language barriers are a frequent issue that can be addressed by translating consent forms and clinical trial packets.
Transportation issues can be addressed with vouchers by working with ridesharing services such as Uber or Lyft, or taking a more hybrid/decentralized approach to studies to decrease the amount of time and money participants spend traveling to clinical sites. In terms of encouraging participation from populations that are farther away from cancer centers, a mobile clinic unit or a hub-and-spoke model may be appropriate to allowing them to come into a satellite hospital or clinical site that is closer to them. “Meeting patients physically where they’re at may be a way to address some of those barriers,” Dr. Johnson said.
Ultimately, Dr. Johnson feels it is important to address to patients the potential that the clinical benefits of experimental interventions may well outweigh the risks and have the potential to provide greater safety and efficacy than what is already available as the current standards of care.
Dr. Johnson espoused the great promise that digital methods hold in the research space, citing interactive platforms like websites where people can speak to care navigators in real time to address their needs and challenges. She addressed the great opportunity for social media to serve as a platform for recruiting and educating potential participants for trials and research.
She mentioned the promise of smartphone apps to give access to genetic and other test results that patients can then easily share with their providers and as a platform for feedback and engagement from participants. For instance, if a participant chooses to withdraw consent and end their participation with a study, apps and digital platforms could serve as an easy resource to understand any challenges that research teams could help mitigate to retain participants.
Digital platforms also allow for the delivery of patient advocacy materials such as videos that serve as empowering educational materials for patients and their caregivers. They also allow, she said, the ability to easily pre-screen patients into trials, and to serve as data repositories for patients’ genomic and genetic results, and for patients, caregivers, and clinicians to search for research studies or newly approved targeted therapies.
AI is already proving to help with a lot of these processes, particularly around the administrative side of research to assess and strategize for quality improvement processes for better study feasibility or overall clinical outcomes. “Most importantly,” she said, “I think this technology affords us the possibility to better report on the demographics of a trial and to make that data publicly available to promote transparency and accountability, thereby mitigating trust among underrepresented communities.”
In speaking to integrating genomics into cancer treatment, Dr. Johnson notes that the future of precision medicine is already here—it’s the headwinds to these novel solutions that stand to erode with time. She remarks that this is largely due to the lack of awareness around the patterns that professionals in the field have managed to show around how genomics and genetics play a role and what clinical applications have arisen from these discoveries.
“Some of these have been very unknown significance, but recently we’ve seen these insights become prognostic or pathogenic. In many cases, you can now bypass the standard of care or trial-and-error via preventative screening or more targeted therapies,” she said. Her ultimate goal to realize the integration of precision medicine into cancer care would be universal biomarker testing, but the hurdle for many patients involves having comprehensive insurance coverage. But Dr. Johnson notes that there are many organizations that provide grant funding or assistance for these testing mechanisms that unlock more informed treatment decisions.
She also reiterates the value of bringing research to patients away from traditional academic research organizations and cancer centers into more community-based approaches like mobile clinic units. This involves eliminating the stigma of community-based care as an inferior option to centers of excellence. “There are just as good if not greater providers in the community setting because they want to serve those people in the communities disproportionately affected by disadvantage,” she said.
Ultimately, Dr. Johnson notes the value of genomics and genetics not just in cancer care but in cardiology, pain management, and other clinical areas. She firmly asserted that in 10 years, patients will be able to easily access germline testing and other tests, which will be fully integrated into EMR systems and have garnered the trust of care providers, policymakers, and insurance carriers.
The post Addressing Barriers to Cancer Research Participation for Underserved Populations appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>The post What Researchers Need to Know About the Latest FDA Informed Consent Guidance appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>Currently, FDA describes its requirements for informed consent in its regulations on Protection of Human Subjects (21 CFR part 50).
The FDA distinguishes in this latest guidance that informed consent is not the act of merely obtaining a signature. It is the process of making sure potential participants understand the research, as well as their role in it. The agency also notes that a big part of informed consent means giving prospects ample opportunity to ask questions of investigators and their study team to gain adequate knowledge and confidence in participating in the study. This is also seen as an ongoing process whereby participants should be able to ask questions throughout the study to support their informedness.
Recruitment is considered a vital part of the consent process. The agency’s reasoning here is that recruitment conveys the initial information that potential participants use to gauge their interest in the study. As such, the information provided in initial recruitment advertisement needs to be minimal while serving this purpose of generating interest.
One of the main potential risks identified by the FDA is that of undue coercion. As such, the agency recommends that investigators do not overstate the benefits of a particular treatment or diagnostic tool being studied, and do not make unsubstantiated claims to this or any other effect to spur consent. Conversely, the agency does not consider any sort of incentive, whether financial or otherwise, to be considered undue influence, unless under some overt or covert threat of withholding it.
Overall, the consent form should contain information presented in language that an average person can understand. If medical or scientific terms are used, they must be explained. Exculpatory language that waives participants of their legal rights is prohibited.
The FDA defined eight basic elements of consent:
The consent form should note that participation is for research purposes, and while preliminary data may exist, the study is investigational, observational, or experimental in nature. The description should contain a list of procedures done in the study, what typical elements of clinical care may be included or excluded as part of the study, how the participants will be involved, how long the study will be for participants, and what may be involved in follow-up from the initial study timeframe.
