- Finding Participants
- One from the U.S.
- The Price
- Remaining the program
- Next Steps
- Find out more
- The hidden side of clinical trials | Sile Lane | TEDxMadrid
- Video COMMENTS:
Doing offers, watching movies, and having to pay bills through tablets and smartphones is becoming commonplace. Americans are utilized to doing just about everything with the technology within their pockets. Is mobile mental health investigate the next frontier within this smartphone revolution? According to Dr. Patricia Areán’s pioneering BRIGHTEN study, research via smartphone application has already been a real possibility.
The BRIGHTEN study was outstanding since it used technology to both deliver treatment interventions also to really conduct the trial. Quite simply, the study team used technology to recruit, screen, enroll, treat, and assess participants. BRIGHTEN was especially outstanding since the study demonstrated that technology is an excellent method to pilot test promising new treatments.
Areán’s goal was to find out if it had been easy to perform a randomized controlled trial (RCT) using only cellular devices. An RCT is really a study by which participants are at random allotted to different therapies to ensure that researchers compares their effectiveness. Areán desired to determine if people would accept take part in a mobile depression study, if your mobile study could be affordable, and when people would continue using the mobile therapies. Areán’s findings claim that you’ll be able to recruit a lot of participants inside a almost no time. She also found it had become easy to conduct research for minimal cost. However, keeping participants thinking about the research was tougher.
Areán and her team used three techniques to recruit people for that BRIGHTEN depression study. They placed ads in city buses, newspapers, as well as on Craigslist across the nation. They used ads on Twitter and facebook, in addition to GoogleAdwords, which pressed ads to people online. The study team wished to locate 150 participants. They arrived at that goal in a single week, which motivated they to try to get extra time from the study.
One from the U.S.
Five several weeks later, they had greater than 2,900 participants. The audience was ethnically like the 2013 U.S. Census. Additionally, participants symbolized individuals from 8 from the 15 most rural states. This diversity and the opportunity to achieve underserved populations would be a notable accomplishment for that BRIGHTEN study.
People answering the BRIGHTEN ads were forwarded to the study’s website . Individuals who have been interested could fix their cellular devices, see a consent video, and respond to your questions that demonstrated they understood the facts from the study. Following the consent process, visitors required a quiz to find out if these were qualified for that study. Participants were at random allotted to 1 of 3 depression treatments after which viewed a relevant video regarding how to download their treatment application. Each participant were built with a customized dashboard for monitoring study progress. Participants enrolled for 12 days and were requested to make use of the application daily, in addition to complete monthly assessments. The apps provided a depression intervention as well as collected data on participants’ social behavior (quantity of texts sent, places visited, etc.). Participants were paid for being a member of the research.
Typical RCTs for the treatment of depression involve participants working “face-to-face” having a counselor. These traditional, in-person RCTs can be quite costly and could take 3-five years to recruit enough participants. Finding individuals who represent the populace from the U.S. can be tough and costly. For instance, it can be hard to recruit individuals rural Boise State Broncos when the study is dependant on the New England. The BRIGHTEN study easily employed individuals from from coast to coast in an exceedingly cost-efficient way. Consequently, the BRIGHTEN study cost under most studies of the identical size.
Remaining the program
Not every participants remained using the study for that full 12 days: 66% completed four days, 50% completed 8 days, and 41% finished the 12-week assessment. Obviously, not every research participants complete traditional psychiatric therapy trials which involve conventional, face-to-face therapy however, dropout rates appear to become reduced trials which involve psychiatric therapy with a few contact with others. In additional traditional psychiatric therapy trials, dropout rates vary but seem to average around 20%. In studies which involve computer-administered therapy for depression, dropout rates seem to be lower among psychiatric therapy problems that include a minimum of some contact with others.
The study team continues to be analyzing data to find out how good the apps treated depression and when one application was better than these. However, early results show the 3 apps were built with a significant effect on mood and disability with time.
The BRIGHTEN study wasn’t the first one to use apps or mobile technology included in an investigation project. Nevertheless it did reveal that mobile technologies are a effective method to recruit participants, achieve a large portion of the population, and supply depression-oriented interventions. As more studies use application-based treatments in their research, finding methods to keep participants thinking about using individuals interventions is going to be an essential next thing.
Find out more
Dr. Patricia Areán is professor in Psychiatry at College of Washington & co-director from the BRIGHTEN Center. Dr. Areán is really a licensed clinical psychiatrist and mental health investigator. She runs several numerous studies, and it has offered on health committees, such as the Institute of drugs committee for setting standards for psychosocial interventions and also the National Advisory Council towards the National Institute of Mental Health.
Dr. Areán’s paper was printed within the The month of january issue of BMJ Innovations .
