July 26, 2019: Digital in Trials: Improving Participation and Enabling Novel Endpoints (Craig H. Lipset)

Speaker

Craig H. Lipset
Former Head of Clinical Innovation, Pfizer

Topic

Digital in Trials: Improving Participation and Enabling Novel Endpoints

Keywords

Digital tools; Clinical trials; Participant experience; Patient engagement; Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative

Key Points

  • To improve trial participation, start by understanding the user/consumer; ie, the trial participant and his or her trial experience.
  • Digital improvements in clinical trials can involve these incremental steps:
    • Study planning that is data-driven, crowdsourced, and informed by artificial intelligence
    • Patient engagement that implements electronic consent, flexibility in location, digital concierge support, and data ownership
    • Study conduct that integrates remote monitoring, digital biomarkers, and electronically sourced data
    • Analysis and reporting that is automated and includes dissemination to trial participants

Discussion Themes

Will digital tools in medicine development enable improvement, disruption, or displacement?

Digital tools in development focus on breaking down barriers to participation, using digital to improve existing measurement or enable new endpoints, and automating processes and tasks while improving quality.

Tags

#pctGR, @Collaboratory1

July 19, 2019: Misinformation as a Source of Complication for Clinical Trials (Brian Southwell, PhD)

Speaker

Brian Southwell, PhD
Senior Director, Science in the Public Sphere, RTI International
Duke-RTI Scholar, Duke Forge, Duke University

Topic

Misinformation as a Source of Complication for Clinical Trials

Keywords

Behavioral sciences; Health behavior; Health knowledge, attitudes, practice; Misinformation; Patient selection; Treatment refusal

Key Points

  • Both lack of information and misinformation likely reduce participation in clinical trials.
  • Many sources of misinformation engender distrust of treatment, including inaccurate online sources, questionable sources trying to sell products, some health education from advocacy organizations, and even conventional news sources.
  • It is important to understand misinformation, how it emerges, its consequences, and the unintended effects of correcting it.
  • Our needs for social connection and hope for the future make us vulnerable to medical misinformation.
  • Studies support the corrective potential of direct rebuttal and large-scale exposure to accurate information.
  • It is important for clinicians and researchers to monitor and understand patients’ information environments and to build and maintain trust between healthcare systems and patients.

Discussion Themes

Emerging literature on misinformation highlights our humanity. Our needs for social connection and hope for the future make us vulnerable to misinformation.

Correcting misinformation is difficult and requires understanding of human psychology and patients’ information environments, and promotion of the shared interests of patients and healthcare systems.

June 28, 2019: Moving Beyond Return of Research Results to Return of Value (Consuelo Wilkins, MD, MSCI)

Speaker

Consuelo H. Wilkins, MD, MSCI
Vice President for Health Equity, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Executive Director, Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance

Topic

Moving Beyond Return of Research Results to Return of Value

Keywords

Health outcomes; Research results; Patient preferences; Value of information

Key Points

  • In returning value to research participants, results are shared with added context, are prioritized by each participant, include specific suggestions for relevant actions, and incorporate participant recommendations and preferences.
  • Data captured for research purposes, including EHR data, vital signs, and genetic data, can be repurposed and reoriented for study participants.
  • Participants are more likely to trust research if results are returned—and they are more likely to participate again.

Discussion Themes

We need to return study results that are informed by participants, and we need to design approaches for accessing and understanding results that participants will want to use.

We should think carefully about risk mitigation when returning research results for which there is a clear next step or action for the participant.

Read more about understanding what information is valued by research participants in a recent article by Dr. Wilkins and colleagues in Health Affairs.

Tags

#pctGR, @Collaboratory1, @drchwilkins, @vumchealth

April 26, 2019: The VERITAS Trial: Virtual Exercise Rehabilitation at the Intersection of Evidence, Implementation, and Policy (Janet Prvu Bettger, ScD)

Speaker

Janet Prvu Bettger, ScD, FAHA
Associate Professor
Duke Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
Duke Clinical Research Institute

Topic

The VERITAS Trial: Virtual Exercise Rehabilitation at the Intersection of Evidence, Implementation, and Policy

Keywords

Rehabilitation; Virtual physical therapy; Patient outcomes; Physical therapy; Orthopaedic surgery; Total knee replacement; Digital technology; Telehealth

Key Points

  • The VERITAS trial evaluated the effects of physical therapy–supported virtual exercise compared with traditional home- or clinic-based physical therapy after total knee replacement. Outcome measures included 90-day health service use costs; patient-centered outcomes; and differential improvement from 6 weeks to 3 months.
  • The Center for Connected Health Policy found that while most states currently have established telehealth policies for primary care providers, these often do not include physical or occupational therapists.
  • Tele-rehabilitation facilitates communication between the patient and physical therapist in real time. The VERA™ technology provides a virtual physical therapist assistant for patients and clinicians, offering a digital interface that includes patient education, longitudinal functional assessments, telehealth video conferencing, personalized exercises, and remote monitoring of patient progress.