Any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts must be documented in the consent (sidenote: video consent can be considerably useful for this). Procedures or tests that may carry risks or discomfort must be documented, especially those with considerable risk for morbidity and/or mortality. ‘Risks’ entails not just physical harm, but also the possibility of unintended disclosures of private/sensitive information of participants.
Accordingly, the agency recommends describing ways in which personal health information and personally identifiable information will be secured/protected to the best of the study team’s ability, while disclosing limitations to these efforts. While all possible risks don’t need to be described, it’s important to provide some detail on how the most likely risks may impact participants. Probability as well as reversibility can be considered in these risk disclosures.
Reliable information on potential benefits to the participants as well as others (such as patients with a particular condition) can be described. The FDA cautions against overly optimistic benefits or descriptions of benefits. If there are no direct benefits, this must be clearly stated. Payments/incentives/reimbursement are not considered benefits as part of the consent process.
Participants must be made aware of the care or treatments they could receive in place of participating in the study. If there is more than one alternative, there should be language indicating that investigators can follow up with the participant to describe these in more detail. If additional treatments or procedures become available during the course of the treatment, this may warrant the updating of the consent document. The document can also refer patients to their primary care doctor or another healthcare professional to discuss alternatives in more detail.
Alternative considerations are also in play when considering participation in other research studies. The consent process should also detail whether participation In other studies affects a person’s ability to participate in the study for which the consent process is intended.
The consent process should describe the measures by which confidential information will be safeguarded. The FDA maintains the right to inspect confidential information as it pertains to the research without permission and holds this right per stipulations set forth in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
If a study poses any significant risks, it’s important to disclose any compensation and medical treatments available should injury occur. If no compensation is available, the informed consent should specify this, while also making it clear that this does not require the person to waive any legal rights.
The consent form should have information on who to contact for questions regarding the study, the participant’s rights, as well as who to contact in case of injury as a result of the study activities. It should include names, telephone numbers, and email addresses. The FDA advises against listing a study contact for participant’s rights as it may discourage participants from seeking out information from biased parties, and instead recommends contact information for a member of the study’s IRB office. It should also disclose who to contact in the case of an emergency, including 24-hour contact information where applicable. Correct contact information should be provided to participants as it gets updated.
Participants must be informed of their right to stop participation at any time, and that their participation is completely voluntary. Should the research require special procedures to ensure safe, secure withdrawal from the study, these procedures must be outlined in the consent. The consent document should clarify if the information the participants provide during their course of the study will remain part of the study’s database or not.
The FDA defines six additional elements of informed consent:
A document containing the signature of a participant and the date is required for the consent process, and digital signatures and documents can be used provided they are in accordance with 21 CFR Part 11, which regulates the use of electronic records and signatures.
While paper consent is the traditional form of obtaining consent, other methods can be used. Technologies for obtaining consent must be discussed with the study’s appropriate IRB, or investigators can contact the FDA for advice as needed. If written consent is required, consent may not be obtained via telephone. The general guidance suggests that any alternative method for consent is adequate if it allows for the “adequate exchange of information and documentation, and a method to ensure the signer of the consent form is the person who plans to enroll as a subject in the clinical investigation or is the legally authorized representative (LAR) of the subject.”
If a telephone conversation is used to provide information to the participant or their LAR for the consent process, there must be a means obtaining signature. This can be done by email, fax, or via a secure web address. Another way to ensure signature is for participants to bring in a signed copy of the form to their next scheduled visit to the research site. The signed consent form must be maintained as part of a participant’s case history per 21 CFR 312.62(b) and 812.140(a)(3), and the participant/LAR must receive a copy of their form per 21 CFR 50.27(a). While the copy provided to participants does not need to be signed, it is recommended per these guidelines.
A document provided to the participant, or their LAR, should either contain all the information regarding the consent, or be a short form summary and acknowledgement of an oral explanation of the entire consent documentation. All IRBs need to approve of the written form of the oral summary to be stated exactly as written to potential participants.
The FDA maintains that institutional review boards review all consent materials to request modifications and approve/disapprove of the materials. This includes advertisements and other recruitment materials.
The central responsibility for review boards is to ensure that materials are compliant with 21 CFR part 50, and to ensure that participants are well-informed of their rights as it pertains to the study in question. They must ensure that consent materials minimize the incidence of undue coercion.
As far as content, IRBs should consider whether to disclose sources of funding for the study, the adequacy and appropriateness of all wording in the consent materials to facilitate informedness, supplemental media to inform understanding, and the use of standardized language as it relates to their institution. As far as form, they should weigh how well alternative forms of consent that differ from face-to-face interactions such as telephonic interviewing supports informedness. By extension, investigators should also consider these factors.
