Skip to main content
SAGE
Search form
  • 00:04

    [Research Methods case study][Setting Research Priorities for Improving Clinical TrialRecruitment]

  • 00:14

    SANDRA GALVIN: My name is Dr. Sandra Galvinand I'm the program manager with the National SupportNetwork based in Ireland called the Health Research Board--Trials Methodology Research Network,and I'm based within NUI Galway.[Sandra Galvin, Programme Manager, Health Research Board-TMRN] The network is funded across five universitypartners in Ireland, namely NUI Galway, UCC, UL, UCD and TCD.The remit of our network is to support trials and the work

  • 00:36

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: that they do by improving all aspects of howthey're running their trials.Everything from improving how we select our research questions,to how we conduct the trial, how we analyze,report, disseminate all those findings.We've got quite a broad remit across the whole spectrumof conducting a trial, but the nuts and bolts of itare around improving the methodology

  • 00:57

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: behind that and the methodology underpinningeach stage of the trial.The priority study was a unique type of studythat was conducted and led initiallyby the Health Research Board-Trials MethodologyResearch Network and has been continued by our colleagueswithin the Health Services Research Unitat the University of Aberdeen.So the story actually aligns quite nicelywith the conference that we're attending,

  • 01:18

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: the ICTMC, or International Clinical Trials MethodologyConference.In 2015, when the conference was held in Liverpool,we had this idea around doing an agenda settingexercise, or a priority setting exercise,within the area around trial recruitment.So what I mean by that is, what are the questionsthat methodologies should be answering in the area of trial

  • 01:39

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: recruitment?We know there's a lot of uncertaintywith trial recruitment.We know that up to 50% of trials fail to reach the recruitmenttargets.It's a big area for research and wehave a lot of great people doing great researchacross the spectrum of areas within trial recruitment.But what we wanted to do was look more specifically at it.So initially, or before this happened,

  • 02:00

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: there was a piece of research doneby a group in the UK, the MRC HTMR,led by Professor Paul Williamson, thatdid interviews and a survey with the directors of the CTUsin the UK.And what they found was, not surprisingly,that recruitment was the number onearea for making improvements, or an area thatwas needed for research.

  • 02:21

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: So when we came to the conference in Liverpoolin 2015, a group of us got together.And we wanted to see how do you go about doing this?How do you go about setting a priorityagenda within a research area?It was very new to us, actually, at the time.The research was led--I was involved in the research, but itwas led by Professor Declan Devine in NUI Galway.So a team of us got together and we

  • 02:42

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: had a discussion at that meeting around how would wego about this.And luckily, colleagues of ours in the UKimmediately said you need to talk to the James LindAlliance.And you need to possibly look at doing a Priority SettingPartnership, or PSP.Again, all new to us.So to do this, we were lucky enoughto get funding by the Health Research Board in Ireland.

  • 03:03

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: And we embarked on a journey, I supposeyou could say, over a one year period, from 2015 on.And working with our colleagues in NUI Galway, namelyparticular Doctor Patricia Healy,who worked on this with myself, and Declan, and a numberof other colleagues in Ardington, UK.So we embarked with the James Lind.We met two fantastic people, called Becky and Caroline,in the James Lind alliance, who guided us on a journey

  • 03:26

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: from start to finish.So what we were looking at was, weknew we wanted to try and get the--what are the top questions that need to be addressed?How can we get the community togetherto rally around the most important research questionsthat need to be answered?And to sort of have a formulated approach, a proper researchagenda, where we can drive grant applications behind,

  • 03:49

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: where we can get a good body of evidence thatsays you should be answering this question,or you should be looking at this list more strategically.So we knew we wanted a top 10 list of research questions.And thankfully, this is what the James Lind Alliance do.They do it in disease specific areas really well.I welcome anyone to go and visit their websiteand have a look at all of the areas

  • 04:10

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: that they've done these PSPs within.Well, actually, a trial methodology research areawas new for them.So they were really excited by the prospect of doing thisand they were really open and engaging with uson this process.So they were excited because this was different for them,also.They hadn't done a methodology areabefore, they had only looked at disease specific areas.

