Browsing by Author "Chandler, Clare I R"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Optimising methodology for the elicitation of participant-reported data relating to drug safety in resource poor settings
    (2015) Allen, Elizabeth; Barnes, Karen I; Chandler, Clare I R; Atuyambe, Lynn M
    In addition to treating symptomatic patients, malaria prevention and elimination requires giving antimalarial drugs to asymptomatic or uninfected individuals. This shifts the harm-benefit balance and heightens the importance of accurately defining drug safety. Large data sets, including those pooled from multiple sources, are needed to understand uncommon adverse drug reactions. Interpreting individual studies , comparisons between studies and pooled datasets can be compromised, however, by inadequate or varied methods of safety data collection. Specifically, questioning methods may influence participants' reports of medical history, adverse events (AEs) and non-study medications. A Cochrane systematic review synthesised literature on research comparing methods for eliciting AEs from trial participants . A global online survey investigated how antimalarial researchers collect these data, and mixed-methods were used to identify barriers to accurate and complete reporting in South African and Tanzanian antimalarial-antiretroviral drug interaction trials. Focus group discussions were conducted in Ghana, Kenya and Uganda with women in a drugs exposure pregnancy registry to examine barriers to reporting at antenatal clinics, and how they might be overcome. The review included thirty-three studies in various therapeutic areas showing that more specific questioning increases the number of AEs reported by trial participants. Survey responses of 52 antimalarial researchers in 25 countries evidenced a range of methods to obtain AEs, medical histories and non-study drug reports. Qualitative data revealed that the trial context is influential and that detailed questioning facilitated participants' recognition and consideration of what to report. Non-reporting is due to forgetting, not knowing drug names, considering which information is relevant or significant to themselves or trial/healthcare workers, the potential consequences of reporting, and perceiving verbal responses inferior to what blood test results can show. Pregnant women's improved relationship with antenatal staff facilitated information-sharing and registry tools helped overcome problems with recall and naming of medicines. This project provides evidence of the substantial impact of different questioning methods on safety assessments . The results should contribute to developing a framework for researchers when planning globally-relevant, yet context-specific, antimalarial drug safety data collection strategies, and enhance efforts to pool data from multiple sources.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Working towards consensus on methods used to elicit participant-reported safety data in uncomplicated malaria clinical drug studies: a Delphi technique study
    (BioMed Central, 2017-01-28) Mandimika, Nyaradzo; Barnes, Karen I; Chandler, Clare I R; Pace, Cheryl; Allen, Elizabeth N
    Background: Eliciting adverse event (AE) and non-study medication data reports from clinical research participants is integral to evaluating drug safety. However, using different methods to question participants yields inconsistent results, compromising the interpretation, comparison and pooling of data across studies. This is particularly important given the widespread use of anti-malarials in vulnerable populations, and their increasing use in healthy, but at-risk individuals, as preventive treatment or to reduce malaria transmission. Methods: Experienced and knowledgeable anti-malarial drug clinical researchers were invited to participate in a Delphi technique study, to facilitate consensus on what are considered optimal (relevant, important and feasible) methods, tools, and approaches for detecting participant-reported AE and non-study medication data in uncomplicated malaria treatment studies. Results: Of 72 invited, 25, 16 and 10 panellists responded to the first, second and third rounds of the Delphi, respectively. Overall, 68% (68/100) of all questioning items presented for rating achieved consensus. When asking general questions about health, panellists agreed on the utility of a question/concept about any change in health, taking care to ensure that such questions/concepts do not imply causality. Eighty-nine percent (39/44) of specific signs and symptoms questions were rated as optimal. For non-study medications, a general question and most structured questioning items were considered an optimal approach. The use of mobile phones, patient diaries, rating scales as well as openly engaging with participants to discuss concerns were also considered optimal complementary data-elicitation tools. Conclusions: This study succeeded in reaching consensus within a section of the anti-malarial drug clinical research community about using a general question concept, and structured questions for eliciting data about AEs and nonstudy medication reports. The concepts and items considered in this Delphi to be relevant, important and feasible should be further investigated for potential inclusion in a harmonized approach to collect participant-elicited antimalarial drug safety data. This, in turn, should improve understanding of anti-malarial drug safety.