IRBs have the authority to observe (or have a third party observe) the consent process to ensure adequate compliance with their guidance as well as with regulatory requirements. They may also interview participants to ensure the consent process ensures adequate informedness. If any information or element of the consent materials and process is updated, IRBs need to be able to review these materials in a timely manner. Small administrative changes such as telephone numbers or typographical errors do not require re-approval, however, IRBs should be sent an updated copy on consent forms for their records. The FDA recommends that IRBs have a way of keeping track of up-to-date forms so that previously approved forms are not used in the consent process.
According to the guidance, “the clinical investigator is responsible for protecting the rights, safety, and welfare of subjects during a clinical investigation, and for ensuring that, unless an exception applies, legally effective informed consent is obtained from each subject or the subject’s LAR before that subject takes part in the clinical investigation.” The informed consent must meet all federal, local, and state requirements—in addition to what the FDA may require.
The clinical investigator must inform their IRB of the consent process and materials they will use, as well as who will conduct the consent discussion. They are required to obtain IRB approval for the clinical investigation, the consent form, and any other information given to participants before beginning the consent process. They must obtain approval from their respective IRB for revisions to the consent material or process that may affect the willingness of participants to continue in the study or for prospects’ willingness to initially consent. The IRB will determine whether investigators need to inform previously enrolled participants of the new information and whether the research team should obtain consent to further continue in the study.
Clinical investigators have the authority to delegate the responsibility of the consent discussion to their study staff members. In which case, the FDA expects these staff to be adequately educated, trained and experienced to perform this activity. Whoever is delegated to obtain informed consent should have adequate knowledge of the investigation and be able to address concerns or questions from participants pertaining to the study. An investigator should have a detailed plan for supervising and training staff as it relates to informed consent and other study processes. The investigator remains responsible for all tasks delegated to their team as it relates to obtaining legally effective, informed consent.
Investigators also need to consider whether to disclose financial relationships/interests. This includes things like sources of funding or funding arrangements. As such, special measures can be considered to mitigate financial conflicts of interest such as having unbiased individuals involved in the consent process or using independent monitoring of the consent process.
A sponsor generally gives investigators a standard consent form that can be adapted for local site needs. They should provide any updates of this standard form to investigators to ensure that these forms are up-to-date across sites. Sponsors should work closely with a study’s investigator to ensure IRB approval and should provide a copy of their form—approved by the sponsor’s IRB—to the investigator.
When review from local IRBs result in substantial modifications to the consent form, the FDA expects the sponsor to share these revisions with all investigators and their IRBs. These revisions should be shared with a central IRB if there is one, and central IRBs can also address local issues as needed. Medical device studies may call for additional considerations.
Sponsors may be required to submit different materials as it pertains to drug or device studies. The FDA does not require sponsors to submit consent materials for review for all types of investigations. The agency will generally assess the adequacy of the content, most notably as it relates to the communication of foreseeable risks or discomfort to participants. The FDA reserves the right to require revisions to consent materials that they find to be misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete insofar as it would make participant consent inadequate or otherwise non-compliant with 21 CFR part 50.
The FDA’s review does not substitute for an IRB’s review and approval of the consent form and processes. New drug and biologics do not require the submission of consent materials to the FDA, except in instance where it is deemed necessary to evaluate study safety. If consent forms call for specific exceptions from requirements, these are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Medical device studies that require an IDE application require the submission of all forms and materials in the process for consent. The FDA reviews the consent to ensure it complies with 21 CFR part 50 and sends a letter citing any deficiencies to the sponsor. The study may not begin until the sponsor corrects the deficiencies. If an IRB calls for substantial changes to the informed consent document after IDE approval, the sponsor is required to obtain additional approval from the FDA prior to implementing these changes in their study.
Need help with your informed consent process or language for your IRB?
The post What Researchers Need to Know About the Latest FDA Informed Consent Guidance appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>The post Why People Don’t Consent in Your Studies appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>These days, people who participate in digitally-enabled health research are subject to many types of experiences online. Shopping apps, online dating, accessing their medical records, scheduling appointments, and ordering food are just some of the many ways people are using their smartphones and computers to engage digitally with various products and services. Whether you know it or not, your research interests in engaging potential participants are competing with these digital experiences. And most if not many of these experiences are fine-tuned for optimal user experience. Is your digital research experience on par with these experiences?
Potential participants may be put off from engaging with your consent materials if your website portrays a potentially frustrating or lackluster user experience. It could be stale, uninspiring graphics, or clunky writing, or a lack of buttons that call your prospects to specific actions—like signing up for the study. In a recent research paper, we showed that by creating a website with good user experience, we were able to convert 20.9 percent of vistiors into consenting participants.
Need help building an effective recruitment website?
Your website and accompanying study materials may not be mobile-friendly. Or your study may not provide clear details on who to reach out to on your research team to ask questions. All of these can cause your recruits to abandon your study immediately and not look back.
So it’s important to consider how your messaging and the design of your digital recruitment materials and study materials reflects the modern user experience that many people expect. Any inkling that your website looks or feels outdated to the average research participant could be enough to reflect poorly on your study and discourage enrollment and completion of consent materials.
Often, research teams are more focused on writing materials and consent documentation that serve their interests. They focus on conforming to state rules around consent, and for explaining the study in the way that they, as researchers, understand. But writing materials based on a researcher’s understanding of their research is quite different than writing study materials that reflect the average participant’s understanding of what that research might entail.
To that end, it’s important to take the time to write and rewrite consent materials to adapt them for an audience who may lack health literacy. When in doubt, it’s always helpful to consult a focus group or an advisory board of patients or people who may participate in your study as it relates to your target population and demographics. A test audience, however small, can tell you if your materials are too hard to understand. If you can rewrite your consent documents so that potential participants can more easily get what you are studying and how you will conduct your research, it’s less likely that you will lose prospects to unclear or complicated explanations. You’ll suffer less abandonment at point of consent.
It’s easy to see that any process that seems too lengthy or complex may compel people to abandon the consent process early. If a prospective participant has to read and sign multiple documents, or if there are too many steps in the process, you can easily turn them off from the study.
There may be a way to either break the process into simpler steps, or to do away with unnecessary tasks or information. The key is to avoid redundant information wherever possible. Do you repeat information? Is there a way to reduce the repetition? In terms of breaking the process down, have you considered paginating your consent form? Digital health research platforms like Vibrent’s allow for the breaking down of information into smaller pages, hence the term ‘pagination’. This is especially important for being able to have potential participants digest your consent form in bits and pieces. And doing so allows for people to focus on key information and retain it more easily.
Sometimes life gets in the way. If a potential participant is consenting remotely for your study and gets interrupted, they should be able to easily return to the process. But what if they forget? Digital health research has evolved to the point where it’s easy to monitor who has completed consent after initial enrollment, and who hasn’t.
For that matter, being able to remind prospects that they have yet to complete the consent process is a powerful tool for avoiding non-completion or total study attrition. It’s easy in this modern digital world for people to quickly lose interest in participating in a study. But in having the ability to send out reminders via text message or email to complete a consent form, it’s more likely that you can retain participants at this initial step. Even more important is fruther in the study when you are collecting data on these consented participants. If they forget to complete a survey, you can easily remind them. Being able to remind participants of an uncompleted milestone helps to foster engagement—whether it’s in the consent process or beyond.
Need a robust health research platform to improve your success with eConsent?
When it comes to digital health research, the opportunity to recruit diverse participants across ethnicity, race, age, and other demographics is plentiful. However, you stand to lose recruits when information is not presented in a way that addresses various demographics’ general concerns. For one, privacy and confidentiality can be of utmost concern to many participant demographics where trust is key to engaging these populations. It’s also important to use graphics and imagery that are representative of the diverse demographics you wish to recruit and consent for your studies. For example, a consent video, when showing how research will be conducted, should depict an ethnically diverse sample of participants in its animations.
Technology is also a factor when it comes to consenting a diverse group of participants. People who are socioeconomically disadvantaged lack access to broadband internet and are more often using their smartphones to engage with digital health studies. For aging populations, many are not specifically comfortable with technology, and may benefit from versatile approaches like a computer-assisted telephone interview tool that consents them over the phone.
There are a number of other considerations that research teams need to be aware of when they create their electronic informed consent process and content. Planning up front and engaging your IRB early on are two important factors to make sure that you create consent content that is adherent to things like state regulations, and according to the standards that your institution considers heavily.
Video consent and digital consent call for numerous best practices to follow aside from just writing for your audience and breaking up your content into digestible fragments.
Overall, digital health research needs to be reflective of the modern digital age. EConsent has to adapt to modern best practices for user experience and in its messaging so that it can be clearly understood by a wide range of participants who may lack health literacy. You also need to be able to address values that different patient populations tend to hold as it relates to things like privacy and confidentiality. And above all, you need to meet participants where they’re at as it relates to technology—otherwise they won’t be able to participate.
Ready to consent more participants?
The post Why People Don’t Consent in Your Studies appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>The post How to Write an Engaging, Informative eConsent Video Script appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>So, how do you write a consent video script? Here in this blog, we explain some of the best practices you and your study team can utilize to write an effective video script for your digital consent that compels action from potential participants and fosters understanding.
In order to connect with as many potential participants as possible, it’s important to avoid overly clinical terms. This is because literacy in areas like health care or research is not universally high among populations.
For instance, a 2003 survey from the National Center of Educational Statistics found that only 53% of the US population possess intermediate health literacy. A more recent study by the Kansas Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System has shown that while health literacy is increasing, it’s still not universal, with Kansas residents reporting ‘less than high’ literacy at 67 percent in 2012, and 51 percent in 2018.
If you are looking to recruit specific populations, it’s important to understand their literacy needs. Several studies show that race, ethnicity, age, education level, economic status, health status, cognition, and non-English speaking populations are all factors that affect levels of health literacy. It’s also worth noting the commonly shared values that populations hold to connect with them through your consent video to build trust.
Maintaining a conversational tone in your eConsent video script may be challenging, but it’s essential for making it more engaging and accessible. Remember to balance some of the more clinical aspects of your video script with a friendly, approachable, and relatable tone. Conversational tone implies being able to use everyday language that your audience can understand. It also helps to simplify your script, which makes for an easier flow to the consent video. You can always rewrite the script and substitute more complex terms and words for shorter, simpler words that fulfill the same purpose.