  • 04:32

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: So we went on this journey.We looked at tailoring their approachand made slight changes to it, whichthankfully because the James Lind Alliance areso easy to work with, was a very easy and wonderful partnershipand collaboration.So what this involved was initiallyconducting a series of surveys and getting information

  • 04:52

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: from the stakeholders to which trial recruitment matters most.So that's not just the researchers.It's not just the clinicians.It's the public, it's the patients,it's the people that every day get asked to take partin randomized trials.And interestingly, some of them are patients.Some of them are just members of the publicbecause not all trials need patients to take part in them.Some of them need to have members of the public

  • 05:14

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: to take part in them.So the first challenge that we were faced withwas, gosh, our stakeholder audience is anyone.It's any who was a member of the public.So that was a little bit of a challenge initially,because we wanted to make sure that we were bringingthe right stakeholder groups together,but we wanted to do it in a meaningful way.And this was, certainly for the HRB-TMRN,

  • 05:35

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: a huge learning curve around PPI,or Public and Patient Involvement in research.So a PSP, or a Priority Setting Partnership,it is genuine in its PPI endeavors.You involve the members of the public from the very start.We were lucky enough to meet Derek Stuart, who was workingfor Involve UK at the time.

  • 05:56

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: And he was an inspirational member of our steering groupwho directed us in the right way whenwe were looking at this study.So we got a group together, a large steering group,representatives from across the healthcaresector, representatives from the public,from patient representative groups, also researchers.

  • 06:17

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: And we had junior members, more senior members,and we were the steering group behind guiding this process.But ultimately, what we needed wasmembers of the public and our key stakeholder groupsto feedback in to the process.So what we did was we started with a first survey,which was an open ended survey of six questions.And we kind of opened the floodgates a little bit.

  • 06:38

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: We said tell us your concerns about trial methodologyrecruitment.Tell us what you think are the important thingsthat we need to be addressing within trial recruitment.And that was a fascinating process.The data analysis was a learning curve for all of us.We didn't know what we were going to get back,so I think we had about 1880 open ended pieces of text that

  • 07:03

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: needed to be analyzed.Some of them were long stories because peoplefelt very passionate about the area of trial recruitment.For example, if they were a patientthat maybe has taken part in a trial.Some people were a people that maybe were asked to take partin a trial decided not to.And they felt-- they fed back their reasons behind that.Of course, a lot of learning there,around why people do and don't take part in trials.

  • 07:25

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: A lot of researchers have faced big obstacleswhen it comes to recruitment.So again, lots of information came through.And we had the job of doing a constant comparative analysis.Myself and Dr. Healy were involvedin that stage of getting and coalescing the information downand getting to a list of questions.So a lot of that involved maybe merging teams,

  • 07:45

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: looking across the questions to seeif there's things that are a thematic area that you couldmake into a larger question, for example.And again, we had to go back out to the public again.Again, opening it up.Trying to target the right people.We were always mindful of the type of respondentthat was coming back to our research.So what we really wanted was that it wasn't just clinicians

  • 08:06

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: setting this agenda, that it was genuinely members of the publicand patients that have taken part in randomized trials thatwere contributing.[How did the team analyze the survery date you collected?]As I said, we were getting a lot of-- itwas basic open ended text.Some of them were stories that were being fed back.

  • 08:26

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: And what we had to do was look at the textthat we were getting, see if it had a thematic area,and what we did then was try to merge the thematic areas,so putting them all together.And then looking again to say OK,these three questions are both looking at,for example, patient information leaflets whenit comes to recruitment.

