IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0304187.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of a conceptual framework for defining trial efficiency

Author

Listed:
  • Charis Xuan Xie
  • Anna De Simoni
  • Sandra Eldridge
  • Hilary Pinnock
  • Clare Relton

Abstract

Background: Globally, there is a growing focus on efficient trials, yet numerous interpretations have emerged, suggesting a significant heterogeneity in understanding “efficiency” within the trial context. Therefore in this study, we aimed to dissect the multifaceted nature of trial efficiency by establishing a comprehensive conceptual framework for its definition. Objectives: To collate diverse perspectives regarding trial efficiency and to achieve consensus on a conceptual framework for defining trial efficiency. Methods: From July 2022 to July 2023, we undertook a literature review to identify various terms that have been used to define trial efficiency. We then conducted a modified e-Delphi study, comprising an exploratory open round and a subsequent scoring round to refine and validate the identified items. We recruited a wide range of experts in the global trial community including trialists, funders, sponsors, journal editors and members of the public. Consensus was defined as items rated “without disagreement”, measured by the inter-percentile range adjusted for symmetry through the UCLA/RAND approach. Results: Seventy-eight studies were identified from a literature review, from which we extracted nine terms related to trial efficiency. We then used review findings as exemplars in the Delphi open round. Forty-nine international experts were recruited to the e-Delphi panel. Open round responses resulted in the refinement of the initial nine terms, which were consequently included in the scoring round. We obtained consensus on all nine items: 1) four constructs that collectively define trial efficiency containing scientific efficiency, operational efficiency, statistical efficiency and economic efficiency; and 2) five essential building blocks for efficient trial comprising trial design, trial process, infrastructure, superstructure, and stakeholders. Conclusions: This is the first attempt to dissect the concept of trial efficiency into theoretical constructs. Having an agreed definition will allow better trial implementation and facilitate effective communication and decision-making across stakeholders. We also identified essential building blocks that are the cornerstones of an efficient trial. In this pursuit of understanding, we are not only unravelling the complexities of trial efficiency but also laying the groundwork for evaluating the efficiency of an individual trial or a trial system in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Charis Xuan Xie & Anna De Simoni & Sandra Eldridge & Hilary Pinnock & Clare Relton, 2024. "Development of a conceptual framework for defining trial efficiency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0304187
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304187
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0304187
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0304187&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0304187?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0304187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.