Be sure to address your consenting participants with language like “you” and “we” to make the tone more relatable and to help them easily understand how they will participate in the study. Real life examples are another way to help build understanding for specific concepts. If you are having trouble making complex concepts more relatable, try using metaphors or analogies. The more familiar the analogies/metaphors, the better. If concepts are too complex for your participant audience, be sure to break down complex concepts into smaller components. Or you may consider whether certain concepts are central to a participant’s required understanding to properly consent and omit them altogether.
Need help producing an eConsent video or writing a script?
Overall, you want to convince prospects that it’s worth their time participating. So it’s great to emphasize the benefits. Different benefits may be more important to different populations, so it’s important to understand how your population thinks.
Some potential benefits include:
It’s important to highlight the benefits or participation towards the end of your video as people are closer to making an informed decision on whether to study or not. Alternatively, you can use it in the beginning of the script to gain their curiosity for learning more about the study.
Avoid writing a long script. Participants will generally get distracted if your video is longer than three minutes. Based on our experience creating consent videos, we have found anywhere between a minute and a half to two minutes is an ideal length help maintain attention.
In order to figure out the timing of your script, simply read it out and time yourself. Remember to leave space for natural pauses, which will allow for the video’s content to be more easily digestible to your consenting audience and help you gauge the video’s run length. Remember, consent videos don’t need to contain all the information necessary for consent, since they are often intended as supplementary aids to learning and comprehension. Also, animations in your video can help to add further context to help make your video more concise and effective in explaining your study in less time.
This one is pretty self-evident. It’s important to state the main goal of your study. While in many cases you will want to avoid some of the less significant questions you aim to address. State the questions you want to answer in simple terms. Be sure to explain the types of people you are aiming to recruit. Or you could explain why the participants themselves are being selected to participate. This part of your script might also be a good opportunity to introduce your study team to briefly explain how each of them will be involved.
How will your participants be involved, and what is your study team doing over the course of the research? It’s important to explain how long the study will take, what sort of procedures may be involved, as well as some of the risks and potential benefits. As always, make sure participants are well aware of their rights, specifically as it relates to their right to stop participating at any time they choose for any reason. This is a great area to consult with your IRB when you are submitting various materials for your informed consent process, as it relates to eConsent or otherwise.
Give a high-level description of what the data they provide will be used for, who will have access to it, and how the data will be kept secure. More specifically, how will their personal health information (PHI) and personally identified information (PII) be used/stored? What rights do they have per these data? As previously explained, data privacy and confidentiality are valued among many populations, so it’s important you address this in an easily graspable way.
A call to action is a marketing term defined as a short phrase using a verb to compel a specific action from your audience. In this case, a call to action can be used to compel potential participants to:
To write a clear, concise, compelling consent video script for your research study, consider the following:
To learn more about eConsent video best practices, read our blog:
To learn more general eConsent best practices, read our blog: eConsent Best Practices
Need access to a team of eConsent experts and technology for eConsent?
The post How to Write an Engaging, Informative eConsent Video Script appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>The post Top Three Reasons Why Health Research Survey Participants Lie appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>During our latest podcast Improving Surveys for Higher Completion Using Skillful Methodology, we sat down with our in-house Survey Methodologist Megan Ruxton, PhD to help us understand what makes a good survey. Here in this blog, we recap some examples she told us of why participants lie or provide inaccurate information. And we address some potential solutions that you and your research teams can use to mitigate bad data into your health research studies.
Watch the full podcast episode here:
In the era of digital health research—as in in all things digital, you may encounter bots or survey trolls that are purposely providing bad data or inaccurate answers to throw off the reliability of a study’s measures. Luckily, technology like two-factor authentication, CAPTCHA and other verification techniques can screen out trolls and bots so that data quality is not extensively affected. More recently, Ruxton explained that her colleagues in survey methodology are studying and incorporating machine learning to identify and mitigate fraudulent or otherwise inaccurate responses. And while there is not a solution to completely mitigate this possibility for research teams, digital health research platforms like Vibrent’s can vastly reduce the likelihood of trolls and bots with security best practices and the latest proven opt-in methods.
Ruxton goes on to say that there is a generational or cultural gap often where many older participants aren’t comfortable sharing certain health information they consider to be private. This could be information they may just not know, like family medical history, or something they’re simply too ashamed to admit. “It may be that you’re asking a generation that just doesn’t talk about sensitive topics,” Ruxton added. A good example may be health research surveys asking about sexual history or history of sexually transmitted infections, or an emotionally difficult health experience such as miscarriages.
The key in these situations is to be able to build trust with participants. You and your teams can find ways to preface these kinds of sensitive topics with guidance about the purpose of the question, trigger warnings, or to perhaps use a computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) tool to conduct a live call with a person to give reassurance or support when navigating potentially upsetting questions around medical history. Surveys can also work up to more sensitive topics so that participants don’t feel blindsided with particularly intrusive questions.
There may be the issue that researchers are simply asking the wrong question. “Either someone doesn’t know the correct answer and is either not providing a response or giving you their best guess, or they’re interpreting the question in a way you don’t intend them to,” Ruxton explained.
