Abstract
Aims This study reports a new workforce preparedness framework for use during pandemics, specifically within clinical trials units.
Methods An evidence-based framework was developed using qualitative and quantitative data, as reported by the EPIC observational study. A framework methodology was used to analyse qualitative and quantitative data to identify themes. The themes were used to identify sub-themes that were codes with illustrative quotes. A logic model was develop using spatial features.
Results The qualitative component of the study included the views of 6 semi- structured interviews where discussions indicated the need for flexible working, requirement for better operational management, and access to electronic data systems remotely.
Conclusion Significant mental health impact on the CTU workforce can be prevented by the introduction of a framework to streamline operational delivery of research, providing flexible working patterns to the workforce, and improved access to health and wellbeing practices. Funding calls should be made available to conduct further workforce-based research in the UK and to develop evidence-based policies to better prepare for future pandemics.
What is already known?
What is already known?
Epidemic preparedness data indicate many countries remain unprepared
There are large gaps in knowledge and practice base for continuity of research conduct during a lock-down circumstances
Generic pandemic preparedness frameworks were available although these had limited relevance to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and National Health Services (NHS) that conduct significant volumes of clinical research studies
What are the new findings?
What are the new findings?
Epidemic Preparedness Index (EPI) that uses a ranking approach in 188 countries have been developed. The EPI includes health capacities and capabilities, including non-healthcare system features
The use of EPI scores to correlate with proxy measure for preparedness including detection, investigation and reporting of any outbreaks as well as vaccination rates. Examples include the UK flue vaccination rates and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic
Capacity to detect and respond to epidemics and pandemic appear to be weak across a number of global regions including Asia and Africa despite the higher risk of emergence of pathogens
Impact of a pandemic on the healthcare and clinical research workforce is significant. There are many limitations in terms of the support available to manage their own wellbeing
Different levels of complexities exist globally in terms of research regulations and legislations which impact the efficiency of setting up and conducting a study
The impact of the pandemic to clinical trial unit staff in the UK indicated a number of aspects that need to be improved pertinent at an organisational and individual level
What do the new findings imply?
What do the new findings imply?
Healthcare and Academic institutions as well as the internal units require fit-for-purpose preparedness procedures
Improved risk planning and mitigation frameworks would be required to better understand and develop methods to continue to deliver work
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work is funded by the NIHR
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee the Health Research Authority of the UK gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵** Shared last author
↵* Shared second author
Declarations
Funding This work is funded by the NIHR.
Conflicts of interest PP has received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and other, educational from Queen Mary University of London, other from John Wiley & Sons, other from Otsuka, outside the submitted work. SR reports other from Janssen, Lundbeck and Otsuka outside the submitted work. All other authors report no conflict of interest. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health and Social Care or the Academic institutions.
Availability of data and material The authors will consider sharing the dataset gathered upon receipt of reasonable requests.
Code availability The authors will consider sharing the dataset gathered upon receipt of reasonable requests.
Ethics approval HRA REC approval (21/HRA/2348) was obtained prior to the study initiation.
Consent to participate All participants consented to take part in this study.
Consent for publication All authors consented to publish this manuscript.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