  • 08:47

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: Is there a question that we can pullfrom this that will incorporate those three pieces of text,those three pieces of informationthat these people have given back to us?SoIt was definitely an iterative process,and there was two of us working predominantly on this,but obviously, with the guidance of the large steering group.And we were responsible for making sure

  • 09:07

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: that when we came up, or crafted, our research question,that we could truly say that all of the pieces of text that wereceived back from people that fed into the surveywere being represented.And I think that was a challenge.There was a lot of learning within that.But we always, I suppose, were more mindful to sort of track

  • 09:28

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: the process ourselves, to do quality checksamongst each other's work, to make surethat we were interpreting things correctly.We would take a number of-- we saywe hit a stumbling block, we take some of that research,take some of those examples, and go back to the steering groupand go, do you think this question reallyrepresents all of this information that we got?And I think because steering group was really a good team,

  • 09:51

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: we worked really well together, that we actuallydid get really representative questionsof the information that was coming through from the survey.[How did you successfully recruit survey respondants?]That was an iterative process, but it started offby the core group coming together initially,

  • 10:13

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: and then we looked at who are the, I suppose,key opinion leaders?Who were the experts?Who were the gatekeepers to much broader audiences?So a good example of that is sortof maybe somebody who works within a network,for example, who has access to mailing lists, who knowsthe people within that area.Others would be like key experts or key opinion leaders,

  • 10:36

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: such as, as I mentioned, Derek Stewart, who does a lot of PPIwork internationally.Actually a good example of that is so we crafted a social mediacampaign.So, yeah, we learned a lot from this processabout how to get people engaged.And again, we're always mindful of the stakeholdersthat we need to be involved in this.

  • 10:56

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: So what we did was we crafted a campaign that actuallyused a lot of social media.So we had, for example, developedtweet sheets, as we call them.So a group of researchers, we got togetherand we crafted tweets.So they would include all the relevant hashtags,the handles, the priority websites where the information

  • 11:17

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: was being displayed, and recommendedhandles and hashtags to kind of get a broader engagement.We crafted tweets for researchers.We crafted them for clinicians.We crafted them for members of the public.We crafted them for steering group.What this meant was, it was incrediblyeasy for a very busy PIs to copy and paste the tweetsand send it.

  • 11:37

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: And I think that made a big differenceand it's actually something that we do much more broadly nowwhen in research in the TMRN.We're very mindful of the power of social mediacan have for research.So that was one aspect of it.Another was looking at our steering groupand making sure we had some people that I said,gatekeepers, who have access to broader audiences.

  • 11:60

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: So say, for example, is it somebodythat's a member of a nurse's network,for example, that can readily email all of those peopleto get them involved?We had one issue, actually, which is not surprisingand this is very common for us in research,was trying to get members of the publicto fill in a research survey.And we looked at the demographics, week by week,and we'd always pick out who's being underrepresented.

  • 12:21

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: And one particular week, it was the membersof the public that were being underrepresented.And one tweet from Derek Stewart completelyshifted the engagement in the survey.And I think that's the power of having a key opinion leader,but also having the right key opinion leader, who canaccess to the general public.So all of a sudden then we found it was actuallyfrontline clinicians that weren't filling in the survey.

  • 12:43

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: So every week it was a different strategy.And I think it worked quite successfullybecause what we said was we kind of set a limit.And we said, as long as it's over 15% participationby a group.We didn't want anyone to fall far below a threshold.And as long as they stayed above that threshold,I think we were happy to progress, because there aregoing to be, for instance, you'regoing to get more researchers filling the survey.

  • 13:05

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: Within the fantastic part was, thisis where the James Lind Alliance were so crucial.They have a methodology around whichhow you make sure that the underrepresented group,make sure that their questions get a good weighting whenyou're processing to the final list.So they have a wonderful method and they were so helpful.So they would take, we said the obvious ranking,

  • 13:27

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: but then there's a methodology around howthe actual ranking works, and that was really, really useful.The final stage of the prioritization setting processwas the gathering and the meeting that happens,the consensus meeting that happensat the end of the process.[consensus meeting]And that is where, as the team, as the steering group,we were allowed to attend only as an observer.