Or the question’s wording could have multiple interpretations. “This is where it’s advantageous to have multiple eyes on a survey to see how people may be interpreting your questions. Maybe you’re asking something in a way where respondents think they’re giving you the right answer, but it’s not quite what you meant,” Ruxton said.
While bots and trolls are purposely lying, most respondents are not providing inaccurate data intentionally. When mitigating the risk of inaccurate data, it’s key to employ skillful methodologists who can help you word questions and structure health research surveys and questionnaires in a way that fosters trust and clarity for respondents. And in order to avoid the chance of some data trolls or bots, having a technology provider who can help you screen out these kinds of fake participants with the latest digital best practices helps to ensure higher data quality than working with outdated or ineffective polling platforms.
The post Top Three Reasons Why Health Research Survey Participants Lie appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>The post eConsent Best Practices appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>As a result of our work at Vibrent Health in helping clients design and implement eConsent technology and processes, we’ve managed to learn and adapt some best practices that could be useful to you and your research teams looking to adopt this efficient digital method.
Before we begin to offer eConsent best practices, here are some critical differences between eConsent and paper consent.
In creating eConsent content and processes, you first have to think several steps ahead of simple execution. Here are some vital things to consider up front.
State regulations are important to understand up front. Here are some kinds of information that laws typically call for when it comes to digital consent.
Understandably, interpreting and complying with state regulations can be tricky and perhaps time-intensive. Finding an expert or a team of experts can help you navigate a multi-state consent process with a sense of ease and security.
What are the materials you need to submit to an IRB for eConsent? There is some overlap between traditional and electronic consent, but we want to stress some differences.
Read our blog IRB Approval for eConsent: What to Include in Your Protocol for a more in-depth look at what you need to submit to institutional review boards for digital consent.
Another best practice for eConsent is to consider integrating intuitive communication tools and processes that make eConsent an easier process for people who want to participate in your study.
How do you create an easy, gratifying experience for participants? Here are some best practices to follow.
eConsent is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to engagement. Remember to follow these rules beyond the initial consent process with participants.
eConsent continues to gain adoption and as a result has made an increasing impact on how participants engage with research studies. But we think there’s more to it that simply just doing it, and we’ve learned a lot of important lessons. There are far more nuances beyond this quick guide to eConsent.
The post eConsent Best Practices appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>The post Frequently Asked Questions on Increasing Participant Engagement in Research Studies appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>Improving participant engagement is all about adopting best practices and more efficient technology and processes. In this FAQ, we will seek to address some of these best practices and digital methods to ensure you and your research team are taking advantage of tested approaches to increasing participant engagement in your research studies.
If you don’t see a question you want to ask below, please email us at info@vibrenthealth.com.
Attracting more participants requires using a multi-channel approach to find the right participants and communicate in a way that these populations understand and can appreciate.
Relying on only in-person recruitment or flyers will greatly reduce your study’s ability to consent enough participants. Beyond these traditional methods, you will need to add digital channels and methods to your plan.
Using ads and regular social media posts targeted to the demographics you want to recruit is key to finding the right audience using digital methods. Secondly, utilizing a community approach will help you to reach specific demographics as well as building a more personal rapport between research institutions/team members and potential participants. Find community organizations and events you can collaborate with to tap into their networks and to engage more directly with your target populations.
It’s also extremely important when writing messages to attract participants to think like the populations you want to recruit. Use messages that resonate with your participants. For instance, older generations may respond well to the benefit of contributing to the health of future generations. Minority populations who have a strong sense of community may respond well to the idea that they are contributing to the health of their race/ethnicity and thus helping to preserve their culture. For that matter, it is also important to reach out to the communities that you wish to engage for your studies.
Lastly, in addition to using social media, it’s important to leverage other digital tools that can help to market your study to potential participants. Tools like study websites are incredibly helpful in explaining how studies work. Recruitment video can be a powerful tool for the recruitment and consent process. Working with experts in developing these kinds of digital media can help you to scale your recruitment more quickly and easily.
Retention strategies hinge especially on maintaining open and transparent communication with participants. This is especially true in long-term studies that may include a genomics element. It’s important to provide regular updates on the study progress and its outcomes. This may entail providing return of information regarding the participant or the study in general. Of particular importance in your communication is to give participants choices in terms of the mediums in which you communicate such as SMS, email, newsletters, phone calls, etc. Providing participants the opportunity to indicate how they want to be contacted can help to give them the power to communicate the way they want to with the study team. It may also be important to include a community element or involve family members in your study to encourage ongoing participation.
Additionally, you can encourage participants to continue the study by emphasizing the impact of their participation. You can also retain participants by offering incentives or rewards for their continued participation. This could look like offering gift cards when participants complete important study milestones.
Essentially, implementing informed consent in your study requires you to make it easy for participants to understand and retain information about your study and how it may affect them. This allows you to build ample trust with your participants early in the study.
Be sure to use clear and simple language in your informed consent documents. Use video, infographics, and forms of interactive multimedia like knowledge checks to help participants to easily learn about your study and demonstrate their understanding. Additionally, give your participants ample time to review the information to make their decision.
