C. Kerr

Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically

The authors describe a method of systematically reviewing research from different paradigms. They draw on the methods adapted, developed, and designed during a study concerned with the delivery of care across professional boundaries. Informed by the established method of systematic review, the authors undertook the review in distinct stages. They describe the methods developed for each stage and outline the difficulties encountered, the solutions devised, and the appraisal tools developed. Although many of the problems encountered were related to the critical assessment of qualitative research, the authors argue that the method of systematic review can be adapted for use with different data and across disciplines.

Paying clinicians to join clinical trials: a review of guidelines and interview study of trialists

BackgroundThe motivations of clinicians to participate in clinical trials have been little studied. This project explored the potential role of payment for participation in publicly funded clinical trials in the UK. The aims were to review relevant guidelines and to collate and analyse views of clinical trialists on the role of payments and other factors that motivated clinicians to join clinical trials.MethodsReview of guidelines governing payments to clinicians for recruitment to trials. Semi-structured interviews with a range of NHS clinical trial leaders, analysed using qualititative methods.ResultsWhile UK guidelines had little to say specifically on payments linked to recruitment, all payments have become highly regulated and increasingly transparent. Interview participants believed that expenses arising from research should be covered. Payments in excess of expenses were seen as likely to increase participation but with the risk of reducing quality. Motivations such as interest in the topic, the scope for patients to benefit and intellectual curiosity were considered more important. Barriers to involvement included bureaucracy and lack of time.DiscussionLimited scope exists for paying clinicians over-and-above the cost of their time to be involved in research. Most trialists favour full payment of all expenses related to research.ConclusionPayment of clinicians beyond expenses is perceived to be a less important motivating factor than researching important, salient questions, and facilitating research by reducing bureaucracy and delay.