↓ Skip to main content

Which Obstacles Prevent Us from Recruiting into Clinical Trials: A Survey about the Environment for Clinical Studies at a German University Hospital in a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Which Obstacles Prevent Us from Recruiting into Clinical Trials: A Survey about the Environment for Clinical Studies at a German University Hospital in a Comprehensive Cancer Center
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2017.00181
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph Straube, Peter Herschbach, Stephanie E. Combs

Abstract

Prospective clinical studies are the most important tool in modern medicine. The standard in good clinical practice in clinical trials has constantly improved leading to more sophisticated protocols. Moreover, translational questions are increasingly addressed in clinical trials. Such trials must follow elaborate rules and regulations. This is accompanied by a significant increase in documentation issues which require substantial manpower. Furthermore, university-based clinical centers are interested in increasing the amount of patients treated within clinical trials, and this number has evolved to be a key quality criterion. The present study was initiated to elucidate the obstacles that limit clinical scientists in screening and recruiting for clinical trials. A specific questionnaire with 28 questions was developed focusing on all aspects of clinical trial design as well as trial management. This included questions on organizational issues, medical topics as well as potential patients' preferences and physician's goals. The questionnaire was established to collect data anonymously on a web-based platform. The survey was conducted within the Klinikum rechts der Isar, Faculty of Medicine, Technical University of Munich; physicians of all levels (Department Chairs, attending physicians, residents, as well as study nurses, and other study-related staff) were addressed. The answers were analyzed using the Survio analyzing tool (http://www.survio.com/de/). We collected 42 complete sets of answers; in total 28 physicians, 11 study nurses, and 3 persons with positions in administration answered our survey. The study centers reported to participate in a range of 3-160 clinical trials with a recruitment rate of 1-80%. Main obstacles were determined: 31/42 (74%) complained about limited human resources and 22/42 (52%) reported to have a lack on technical resources, too. 30/42 (71%) consented to the answer, that the documentation effort of clinical trials is too large. A possible increase of the patients' study participation rate up to over 20% was deemed to be possible if the described limitations could be overcome. The increasing documentation effort in clinical trials has led to a strong increase in the work load of scientific personnel. Recruiting of patients into clinical trials therefore is not only limited by patient issues, but also by the infrastructure of the centers. Especially the lack of study nurses is likely to be a major limitation. Furthermore, technical resources for time efficient and safe documentation within clinical routine as well as in clinical trials are required. By optimization of these factors, a significant increase in the amount of patients treated in clinical trials seems to be possible.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 26%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 10 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 10 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2017.
All research outputs
#23,269,088
of 25,932,719 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#16,293
of 22,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,351
of 328,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#75
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,932,719 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,839 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.