The hidden side of clinical trials | Sile Lane | TEDxMadrid
Maxine Whitton: This is an excellent presentation delivered in clear language that everyone can understand. I have circulated it to many of my friends who sometimes find it difficult to understand what I do. I am a retired academic librarian, now a patient researcher who has led 3 Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for vitiligo, a skin condition that I suffer from. I am currently participating in a trial now. In fact I did participate in a trial many years ago that was never published. I have also for many years been a supporter of Alltrials and the work they do. Anything that informs the public of something so vital is to be welcomed. Maxine Whitton
wdtony: I am a victim of Big Pharma and their unregulated practices. I was almost killed 10 years ago by an adverse reaction to an SSRI drug. I live with permanent brain damage and deteriorating health due to that reaction.\n\nThis is only one sinister aspect of prescription drug production. I will list a few more stats from the US.\n\nTerrorists killed NINETEEN people in the US in 2015. Adverse drug reactions (taken as directed) killed over ONE HUNDRED AND SIX THOUSAND people in the US in 2015. This is the 4th leading cause of death in the US. \n\nTerrorists: 19\nPrescription Drugs: 106,000\n\nBig Pharma lobbies in the US to keep marijuana as illegal as possible to stifle competition. \n\nBig pharma has successfully lobbied to de-fund our Food and Drug Administration to push through drugs that aren't safe. \n\nBig Pharma has successfully lobbied our government to create laws prohibiting lawsuits by individuals who have been harmed or killed by their drugs. \n\nBig pharma has successfully lobbied to create laws prohibiting the Federal government from negotiating drug prices. \n\nBig Pharma has fought successfully to bring about and keep legal "Direct to Consumer Marketing" which is illegal in almost every other country in the world. \n\nBig Pharma has gone so far as to campaign against other generic drugs, demonizing them in the medical field to promote more lucrative drugs still under patent regardless of safety or efficacy. This has essentially given that industry monopoly rights.\n\nBig pharma has been convicted criminally of fraudulent practices that lead to the maiming and death of consumers and these corporations also know from their own "secret" trials that have been concealed, that people die from their product. \n\nBig Pharma, in a coordinated effort, lies to doctors and gives kick-backs for increased prescribing of their drugs.\n\nRecord fines do nothing to curb heinous activity Big Pharma exhibits. GSK paid 3 BILLION one year and one official called it, "the cost of doing business"\n\nThe most disgusting fact is that Big Pharma pushes doctors to place as many children on psychiatric drugs as possible. Big Pharma is the largest threat to personal liberty in the world, damaging the developing brains of children.\n\nBig Pharma knowingly harms and kills children and no government is doing anything about it. That is terrorism.
Michelle Brassatd: wdtony Thanks for sharing this!
Doug Eason: The good news just keeps pouring in in this fine western civilization we've built.
claude varner: Condemning the forum because of some bad results is lacking in perspective. Would you rather live elsewhere?
Doug Eason: Bad results are one thing, bad results that are ignored are another.
Diane Hatziioanou: This is basically the clinical trial version of the known story and debate on publishing results which are not what was expected and wanted. Withholding such information means the same study and hypothesis may be retested by others not knowing the results and the science remains a black box of unknown results to the world. This debate has been emerging in the past few years and there is a nice little article on it here https://www.elsevier.com/connect/scientists-we-want-your-negative-results-too and it has also brought about the rise of the all results journals series; http://arjournals.com .
d3st88: Yes, Diane, you are right, but there is a money-motivated extra factor in the realm of clinical trials that's not present in other trials. Some pharmaceutical companies are manipulating the system of clinical trials in order to make money at the cost of human lives and quality of life. It is imperative, that trials be overseen by a neutral body we can trust, and that all results of clinical trials are published.
Initially NO: It is one thing to agree to be part of medical research, quite another to be forcefully enslaved as a human laboratory specimen via the psychiatric regime's Mental Health Laws that are illegal under the International Law. \n\nPeople who are forcefully drugged, then asked to be on a clinical trial, in hope that they will no longer be forcefully drugged by with the drug that's causing them immense pain and disability, that's another thing again.\n\nPeople diagnosed as not being able to give 'informed consent' who are then forcefully drugged by psychiatrists, then being able to give 'informed consent' to clinical trials that'll make the psychiatrist big $ really is a double-standard. If a person cannot give informed consent, then they cannot, so how can they give consent to the clinical trial?\n\n#AbolishPsychiatry it violates so many people by enslaving them as human laboratory specimens.
Adam Jacobs: My last attempt at leaving a comment here did not make it past the moderation queue, possibly because it had a link in it. I'm trying again without the link in the hope that it will appear this time. If you Google for "clinical trials zombie statistics stats guy" (without the quotes) then the article on my blog that I linked to should be at or near the top of the results. This is what I wrote:\n\nUnfortunately, there's a lot of misinformation in that talk. \n\nFor a start, the statement that "only half of clinical trials have been published" is simply not backed up by evidence. It's probably true that in the last century publication rates were disappointingly low, but what Dr Lane fails to mention is that there has been a dramatic improvement in that over the last decade or so as the problems of non-publication have become more appreciated. Recent studies typically show clinical trial disclosure rates in the region of 80%. Of course 80% is still too low: it should be 100%. But 80% is also really not the same thing as "half", as claimed in the talk.\n\nMore on these statistics here:\n\n[link redacted]\n\nFor another thing, Dr Lane tells us that the regulators who make decisions about whether to license drugs lack access to the unpublished trials. That's simply not true. When pharmaceutical companies apply to regulators for a licence, they are required to submit details of all their trials, whether published or not. So even if trials are not published somewhere where you and I can see them, regulators still get to see them before they decide whether to license drugs or not. It's astonishing that Dr Lane doesn't know that.\n\nFor "a charity concerned with the use and abuse of scientific evidence in public life", this kind of misinformation is really disappointing.