Empowering Employees Starts with Building a Strong Culture
Now more than ever, people are seeking out employment at organizations that offer more than just standard benefits. They are […]
Now more than ever, people are seeking out employment at organizations that offer more than just standard benefits. They are […]
Scientific abstracts and articles have reported that 20-50% of studies do not accrue subjects at the site level (1-6). This contributes to a significant amount of waste in clinical research, particularly in the forms of staff time and monetary resources. Such waste can be reduced through the careful selection of clinical trials to activate early in the process, before investing a lot of resources. The protocol feasibility review process achieves this by providing a method to review the logistical aspects of a clinical trial prior to starting the activation process.
Study activation data from the Forte community shows on average, it takes about six months to activate a new, interventional, treatment clinical trial. Long activation periods are not a new trend – in 2008, Dr. David Dilts’ findings showed it took hundreds of steps to activate an NCI-funded trial at a single site. This was just to get the study open to accrual, not to conduct the study. He also found that not all steps added value to the process. To make his point, he charted the study activation process and when he was done, it was 50 feet long by 5 feet tall and in 8-point font! If the clinical development time of a new treatment is to ever decrease, reducing the time in study activation is necessary so actual research can be done.
While some completely virtual trials are taking place, the real trend involves bringing virtual trial components to traditional study designs to improve study efficiency and reduce participant burden.
Creating feasibility assessments can be as frustrating for sponsors as answering questionnaires is for sites. Here’s how sponsors can alleviate these frustrations, according to sites.