Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Oct 11;23(1):229.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02054-9.

Exploring the perspectives of selectors and collecters of trial outcome data: an international qualitative study

Affiliations

Exploring the perspectives of selectors and collecters of trial outcome data: an international qualitative study

Heidi R Green et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Introduction: Selecting and collecting data to support appropriate primary and secondary outcomes is a critical step in designing trials that can change clinical practice. In this study, we aimed to investigate who contributes to the process of selecting and collecting trial outcomes, and how these people are involved. This work serves two main purposes: (1) it provides the trials community with evidence to demonstrate how outcomes are currently selected and collected, and (2) it allows people involved in trial design and conduct to pick apart these processes to consider how efficiencies and improvements can be made.

Methods: One-with-one semi-structured interviews, supported by a topic guide to ensure coverage of key content. The Framework approach was used for thematic analysis of data, and themes were linked through constant comparison of data both within and across participant groups. Interviews took place between July 2020 and January 2021. Participants were twenty-nine international trialists from various contributor groups, working primarily on designing and/or delivering phase III pragmatic effectiveness trials. Their experience spanned various funders, trial settings, clinical specialties, intervention types, and participant populations.

Results: We identified three descriptive themes encompassing the process of primary and secondary outcome selection, collection, and the publication of outcome data. Within these themes, participants raised issues around the following: 1) Outcome selection: clarity of the research question; confidence in selecting trial outcomes and how confidence decreases with increased experience; interplay between different interested parties; how patients and the public are involved in outcome selection; perceived impact of poor outcome selection including poor recruitment and/or retention; and use of core outcome sets. 2) Outcome collection: disconnect between decisions made by outcome selectors and the practical work done by outcome collectors; potential impact of outcome measures on trial participants; potential impact on trial staff workload; and use of routinely collected data. 3) Publication of outcome data: difficulties in finding time to write and revise manuscripts for publication due to time and funding constraints. Participants overwhelmingly focused on the process of outcome selection, a topic they talked about unprompted. When prompted, participants do discuss outcome collection, but poor communication between selectors and collectors at the trial design stage means that outcome selection is rarely linked with the data collection workload it generates.

Discussion: People involved in the design and conduct of trials fail to connect decisions around outcome selection with data collection workload. Publication of outcome data and effective dissemination of trial results are hindered due to the project-based culture of some academic clinical trial research.

Keywords: Data collection; Outcome collection; Outcome selection; Public and patient involvement; Randomised controlled trials; Research waste.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

ST is an Editor-in-Chief of Trials, a BMC journal, HG is also an Associate Editor of Trials. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Coster WJ. Making the best match: selecting outcome measures for clinical trials outcome studies. Am J Occup Ther. 2013;67(2):162–70. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2013.006015. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Heneghan C, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR. Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials. 2017;18:122. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1870-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tudur Smith C, Hickey H, Clarke M, Blazeby J, Williamson P. The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise. Trials. 2014;15:32. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-32. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Iwashyna TJ, McPeake J. Choosing outcomes for clinical trials: a pragmatic perspective. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24(5):428–33. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000532. - DOI - PubMed
    1. O’Leary E, Seow H, Julian J, Levine M, Pond GR. Data collection in cancer clinical trials: too much of a good thing? Clin Trails. 2013;10:624–32. doi: 10.1177/1740774513491337. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources