Browsing by Author "Check, Devon K"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Factors Affecting Post-trial Sustainment or De-implementation of Study Interventions: A Narrative Review.
    (Journal of general internal medicine, 2024-01) Green, Terren; Bosworth, Hayden B; Coronado, Gloria D; DeBar, Lynn; Green, Beverly B; Huang, Susan S; Jarvik, Jeffrey G; Mor, Vincent; Zatzick, Douglas; Weinfurt, Kevin P; Check, Devon K
    In contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials, embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted within healthcare settings with real-world patient populations. ePCTs are intentionally designed to align with health system priorities leveraging existing healthcare system infrastructure and resources to ease intervention implementation and increase the likelihood that effective interventions translate into routine practice following the trial. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), supports the conduct of large-scale ePCT Demonstration Projects that address major public health issues within healthcare systems. The Collaboratory has a unique opportunity to draw on the Demonstration Project experiences to generate lessons learned related to ePCTs and the dissemination and implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs. In this article, we use case studies from six completed Demonstration Projects to summarize the Collaboratory's experience with post-trial interpretation of results, and implications for sustainment (or de-implementation) of tested interventions. We highlight three key lessons learned. First, ineffective interventions (i.e., ePCT is null for the primary outcome) may be sustained if they have other measured benefits (e.g., secondary outcome or subgroup) or even perceived benefits (e.g., staff like the intervention). Second, effective interventions-even those solicited by the health system and/or designed with significant health system partner buy-in-may not be sustained if they require significant resources. Third, alignment with policy incentives is essential for achieving sustainment and scale-up of effective interventions. Our experiences point to several recommendations to aid in considering post-trial sustainment or de-implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs: (1) include secondary outcome measures that are salient to health system partners; (2) collect all appropriate data to allow for post hoc analysis of subgroups; (3) collect experience data from clinicians and staff; (4) engage policy-makers before starting the trial.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Institutional review boards' use and understanding of certificates of confidentiality.
    (PloS one, 2012-01) Beskow, Laura M; Check, Devon K; Namey, Emily E; Dame, Lauren A; Lin, Li; Cooper, Alexandra; Weinfurt, Kevin P; Wolf, Leslie E
    Certificates of Confidentiality, issued by agencies of the U.S. government, are regarded as an important tool for meeting ethical and legal obligations to safeguard research participants' privacy and confidentiality. By shielding against forced disclosure of identifying data, Certificates are intended to facilitate research on sensitive topics critical to the public's health. Although Certificates are potentially applicable to an extensive array of research, their full legal effect is unclear, and little is known about stakeholders' views of the protections they provide. To begin addressing this challenge, we conducted a national survey of institutional review board (IRB) chairs, followed by telephone interviews with selected chairs, to learn more about their familiarity with and opinions about Certificates; their institutions' use of Certificates; policies and practices concerning when Certificates are required or recommended; and the role Certificates play in assessments of research risk. Overall, our results suggest uncertainty about Certificates among IRB chairs. On most objective knowledge questions, most respondents chose the incorrect answer or 'unsure'. Among chairs who reported more familiarity with Certificates, composite opinion scores calculated based on five survey questions were evenly distributed among positive, neutral/middle, and negative views. Further, respondents expressed a variety of ideas about the appropriate use of Certificates, what they are intended to protect, and their effect on research risk. Nevertheless, chairs who participated in our study commonly viewed Certificates as a potentially valuable tool, frequently describing them as an 'extra layer' of protection. These findings lead to several practical observations concerning the need for more stakeholder education about Certificates, consideration of Certificates for a broader range of studies, the importance of remaining vigilant and using all tools available to protect participants' confidentiality, and the need for further empirical investigation of Certificates' effect on researchers and research participants.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Post-trial responsibilities in pragmatic clinical trials: Fulfilling the promise of research to drive real-world change
    (Learning Health Systems, 2024-01-01) Morain, Stephanie R; O'Rourke, P Pearl; Ali, Joseph; Rahimzadeh, Vasiliki; Check, Devon K; Bosworth, Hayden B; Sugarman, Jeremy
    While considerable scholarship has explored responsibilities owed to research participants at the conclusion of explanatory clinical trials, no guidance exists regarding responsibilities owed at the conclusion of a pragmatic clinical trial (PCT). Yet post-trial responsibilities in PCTs present distinct considerations from those emphasized in existing guidance and prior scholarship. Among these considerations include the responsibilities of the healthcare delivery systems in which PCTs are embedded, and decisions about implementation for interventions that demonstrate meaningful benefit following their integration into usual care settings—or deimplementation for those that fail to do so. In this article, we present an overview of prior scholarship and guidance on post-trial responsibilities, and then identify challenges for post-trial responsibilities for PCTs. We argue that, given one of the key rationales for PCTs is that they can facilitate uptake of their results by relevant decision-makers, there should be a presumptive default that PCT study results be incorporated into future care delivery processes. Fulfilling this responsibility will require prospective planning by researchers, healthcare delivery system leaders, institutional review boards, and sponsors, so as to ensure that the knowledge gained from PCTs does, in fact, influence real-world practice.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Racial and ethnic disparities in genomic testing among lung cancer patients: a systematic review.
    (Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2024-06) Meernik, Clare; Raveendran, Yadurshini; Kolarova, Michaela; Rahman, Fariha; Olunuga, Ebunoluwa; Hammond, Emmery; Shivaramakrishnan, Akhilesh; Hendren, Steph; Bosworth, Hayden B; Check, Devon K; Green, Michelle; Strickler, John H; Akinyemiju, Tomi

    Background

    Racial and ethnic disparities in genomic testing could exacerbate disparities in access to precision cancer therapies and survival-particularly in the context of lung cancer where genomic testing has been recommended for the past decade. However, prior studies assessing disparities in genomic testing have yielded mixed results.

    Methods

    We conducted a systemic review to examine racial and ethnic disparities in the use of genomic testing among lung cancer patients in the United States. Two comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were conducted (September 2022, May 2023). Original studies that assessed rates of genomic testing by race or ethnicity were included. Findings were narratively synthesized by outcome.

    Results

    The search yielded 2739 unique records, resulting in 18 included studies. All but 1 study were limited to patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer. Diagnosis years ranged from 2007 to 2022. Of the 18 studies, 11 found statistically significant differences in the likelihood of genomic testing by race or ethnicity; in 7 of these studies, testing was lower among Black patients compared with White or Asian patients. However, many studies lacked adjustment for key covariates and included patients with unclear eligibility for testing.

    Conclusions

    A majority of studies, though not all, observed racial and ethnic disparities in the use of genomic testing among patients with lung cancer. Heterogeneity of study results throughout a period of changing clinical guidelines suggests that minoritized populations-Black patients in particular-have faced additional barriers to genomic testing, even if not universally observed at all institutions.