This is why electronic consent can be a great tool to encourage participation in your study, because it allows for participants to review consent documents on their time and to access them digitally for further review. If you’re looking to implement eConsent, we recommend working with a digital consent provider who can help you navigate regulations and various technological and ethical considerations when submitting materials to your IRB.
Study teams need to consider adapting modern digital approaches that most potential participants are used to seeing in their everyday lives. Video content, interactive online modules like knowledge checks, explanatory graphics and clear, concise writing resonates with potential participants and helps them better understand your study. Gamification elements showing progress and achievement of study milestones helps keep things transparent and can motivate participants to carry forward with study activities like filling out surveys. When it comes to writing, utilize storytelling techniques, testimonials, as well as words and phrasing that prospects can relate to when they’re deciding to participate or not.
Yes, there are specific incentives or rewards that have been shown to increase participant engagement in studies without compromising study integrity. These incentives are carefully designed to encourage participation while minimizing potential biases or undue influence on participants. Here are some examples:
It’s crucial to strike a balance between motivating participation and ensuring the integrity of the study. Researchers must be transparent about the incentives provided and avoid offering rewards that could lead to biased or untruthful responses. Lastly, it’s important to gain approval from your institutional review board (IRB) as to what type of incentives you plan to use.
If you want to encourage participation from diverse populations, cultural sensitivity is important. You can involve representatives from the target populations you wish to recruit in your study design process to ensure they agree with various elements of the study. You can also consider translating study materials into relevant languages if necessary. And lastly, it’s important to understand different cultural norms and traditions as it relates to your research. Incorporating that understanding is key to your research study recruiting and retaining a culturally, ethnically, and racially diverse population.
It’s important to maintain regular communication, especially in long-term studies, to keep participants informed and engaged. Using regular touchpoints of communication helps to remind study participants of their role in the study and can remind them therefore to keep up with their participation. It is highly encouraged to use a mix of communication channels, or to give participants the ability to indicate communication preferences so that you can reach out to them using email, SMS, phone calls, newsletters or in other ways that meet participants where they’re at.
Digital tools and technologies can increase participation by allowing for more convenience and accessibility as well as serving as an empowering and connecting experience. For example, online communities or discussion boards where participants can interact and share experiences fosters connection and community support. Mobile apps help to make the completion of study-related activities easier, and can help remind participants to complete surveys and other forms. Virtual meetings or webinars can increase engagement by speaking to the management of a condition or another relevant topic. Feedback sessions or other interactive events can encourage participants to let study teams know about their experiences with different aspects of the study. This can encourage a two-way communication between researchers and the people they study to increase the quality of studies and ultimately the quality of the data.
Having study websites that help recruit participants and have easy-to-remember domain names are instrumental in recruiting and keeping participants involved in your study. Study portals can be used in place of, or in tandem with mobile applications so that participants can easily access study materials, fill out surveys, and easily obtain return of results. Online study portals and apps can also give participants more control over how they receive communication, and gives them the ability to connect wearable devices as well as their electronic health records to the study, thus prov
Participation in studies has many aspects that researchers don’t even think about. It can be helpful for researchers to conduct a preliminary survey, a pilot test with a small group of participants, or interviews that could help identify potential barriers from potential participants or target study populations. Since one common barrier is time, offering flexible study schedules or locations can help accommodate participants as they navigate busy or atypical schedules. Creating study materials and engagement opportunities that are accessible to populations with disabilities are especially important. Text-to-speech, captioning for graphics and video, ensuring readability of text, accounting for text size, color, and contrast are some of many accessibility considerations. Also, if you plan to recruit many non-English speakers, translation is important to ensuring comprehension and thus quality data.
Support and resources can also address practical challenges such as childcare, or financial and other support for particularly financially vulnerable populations to help them with transportation and other expenses. Remember that many participants find privacy concerns to be a barrier to participation. Find a way to safeguard protected health information and personally identifiable information they provide in the study and inform participants and prospects of these safeguards.
In addition to ensuring support in face of these barriers, maintain two-way communication channels so that participants can address additional concerns as the study progresses. If you notice engagement dropping from participants, reach out to see if there’s anything you can do to understand the reasons behind it and make necessary adjustments.
Before you consider implementing particular ways of improving participant engagement, it’s important to obtain informed consent that ensures participants are fully aware of their rights and so you have the right to re-contact them. Secondly, when considering ways to engage, be sure to protect participant privacy and confidentiality throughout the study. Lastly, engagement comes in many forms, and it may include monitoring for any signs of participant distress and reaching out to participants to give them access to appropriate support and resources that can help.
If you have any other concerns regarding the ethics of your study, seek the trusted guidance of your institutional review board (IRB) or a trusted technology provider who can help you navigate the ethical nuances of digital engagement.
Engaging and communicating with participants carries with it certain inherent risks that can be mitigated with effective approaches. For one, you can overburden or annoy participants with excessive communication or tasks, which can stress out participants or cause them to lose interest in your study. Potential data security and privacy risks may also arise if you are using digital tools. It’s important to work with technology providers and services to ensure robust data protection measures are in place to prevent leaks of protected health information and personally identifiable information. It’s also important to identify these risks early on to your IRB along with risk mitigation measures you can take to safeguard participant data.
