Upload
oswin-hodge
View
214
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Purpose of Network Evaluation
• Increase understanding of the relationship between the network design, objectives and functions and the outcomes achieved
• Provide data to examine trends, identify strengths and weaknesses and assist in leadership decisions
Standing HPTN committees
Ongoing, internal peer review
• Protocol Review Committee• Study Monitoring Committee• Manuscript Review Committee
Network Evaluation Approach in 2000
• Qualitative rather than quantitativeWhy? Breadth of science Initial focus on infrastructure
development
• Comprehensive evaluation Site and protocol performance Working group functioning Central resources: CL, CORE, SDMC Standing committees
2001 Evaluation Report
• Survey results Science working groups Central resources Standing committees
• Quantitative data Protocol implementation Site performance
HPTN Evaluation -How did we measure up?
Slow overall progress – complex reasons
The large number of contributors (NIAID, FDA, CABS) that are an intrinsic part of a network has a direct relationship to protocol progress.
Many steps in review process – most seem to be unavoidable
Protocols – Development and Progress
Monitor protocol progress and take corrective action when needed to move slow developers along.
Shorten review process whenever possible; clear communication of the need for each review step; combine steps whenever possible.
Define realistic expectations for fielding a protocol.
Protocols – Development and Progress
- Suggested Corrective Measures
CWG – Survey Comments
Concern that CWG was not properly integrated into the HPTN research agenda
CWG/Network leadership not proactive enough in integrating the community into network activities
CWG should develop a clearer mission for the group and a master plan for achieving mission goals
Need clear definition of the roles of the CWG and CORE community program staff
Central Laboratory – Survey Comments
CL contributions to protocols were applauded
Site laboratory training – Good quality, more quantity
More and earlier involvement More site visits by CL Work on timing of training to
coincide more closely with study initiation.
CORE – Survey Comments
Protocol meetings and trainings are well managed
Receptive staff members More involvement by CORE staff
More site visits Closer monitoring More frequent and focused
trainings More vocal involvement in
protocol development
CORE – Survey Comments (cont.)
More scientific/technical training for CORE staff
More technical information on the web site and in the newsletter
Better definition of the roles of the CORE’s community program and the CWG
SDMC – Survey Comments
“Knowledgeable,” “Professional”
Accurate and prompt
More flexibility in approach to protocol development
Increase number of site and training visits to HPTUs
Increase interface with site staff in dealing with data management issues
Standing Committees – Survey Comments
SMC General satisfaction with decisions Earlier involvement in protocols during
implementation and site visitsPRC Reviews were timely, thorough and
helpful Concern that expertise of some
reviewers may not be adequate, suggest use of additional outside reviewers
Standing Committees – Survey Comments (cont.)
MRC Improve response time to authors Reviews need to be helpful, provide
guidance for improvement Provide written comments with
review decision
Prevention Leadership Group – Survey Comments
Conflict resolution is handled well by the PLG
Good decisions on making the best use of available resources
Clarify and communicate the role of PLG to the Network
Need to focus on tough issues and make “tough” decisions
Summary and ConclusionKey Evaluation Results to Consider• Increase communications to entire
network Clarify the review process from
concept to study initiation Clarify leadership roles and activities
• Increase network partner involvement with HPTUs More visits by CORE, SDMC and CL to
improve HPTU performance• Increased focus on ethics and
community issues in regard to conducting international research