  • 13:49

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: So we definitely wanted to attendbecause this was so new to us.So we had a fantastic senior advisor within the JLA.And her role was around chairing this meeting, large groupof people, trying to think, I thinkit was about 45 people attending.They were broken up into different groups.

  • 14:10

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: They were all key representativesof the stakeholder audience.So, for example, plenty of members of the public.We traveled with a lovely man from the West of Ireland,just as an example.He was an older man, he was retired.He had previously been invited to take partin a clinical trial.We got in contact with him through our own contacts

  • 14:30

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: and networks, as I previously mentioned.And we said to him, would you like to come to Birminghamand take part in this meeting?And he says yeah, sure, why not?One of the challenges we had around that, for example,is you're organizing a scientific meeting,but you're asking members of the public who are notused to this environment.For example, they're not used to claiming expenses, for example.

  • 14:51

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: They're not used to, how do I get to the venue?Maybe they have difficulties like a disability.Is the venue accessible?Are you giving them enough informationon how they get from A to B?You have to make it easy for them to participate.So one of my colleagues, Patricia Healy,would have been a key advocate for reaching out really

  • 15:12

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: well to those people.So, for example, do they communicate by email?Some people would say to you I check my email regularly,about once a month.I mean, you know, whereas as academics, wecheck our email constantly.So clearly that wasn't going to work.Do you have a mobile phone?Can you text, for example, was another area.I mean, I know my own parents struggling

  • 15:34

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: with texting sometimes.And this particular person had a-- itwas interesting in that he did actuallyengage by text message, but usually would ask his daughterto check them for him.But we worked really well with himand he came to Birmingham as part of that journey.He was just one patient representativethat attended on the day.And the JLA run that meeting really well,

  • 15:55

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: and you can see how the questions became prioritized.So they start off as just, I thinkthere was 25 questions brought, and then theystart the moving around of the questions, whichis really interesting and prioritizing them on the day.[Why did you choose this particular methodology for thisstudy?]

  • 16:17

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: I suppose the reason we picked this methodology-- well, firstof all, we didn't know where to start.We didn't know where to go.For us, this was uncharted territory.We hadn't done a prioritization of a research agenda before.And we were very lucky that the James Lind Alliance, theydo this in other areas and they had a methodology.So it was, I suppose, a no-brainer for us

  • 16:38

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: to liaise with them initially and say, look,can we work this methodology?Will this work for us in doing this prioritization settingagenda?So one of the issues that-- or one of the criteriathat the James Lind Alliance would setis that they wouldn't have industry representation as partof this process, for various reasonsthat we're all well aware of about previously the industry

  • 16:59

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: setting the agenda all along, and then we'removing away from that.So that was one aspect that we thought was interesting,because we probably thought we would have engagedwith industry within this.But we stuck with the James Lind Allianceon that for very good reasons.And so there was a learning there,I think, for both the James Lind Alliance and for ourselves.We worked really well together in tailoring the processthat they had.So I suppose you could say that the reason we picked

  • 17:21

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: this methodology was because it's been tried and testedin other disease areas, but this was the first time it was donein the methodology area, which made ita little bit new and exciting for all of us.[How did you achieve consensus among the participants?]Following the consensus meeting, actually interestingly,

  • 17:42

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: the list of prioritized questionswas available at the end of that meeting.So it almost comes to in one sense, an abrupt end in a way,because there you have it.There's the list of questions that we have, that we need.And the JLA usually do a top 10.And at the meeting, the members around the table

  • 18:03

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: said we're not going to be happy if you just do with top 10,we want to top 20.And we kind of said, well, you're the boss.You can decide that.We'll do a top 20.So at the end of the day in Birminghamwe had a top 20 list.The following day, we held our steering group,so everyone came over because not all of the steering groupwas able to attend or observe on day one.