Keeping participants motivated to continue in studies can be challenging, especially if there are demands on their time, finances, and other aspects of their lives. It may be important to find regular touchpoints of communication to remind participants of the potential impact their contribution will have on the research, and how the research can be used to help other people in the future. These touchpoints can also be used to gather feedback from participants about what needs to be done to improve their experience in the study.
Utilizing a comprehensive digital solution for case management and in managing and contacting different lists of participants based on study milestone completion and demographics can be instrumental to maintaining contact with different participants more easily without having to email individual participants. This kind of software also gives participants more freedom in scheduling appointments and providing data such as surveys and wearable data. Digital health research software can also give participants automated reminders to complete consent forms, surveys, and other study milestones.
Finding ways to gather feedback regularly can give you ongoing insight into how to engage your participants better. Find a way to act on feedback promptly to show you care about participants and their experiences in the study. Once you implement changes, find a way to communicate these changes to participants to make sure they know you hear them.
Adding a question to gain feedback at the end of data collection surveys could be one way to continuously make sure you are improving your study. It will also give you greater insight into how participants think, so you can create better studies in the future. If digital solutions like REDCap are serving as a roadblock to creating a better study with improved engagement, consider working with software that provides a more comprehensive, effective, user-friendly set of tools and a better experience for participants.
Your research can dictate how you engage with participants. Some study types require more tailored approaches than others. For instance, qualitative research may involve more interactive discussions, while surveys can often focus on clarity and brevity. Clinical trials will involve more in-clinic testing and may require more trust to be built from clinicians since investigational drugs could alter the course of a participant’s health indelibly. Studies with a longitudinal survey component may require more communication touchpoints to keep participants engaged over time.
Regardless of study types, a digital software that addresses data collection and patient engagement can vastly increase the abilities of research teams to keep their studies going, recruit participants and keep them engaged to ensure adequate data size and quality.
Participant engagement can be tricky, but there are a few common mistakes researchers make to increase the chances of disengagement. For one, if participants aren’t given consistent, regular communication or feedback throughout the study, it’s easy for their interest to wane. Secondly, if study procedures or tasks become too complex, participants can get easily frustrated or distracted. This results in decreased compliance, or a total dropout from the study. When researchers fail to recognize and appreciate participants’ efforts, then participants may end up feeling taken for granted, which can decrease the motivation to continue or engage as fully as they could.
Lastly, researchers often fail to acknowledge the role that technology plays in providing a good participant experience. Participants are interacting with technology all the time and expect consumer-grade digital experiences that are mobile friendly, use clear and concise phrasing, and incorporate user experience best practices.
There are many ways to disseminate research findings in ways that participants find enjoyable and increases their motivation in the study activities. You can organize participant-centered dissemination events or conferences. You can share study outcomes and publications with participants directly—this includes digital methods that allow you to give participants easy access to return of results. In some cases, studies have involved participants in writing blogs or articles related to the research!
Be sure to use clear, unambiguous language in questions. Keep surveys concise and focused on relevant topics. And If you want to identify any issues or areas of improvement, pilot test the survey with a small group of potential participants or other researchers if you can. If you can, work with a services team with expertise in creating surveys and designing electronic data capture systems that capitalize on best practices in both of these areas.
Striking a balance between obtaining valuable data and respecting the time and effort of participants is a perennial issue in research. Structuring your data collection processes to minimize patient/participant burden and avoiding fatigue is key. This can be done by using proven digital data collection methods to minimize the amount of time participants need to be at a site for in-person appointments. Also, be sure to offer incentives that reflect the value and length of time of the participants’ efforts.
Many study teams don’t seek to understand how other studies and institutions are successfully improving their engagement from participants. There are many studies that have adopted proven strategies with the help of efficient digital methods that drastically reduce their time and effort recruiting and engaging participants. Researchers can benefit from reading existing literature and reaching out to colleagues in the field to understand ways they can increase their chances of success in engaging participants.
Here are some case studies where institutions and study teams are utilizing best practices and efficient, comprehensive software tools that improve engagement:
The effectiveness of participant engagement strategies can vary depending on the specific context and study population. However, there are many benefits to adopting best practices that have proven successful across many different studies and research contexts. The key is to connect with other researchers, and to comb literature and case studies that show the effectiveness of participant engagement strategies as they relate to challenges particular to your study protocol, the populations you study, and in achieving your study program’s aims.
It’s important to continuously assess and adapt your approach. This can be based on participant feedback during your study, or in looking at sensible approaches that incorporate the latest proven methods. Ultimately, the depth of insight your research uncovers is driven by the quality of your data. You need to successfully engage participants and drive optimal value for your research and its impact on human health.
Don’t see a question you want to ask? Email us at info@vibrenthealth.com.
The post Frequently Asked Questions on Increasing Participant Engagement in Research Studies appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>The post Building a genomics cohort study through patient engagement appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>The post Building a genomics cohort study through patient engagement appeared first on Vibrent.
]]>