Discussion Themes

Study results support effectiveness and safety hypotheses: that tele-rehabilitation is noninferior to traditional physical therapy with respect to range of motion, walking speed, pain, or rehospitalization. However, it was not shown that the intervention is noninferior with respect to falls after hospital discharge.

Because virtual physical therapy interventions can save total costs, prevent readmissions, and improve mobility, it will be important to expand access to tele-rehabilitation and to advance policies that include physical therapists.

Read more about the VERITAS project and at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Tags

#telehealth, #pctGR, @Collaboratory1

March 13, 2019: PROVEN Publishes Study of Nursing Home Characteristics Associated With Implementation of an Advance Care Planning Video Intervention

The Collaboratory Demonstration Project Pragmatic Trial of Video Education in Nursing Homes (PROVEN) is testing the effectiveness of a novel advance care planning (ACP) video education program in 360 nursing homes within 2 large nursing home healthcare systems. The investigators of PROVEN recently published a study that examines the characteristics of nursing homes associated with implementation of the video. They found that lower quality nursing homes (rated 1 star) had lower offer rates than higher quality nursing homes, suggesting that ongoing support might be necessary in these settings, as well as engagement with a local champion.

ACP is a process by which individuals define their future goals and preferences for medical treatment at the end of life and discuss these goals with their family and healthcare providers. ACP is especially important for nursing home residents, who often receive unnecessary care and experience burdensome transitions at the end of life. The ACP intervention in PROVEN is delivered by an onsite champion at the facility—usually a social worker with structured training in how and when to offer and show the ACP videos to residents and families.

 “These results have implications for future pragmatic trials in the NH [nursing home] setting because ongoing engagement between research and NH staff appears crucial for successful integration of interventions into routine clinical practice. Future research is needed to understand how to best engage NHs in implementation and encourage communication between NHs to share pragmatic strategies for improving clinical practice without the support of research staff.”

– Loomer et al. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

February 1, 2019: Promoting Effective Advance Care Planning Communication in the Elderly: The ACP-PEACE Trial (James Tulsky, MD, Angelo Volandes, MD, MPH)

Speakers

James Tulsky, MD
Chair, Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School
Chief, Division of Palliative Medicine
Brigham and Women’s Hospital

Angelo Volandes, MD, MPH
Associate Professor of Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School

Topic

Promoting Effective Advance Care Planning Communication in the Elderly: The ACP-PEACE Trial

Keywords

Pragmatic clinical trial; Advance care planning; ACP PEACE; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; National Institute on Aging; Palliative care; Video declarations; Goal-concordant care; Patient preferences

Key Points

  • Many people with serious illness die without receiving goal-concordant care, and patients over the age of 65 with cancer experience this disproportionately. Helping patients engage in advance care planning (ACP) can empower them to express and record their goals so that their care can be aligned with their preferences.
  • The ACP PEACE Demonstration Project is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, randomized trial of a comprehensive ACP program in oncology clinics at 3 health systems. It will involve a combination of 2 evidence-based programs:
    • VitalTalk teaches clinicians important communication skills in having empathic conversations with seriously ill patients.
    • ACP Decisions uses videos to promote planning and decision-making by patients and families.
  • The ACP PEACE study will monitor long-term outcomes to evaluate whether patients received the care they planned for and wanted.

Discussion Themes

The last element of the ACP PEACE trial is a video declaration (ViDec), recorded by a subset of patients. In recording the ViDec, patients are prompted by questions assessing their confidence with their decision, satisfaction, decisional regret, and patient-provider experience.

The ACP PEACE study team has a scaling strategy in place if the intervention proves effective. Implementing the intervention as standard of care will involve a culture shift from what is currently expected in health systems.

Read more about the ACP PEACE Demonstration Project in the Living Textbook.

