Evaluating the Revised National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial Definition Impact on Recruitment Progress.

IF 2.9 4区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Research Evaluation Pub Date : 2022-04-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-17 DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvac003
Eugene I Kane, Gail L Daumit, Kevin M Fain, Roberta W Scherer, Emma Elizabeth McGinty
{"title":"Evaluating the Revised National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial Definition Impact on Recruitment Progress.","authors":"Eugene I Kane,&nbsp;Gail L Daumit,&nbsp;Kevin M Fain,&nbsp;Roberta W Scherer,&nbsp;Emma Elizabeth McGinty","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvac003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a revised, expanded definition of \"clinical trial\" in 2014 to improve trial identification and administrative compliance. Some stakeholders voiced concerns that the policy added administrative burden potentially slowing research progress.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This quasi-experimental study examined the difference-in-differences impact of the new NIH clinical trial definition policy on participant recruitment progress in grants funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>132 funded clinical trial grants were identified. While more grants were identified as clinical trials under the revised definition, the difference-in-differences in recruitment progress before and after the policy change was not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The revised NIH clinical trial definition had no clear effect on recruitment progress in newly-identified NIMH-funded clinical trials as compared to traditionally-identified clinical trials. Concerns that administrative delays and burden could impact study progress may be alleviated by these initial results.</p>","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":"31 2","pages":"249-256"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9558491/pdf/nihms-1840571.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a revised, expanded definition of "clinical trial" in 2014 to improve trial identification and administrative compliance. Some stakeholders voiced concerns that the policy added administrative burden potentially slowing research progress.

Methods: This quasi-experimental study examined the difference-in-differences impact of the new NIH clinical trial definition policy on participant recruitment progress in grants funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).

Results: 132 funded clinical trial grants were identified. While more grants were identified as clinical trials under the revised definition, the difference-in-differences in recruitment progress before and after the policy change was not statistically significant.

Conclusions: The revised NIH clinical trial definition had no clear effect on recruitment progress in newly-identified NIMH-funded clinical trials as compared to traditionally-identified clinical trials. Concerns that administrative delays and burden could impact study progress may be alleviated by these initial results.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估修订后的美国国立卫生研究院临床试验定义对招募进展的影响。
背景:美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)于2014年公布了一项修订的、扩展的“临床试验”定义,以改善试验识别和行政合规。一些利益相关者表示担心,该政策增加了行政负担,可能会减缓研究进展。方法:本准实验研究考察了新的美国国立卫生研究院临床试验定义政策对国家精神卫生研究所(NIMH)资助的参与者招募进展的差异中的差异影响。结果:确定了132项临床试验资助。虽然根据修订的定义,更多的赠款被确定为临床试验,但政策改变前后招募进展的差异在统计上并不显著。结论:与传统临床试验相比,修订后的NIH临床试验定义对新确定的nimh资助临床试验的招募进展没有明显影响。对行政延误和负担可能影响研究进展的担忧可能会因这些初步结果而减轻。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Evaluation
Research Evaluation INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
18.20%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Research Evaluation is a peer-reviewed, international journal. It ranges from the individual research project up to inter-country comparisons of research performance. Research projects, researchers, research centres, and the types of research output are all relevant. It includes public and private sectors, natural and social sciences. The term "evaluation" applies to all stages from priorities and proposals, through the monitoring of on-going projects and programmes, to the use of the results of research.
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Methods for measuring social and conceptual dimensions of convergence science Correction to: Stated preference methods and STI policy studies: a foreground approach A tribute to our dearly departed colleague and friend: An introduction to the Special Issue in memory of Prof. Paul Benneworth The legal foundation of responsible research assessment: An overview on European Union and Italy The conflict of impact for early career researchers planning for a future in the academy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1