Veterans Healthcare Administration providers' attitudes and perceptions regarding pragmatic trials embedded at the point of care

Clinical Trials

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 292-299

  Weir, Charlene R ^a,b   Butler, Jorie ^a   Thraen, Iona ^a   Woods, Patricia A ^c   Hermos, John ^a,d   Ferguson, Ryan ^a,e   Gleason, Theresa ^f   Barrus, Robyn ^a   Fiore, Louis ^c,d,e  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c VA BOSTON HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^d BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^f DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVANCED PRACTICE NURSE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EQUIPOISE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT MONITORING; PERCEPTION; PHARMACIST; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; POINT OF CARE TESTING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PSYCHOLOGIST; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STUDY DESIGN; VALIDITY; VETERANS HEALTH; WORKFLOW; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; GOVERNMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; POINT OF CARE SYSTEM; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; UNITED STATES; VETERAN;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CULTURE; FOCUS GROUPS; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; POINT-OF-CARE SYSTEMS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; VETERANS;

EID: 84901247037     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774514523848     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press ; 2013 :
2. Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Whicher D, Fowler R, Zwarenstein M. The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials. 2012 ; 9 (4). 436-46
3. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): A tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 ; 62 (5). 464-75
4. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008 ; 337: a2390
5. Fiore LD, Brophy M, Ferguson RE, et al. A point-of-care clinical trial comparing insulin administered using a sliding scale versus a weight-based regimen. Clin Trials. 2011 ; 8 (2). 183-95
6. Vickers A, Scardino P. The clinical-integrated randomized trial: Proposed novel method for conducting large trials at low cost. Trials. 2009 ; 10: 14
7. Robinson G, Gould M. What are the attitudes of general practitioners towards research?. Brit J Gen Pract. 2000 ; 50: 390-92
8. Glynn L, O'Riordan C, MacFarlane A, et al. Research activity and capacity in primary healthcare: The REACH study: A survey. BMC Fam Pract. 2009 ; 10: 33
9. Rosemann T, Szecseny J. General practitioners' attitudes towards research in primary care: Qualitative results of a cross sectional study. BMC Fam Pract. 2000 ; 5 (1). 31
10. Salmon P, Peters S, Rogers A, et al. Peering through the barriers in GPs' explanations for declining to participate in research: The role of professional autonomy and the economy of time. Fam Pract. 2007 ; 24: 269-75
11. De Wit N, Quartero A, Zuithoff A, Numans M. Participation and successful patient recruitment in primary care. J Fam Pract. 2001 ; 50: 976-81
12. Raftery J, Bryant J, Powell J, Kerr C. Hawker payment to healthcare professionals for patient recruitment to trials: Systematic review and qualitative study. Health Technol Assess. 2008 ; 12: 1-128
13. Chioncel N, van der Veen R, Wildemeersch D, Jarvis P. The validity and reliability of focus groups as a research method in adult education. Int J Lifelong Edu. 2003 ; 22 (5). 495-517
14. Krueger R, Casey M Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 3 rd edn). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2000. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage ; 2000 :
15. Morgan D Focus Groups a Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage ; 1997 :
16. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005 ; 15 (9). 1277-88
17. Morgan DL Focus Groups as Qualitative Research/David L. Morgan. 2 nd edn). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1997. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage ; 1997 :
18. Patton M Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3 rd edn). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage ; 2002 :
19. Wilson S, Draper H, Ives J. Ethical issues regarding recruitment to research studies within the primary care consultation. Fam Pract. 2008 ; 25: 456-61
20. Hummers-Pradier E, Scheidt-Nave C, Martin H, et al. Simply no time? Barriers to GPs' participation in primary health care research. Fam Pract. 2008 ; 2: 105-12
21. Weijer C, Shapiro S, Glass K, Enkin M. For and against: Clinical equipoise and not the uncertainty principle is the moral underpinning of the randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2000 ; 321: 756-58
22. Walker A, Patrick A, Lauer M, et al. A tool for assessing the feasibility of comparative effectiveness research. Comp Eff Res. 2013 ; 3: 11-20
23. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987 ; 317: 141-45
24. Djulbegovic B. Articulating and responding to uncertainties in clinical research. J Med Philos. 2007 ; 32: 79-98
25. Djulbegovic B. Uncertainty and equipoise: At interplay between epistemology, decision making and ethics. Am J Med Sci. 2011 ; 342 (4). 282-89