  • 18:25

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: So we got together and we started the meeting with thisis the list.So we did some checks on it.We made sure that we were comfortable with whathas gone before, and fed back on the process,and how transparent it was, and howgreat that the facilitator with the JLA,a senior advisor, how she was able to manage the roomwas fantastic.Making sure that the quieter voices were heard

  • 18:48

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: and it wasn't just the dominant personalities in the room thatwere really setting the agenda.And so the one thing we knew from thatwas we have to know take this and we have to share itwith absolutely everybody.We can't let this sit on a shelf.This is far too important.So we were lucky enough that this was coinciding quite

  • 19:08

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: nicely with the International Clinical Trials MethodologyConference and we were able to present the findings initiallyat that conference.We then developed a website, It's priorityresearch.ie.We got all of the questions on there.We like to think that the website isvery accessible and inclusive.So, for example, each of the questions are on there,

  • 19:30

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: but behind each question, we give someexamples of the original quotationsfrom the survey as to how we arrived at that question,or how we crafted that question, and how it representsthe data that we received.We're very conscious that the questionsare very interpretable.So you might look at one questionand go oh, I know how I'd answer that.I'd do this type of study.

  • 19:51

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: And then we've had people come over to usand go, actually, no.I think that study is answered by this.And obviously, researchers bring their different backgrounds,and their different hats, so to speak.but we actually think that's really great.So even though I might not agree with howanother person would approach a question,that's all well and good.These questions came from an open audience,

  • 20:11

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: so everyone is entitled to their interpretation of them.And so we developed the website and wecontinued from that point with promoting these researchquestions.We contacted our national funder.Our colleagues in the UK contactedtheir national funder.We said, please take a look at this.This is a research agenda that has been set by the peoplethat it matters for most.

  • 20:32

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: These are the questions that we needto be answering when it comes to trialmethodology in recruitment.And then a really great thing happened at that conference.A colleague from ours in the Health Research Services Unitin Aberdeen, Doctor Katie Gillies, came to us and said,I really like what you've done with recruitment.Let's do the same with retention.And again, coinciding nicely with this conference,

  • 20:54

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: two years later, here we are.And we're presenting the prioritization setting exercisefor trial retention.So we now have another list, again top 20.Top 20 list available on the same website,priorityresearch.ie, that outlines the researchquestions that people should be addressing for trial retention.

  • 21:15

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: [What was the key question that emerged from this process?]We found that actually looking back at the two prioritization,there's a lot of overlap between recruitment and retention.I think that's natural because there's a lot of overlapbetween them anyway.We found that the top question for recruitment,

  • 21:36

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: for example, was--I would say everyone would agree with this.It's about how do you best guess the conduct of clinical trialsand the recruitment of clinical trialsto be embedded within routine care pathways?So we have this issue around our research and our healthbeing somewhat parallel, and we needto have them working side by side.

  • 21:57

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: And we saw a lot of the speakers at this conferencehere reiterating that.That we need to have more researchembedded within our health care system.It should become part of routine carethat if there is a trial that is goingto give better evidence to the question that's specificallyrelevant to your illness, that actually there should be--the research should be embedded within that

  • 22:18

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: and the opportunity to take part in a trialshould be within that.And, understandably, I suppose, weacknowledge that's a big question.That's not going to be solved by any one project.That's going to be an effort that'sgoing to mean people getting behind it.We also found that theme come into the retention area.It's again, how do we get people to, once they're in,stay a part of the journey of the trial?

  • 22:41

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: And we feel that that's probably betterif it's embedded within the health system.That could improve retention.[What unexpected challenges did you face?]I think we did, we faced challenges,I think all of the time.I think actually a big challenge that we didn't realize

  • 23:02

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: at the start was the amount of time and the capacity issuethat we would have with this process.We were a little bit constrained because of funding issues.So we had a grant.We were able to do this with funding from the HealthResearch Board, but we had to conduct the researchwithin a certain period of time to make bestuse of the funding.So I think the whole exercise could have done with more time.

