Physicians' perspectives regarding pragmatic clinical trials

Rachel Topazian; Juli Bollinger; Kevin P. Weinfurt; Rachel Dvoskin; Debra J Mathews; Kathleen Brelsford; Matthew DeCamp; Jeremy Sugarman

doi:10.2217/cer-2016-0024

Physicians' perspectives regarding pragmatic clinical trials

Rachel Topazian, Juli Bollinger, Kevin P. Weinfurt, Rachel Dvoskin, Debra J Mathews, Kathleen Brelsford, Matthew DeCamp, Jeremy Sugarman

Academic Centers

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

Abstract

Aim: Practicing physicians inevitably become involved in pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), including comparative effectiveness research. We sought to identify physicians' perspectives related to PCTs. Methods: In-depth semistructured interviews with 20 physicians in the USA. Results: Although physicians are generally willing to participate in PCTs, their support is predicated on several factors including expected benefits, minimization of time and workflow burdens and physician engagement. Physicians communicated a desire to respect patients' rights and interests while maintaining a high level of care. Conclusion: Future work is needed to systematically assess the impact of PCTs on clinicians in meeting their ethical obligations to patients and the burdens clinicians are willing to accept in exchange for potential benefits.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	499-506
Number of pages	8
Journal	Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Volume	5
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2016-0024
State	Published - Aug 1 2016

Keywords

comparative effectiveness research
ethics
qualitative research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Health Policy

Access to Document

10.2217/cer-2016-0024

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Physicians' perspectives regarding pragmatic clinical trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

Topazian, R., Bollinger, J., Weinfurt, K. P., Dvoskin, R., Mathews, D. J., Brelsford, K., DeCamp, M., & Sugarman, J. (2016). Physicians' perspectives regarding pragmatic clinical trials. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 5(5), 499-506. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2016-0024

@article{0bbc4c06495148edb52fadf3c7ec4464,

title = "Physicians' perspectives regarding pragmatic clinical trials",

abstract = "Aim: Practicing physicians inevitably become involved in pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), including comparative effectiveness research. We sought to identify physicians' perspectives related to PCTs. Methods: In-depth semistructured interviews with 20 physicians in the USA. Results: Although physicians are generally willing to participate in PCTs, their support is predicated on several factors including expected benefits, minimization of time and workflow burdens and physician engagement. Physicians communicated a desire to respect patients' rights and interests while maintaining a high level of care. Conclusion: Future work is needed to systematically assess the impact of PCTs on clinicians in meeting their ethical obligations to patients and the burdens clinicians are willing to accept in exchange for potential benefits.",

keywords = "comparative effectiveness research, ethics, qualitative research",

author = "Rachel Topazian and Juli Bollinger and Weinfurt, {Kevin P.} and Rachel Dvoskin and Mathews, {Debra J} and Kathleen Brelsford and Matthew DeCamp and Jeremy Sugarman",

year = "2016",

month = aug,

day = "1",

doi = "10.2217/cer-2016-0024",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "5",

pages = "499--506",

journal = "Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research",

issn = "2042-6305",

publisher = "Future Medicine Ltd.",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Physicians' perspectives regarding pragmatic clinical trials

AU - Topazian, Rachel

AU - Bollinger, Juli

AU - Weinfurt, Kevin P.

AU - Dvoskin, Rachel

AU - Mathews, Debra J

AU - Brelsford, Kathleen

AU - DeCamp, Matthew

AU - Sugarman, Jeremy

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - Aim: Practicing physicians inevitably become involved in pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), including comparative effectiveness research. We sought to identify physicians' perspectives related to PCTs. Methods: In-depth semistructured interviews with 20 physicians in the USA. Results: Although physicians are generally willing to participate in PCTs, their support is predicated on several factors including expected benefits, minimization of time and workflow burdens and physician engagement. Physicians communicated a desire to respect patients' rights and interests while maintaining a high level of care. Conclusion: Future work is needed to systematically assess the impact of PCTs on clinicians in meeting their ethical obligations to patients and the burdens clinicians are willing to accept in exchange for potential benefits.

AB - Aim: Practicing physicians inevitably become involved in pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), including comparative effectiveness research. We sought to identify physicians' perspectives related to PCTs. Methods: In-depth semistructured interviews with 20 physicians in the USA. Results: Although physicians are generally willing to participate in PCTs, their support is predicated on several factors including expected benefits, minimization of time and workflow burdens and physician engagement. Physicians communicated a desire to respect patients' rights and interests while maintaining a high level of care. Conclusion: Future work is needed to systematically assess the impact of PCTs on clinicians in meeting their ethical obligations to patients and the burdens clinicians are willing to accept in exchange for potential benefits.

KW - comparative effectiveness research

KW - ethics

KW - qualitative research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84979702662&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84979702662&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2217/cer-2016-0024

DO - 10.2217/cer-2016-0024

M3 - Article

C2 - 27417953

AN - SCOPUS:84979702662

VL - 5

SP - 499

EP - 506

JO - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

JF - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

SN - 2042-6305

IS - 5

ER -