首页> 外文OA文献 >Working towards consensus on methods used to elicit participant-reported safety data in uncomplicated malaria clinical drug studies: a Delphi technique study
【2h】

Working towards consensus on methods used to elicit participant-reported safety data in uncomplicated malaria clinical drug studies: a Delphi technique study

机译:努力就用于在简单的疟疾临床药物研究中得出参与者报告的安全性数据的方法达成共识:Delphi技术研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background: Eliciting adverse event (AE) and non-study medication data reports from clinical research participants is integral to evaluating drug safety. However, using different methods to question participants yields inconsistent results, compromising the interpretation, comparison and pooling of data across studies. This is particularly important given the widespread use of anti-malarials in vulnerable populations, and their increasing use in healthy, but at-risk individuals, as preventive treatment or to reduce malaria transmission. Methods: Experienced and knowledgeable anti-malarial drug clinical researchers were invited to participate in a Delphi technique study, to facilitate consensus on what are considered optimal (relevant, important and feasible) methods, tools, and approaches for detecting participant-reported AE and non-study medication data in uncomplicated malaria treatment studies. Results: Of 72 invited, 25, 16 and 10 panellists responded to the first, second and third rounds of the Delphi, respectively. Overall, 68% (68/100) of all questioning items presented for rating achieved consensus. When asking general questions about health, panellists agreed on the utility of a question/concept about any change in health, taking care to ensure that such questions/concepts do not imply causality. Eighty-nine percent (39/44) of specific signs and symptoms questions were rated as optimal. For non-study medications, a general question and most structured questioning items were considered an optimal approach. The use of mobile phones, patient diaries, rating scales as well as openly engaging with participants to discuss concerns were also considered optimal complementary data-elicitation tools. Conclusions: This study succeeded in reaching consensus within a section of the anti-malarial drug clinical research community about using a general question concept, and structured questions for eliciting data about AEs and nonstudy medication reports. The concepts and items considered in this Delphi to be relevant, important and feasible should be further investigated for potential inclusion in a harmonized approach to collect participant-elicited antimalarial drug safety data. This, in turn, should improve understanding of anti-malarial drug safety.
机译:背景:临床研究参与者产生的不良事件(AE)和非研究用药数据报告对于评估药物安全性至关重要。但是,使用不同的方法来质疑参与者会产生不一致的结果,从而损害了整个研究中数据的解释,比较和汇总。考虑到抗疟疾在易感人群中的广泛使用,以及在健康但有风险的个人中越来越多地使用抗疟疾作为预防性治疗或减少疟疾的传播,这一点尤其重要。方法:邀请有经验和知识渊博的抗疟药临床研究人员参加Delphi技术研究,以促进就检测参与者报告的AE和非AE的最佳(相关,重要和可行)最佳方法,工具和方法达成共识。 -在简单的疟疾治疗研究中研究药物数据。结果:在72位受邀者中,有25位,16位和10位小组成员分别对第一轮,第二轮和第三轮德尔福做出了回应。总体而言,所有提出评分的提问项目中有68%(68/100)获得了共识。在询问有关健康的一般性问题时,小组成员同意有关任何健康变化的问题/概念的效用,并注意确保此类问题/概念不暗示因果关系。百分之八十九(39/44)的特定体征和症状问题被评为最佳。对于非研究性药物,一般性问题和大多数结构化的问题被认为是最佳方法。使用移动电话,患者日记,评分表以及与参与者进行公开讨论问题的讨论也被认为是最佳的补充数据获取工具。结论:这项研究成功地在抗疟疾药物临床研究界的一部分中就使用一般问题概念达成共识,并通过结构化问题得出有关不良事件和非研究用药报告的数据。应进一步研究本德尔菲中认为相关,重要和可行的概念和项目,以便将其潜在地包含在一种统一方法中,以收集参与者提供的抗疟药安全性数据。反过来,这应该增进对抗疟疾药物安全性的了解。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号