  • 23:26

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: And we were very concerned, I suppose,when we were doing that around how wehave to maintain quality here.We can't just be delivering this because it'son a shorter time frame.But, thanks to the commitment and the passionof the large steering group that was involved in priority,we absolutely can stand over the quality of the study,but it took a lot of engagement.It took a lot of people to really get behind it.

  • 23:47

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: And I wonder sometimes if gosh, if we had a different group,would we have gotten this in the time frame that we had?So it was a very time intensive and resource intensive study.Certainly when we designed the surveyand we opened the floodgates for all of these responsesto come back in, and again this process of making sure

  • 24:07

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: that all of the questions, and all of the pieces of textthat came back in were represented reallywell in a question, there was a lot of learning there.And there was a lot of really hoping that you'rerepresenting this really well.So again, we have a great team.We work really well together.There was a lot of trust in that team.Definitely one of the biggest learnings for uswas doing meaningful PPI.

  • 24:28

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: [Patient and Public Involvement (PPI)]So getting the public and the patients involved in thisand being able to make this work in such a waythat they are able to contribute.To leaving our understandings of howwe work and research at the door,and see it from their perspective.So, as I mentioned, things like gettingto the venue, reading emails, the information

  • 24:51

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: that we give people, for example,no more in a clinical trial.The information that we give people to take partin this study, we needed to be very clear on that information.It needed to be really well and easily understood.So I think communication was a big, big factor,especially when you're dealing with a large steering group.Any research study it's really clear--or, it's really important that you

  • 25:12

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: are clear in what you're saying to themand that you communicate really well with them on this.So I think there were big challenges for us and we were--PPI in Ireland is becoming mainstream, which is fantastic.It's becoming much more used and being used wellin Ireland and the UK.But I certainly think that study really pushed us further,

  • 25:35

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: which is great and we learned a lot from Involve UKin setting up processes, for example, that we didn'thave in Ireland at the time.For example, how do you pay PPI representatives?That's been a big, big challenge for us.And how do you make sure that theyfeel involved and included?[What would you change about the project if you could redo it?]

  • 25:59

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: I think if we were to redo it again, and there is actually,there is not much I would change,because the lessons we learned were really important,and we have that information.And I think the way we learned them was important,if you get me.And we had to step outside our comfort zone a little bitand reach out to people and trust people.And I think the lesson in that is invaluable.

  • 26:21

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: I think we're very proud of what we've achieved.As I mentioned, it was within a time framethat we had to deliver.Maybe if I was to change, we'd alwayslook for more funding and longer time,but maybe the constraints actuallymade us better at what we're doing.So to be honest, I think we've built lifelong researchrelationships with the people that contributed to priority.

  • 26:42

    SANDRA GALVIN [continued]: I think it is delivering now because it'sgone on to do retention.There's other people looking at this work at different areaswithin trial methodology that are interestedin us keeping this going.So now we have priority 1, we have priority 2,we're hoping there's going to be 3, 4, 5, and 6,and that people will keep going on this agenda.

Video Info

Publisher: SAGE Publications, Ltd.

Publication Year: 2021

Video Type:Case Study

Methods: Clinical trials, Clinical research, Randomized controlled trials, Methodology, Recruiting participants, Question formation, Research design, Data collection

Keywords: clinical trials; consensus; data analysis; methodology; participation (research); prioritising; public engagement; randomized controlled trials; recruitment; Survey research; teamwork ... Show More

Segment Info

Segment Num.: 1

Persons Discussed:

Events Discussed:

Keywords:

Abstract

Dr. Sandra Galvin, Programme Manager for the Health Research Board – Trials Methodology Research Network, discusses PRioRiTy and setting research priorities for improving clinical trial recruitment.

Looks like you do not have access to this content.

Setting Research Priorities for Improving Clinical Trial Recruitment

Dr. Sandra Galvin, Programme Manager for the Health Research Board – Trials Methodology Research Network, discusses PRioRiTy and setting research priorities for improving clinical trial recruitment.

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website