Tags

#AdvanceCarePlanning, #pctGR, @Collaboratory1 @VitalTalk, @ACPDecisions

November 16, 2018: New Living Textbook Chapter on Team Composition for Pragmatic Trials

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted by gathering data during the course of routine care. Accordingly, health care system personnel—not research personnel—will be collecting data and delivering the intervention. A new Living Textbook chapter describes the considerations for team composition to help ensure the success of an ePCT.

“Many different people are involved in the conduct of an ePCT, and when designing a trial, an investigator will need to carefully consider the roles of potential team members, including which roles are essential, and who will fill the roles.”

—Dr. Lesley Curtis in ePCT Team Composition

October 9, 2018: New Recommendations for Engaging Patients in Roles Other Than as Research Subjects

A panel funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) recently published recommendations for the oversight of patients who participate in research roles other than as “research subject.” Patients and caregivers participate in many roles, such as co-investigators, study personnel, and advisors in research studies, and this creates novel ethical and regulatory challenges. The panel provides a taxonomy for these roles and recommendations for appropriate oversight. The group also provides recommendations about identifying and engaging a diverse mix of patients and developing mechanisms to protect against possible conflicts of interest. Finally, given the ubiquity of mobile health and other emerging technologies for use by patients, the recommendations provide guidance about the inclusion of these technologies in patient-centered outcomes research, with specific attention to education, best practices, and appropriate privacy protections.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Robert Califf expressed his support for the panel’s efforts and their taxonomy for patients in patient-centered outcomes research:

“Given the persistent gap between the slow pace of research and the pressing need for high-quality evidence to guide practice in areas of clinical uncertainty on one hand, and the potential offered by more pragmatic, people-centered research methods on the other, we need positive approaches for making learning through research a routine part of clinical care rather than an exceptional event.”

 

April 13, 2018: PCORI Launches Tool for Exploring Literature on Engagement in Health Research

Seeking to advance the study and practice of engagement in health research, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) recently launched the Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer. Locating relevant research articles about engagement can be challenging because of a lack of standard terminology. The new tool searches a curated database of peer-reviewed literature on engagement. Articles are included in the database if they describe engagement experiences, report research findings on engagement practices, or present theories, concepts, or views on engagement. The database is updated monthly and is one way PCORI is helping to promote meaningful involvement of patients, caregivers, clinicians, and other healthcare stakeholders throughout the research process.

Read more information about the explorer tool and how it was developed.

You can also learn more about stakeholder engagement in the Living Textbook chapter.

March 15, 2018: New Resource for Understanding Ethical and Regulatory Architecture of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Data

Using patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) data requires balancing the need for sufficient private health information to support meaningful research with the need to protect patient privacy and autonomy. In support of this dual goal, The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) has just released a document that provides a collection of tools and resources aimed at helping a broad audience of stakeholders understand the ethical and regulatory requirements related to collecting, using, sharing, and disclosing PCOR data.

“An architecture is necessary to ensure patient privacy is protected and health information is appropriately secured during collection, access, use, and disclosure as required by law, regulation, and/or policy.” —Legal and Ethical Architecture for PCOR Data

PCOR data will help expand the evidence base for therapies and improve health outcomes for individual patients.

Read the full document: Legal and Ethical Architecture for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) Data (“Architecture”)

The document is divided into 5 chapters:

Chapter 1: Overview of Legal and Ethical Architecture for PCOR Data provides background for the project and an overview of key ethical and regulatory requirements.

Chapter 2: Legal and Ethical Significance of Data for PCOR describes fundamental concepts for organizing data into categories such that legal and ethical frameworks can be applied. The chapter includes key considerations and types of data relevant to PCOR, such as clinical, administrative, patient-generated, etc.

Chapter 3: Linking Legal and Ethical Requirements to PCOR Data organizes the relevant legal provisions according to the key data considerations outlined in Chapter 2: identifiability, subject, source, access and use/purpose, consent/authorization, security, and legal status.

Chapter 4: Framework for Navigating Legal and Ethical Requirements for PCOR is designed as a decision tool that builds on the key data considerations described in Chapters 2 and 3. The goal of this chapter is to help researchers determine whether laws apply to particular data and if so, what requirements to attach to their collection and use.

Chapter 5: Mapping Research Flows to Legal Requirements identifies 6 hypothetical use cases, identifies decision trigger points, and maps representative data flows to the relevant legal requirements.