Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 251–259 | Cite as

Investigator barriers and preferences to conduct clinical drug trials in Finland: a qualitative study

  • T. Keinonen
  • T. Keränen
  • T. Klaukka
  • V. Saano
  • P. Ylitalo
  • H. Enlund


Objective: To explore investigator barriers, preferences, and attitudes towards conducting clinical trials in Finland. Method: In‐depth, semi‐structured interviews with 20 clinicians working in the field of cardiovascular medicine were performed. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed qualitatively. Twenty clinicians from all (five) university hospitals in Finland and from three subgroups: 1) with long experience, 2) with limited experience and 3) reluctant to carry out clinical trials, were sampled purposefully. Main outcome measures: Barriers and (de)motivating factors in carrying out clinical trials and need for training in Good Clinical Practice (GCP).Results: Overall, the investigators had a positive attitude towards conducting clinical trials. The major barriers seemed to occur at the beginning of the trial: bureaucracy, lack of time and laboriousness. The informants hoped for more specific in‐house rules and flexibility in hospitals. The greatest investigator barriers were insufficient financial incentives, trial‐related reasons and administrative affairs/bureaucracy. The smallest barriers were reported in subject recruitment, clinical work, documentation, investigational product logistics and communication with ethics committees. Financial incentives, a possibility to incorporate a personal sub‐study or other benefits for personal research and scientific and clinical interest in the trial were reported as the most motivating factors. Carrying out studies in practice and an opportunity to participate in a trial during one's postgraduate specialist education were considered beneficial. Training in GCP, mainly in the course of postgraduate education, and a certificate or equivalent were generally considered necessary, although a voluntary system was preferred.Conclusion: The interviews of clinicians provide valuable information about the barriers and preferences related to the practical implementation of clinical trials. If the trial is scientifically/clinically interesting and involves a small administrative burden and sufficient financial compensation, investigators are motivated to participate. The barriers and preferences should be considered in decision‐making, to meet the various needs of all parties involved and to produce high‐quality GCP‐compliant clinical drug research. This would ensure the availability of sufficient conditions to carry out clinical trials also in the future.

Barriers Clinical trials Drugs Finland GCP Investigational Investigator preference Qualitative study 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, 2nd ed. Richmond, UK: Brookwood Medical Publications, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bohaychuk W, Ball G, Lawrence G, Sotirov K. A quantitative view of international GCP compliance. Appl Clin Trials 1998; 7 (2): 24–9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunier DP, Nahler GR. GCP Deficiencies in clinical trials in Western and Eastern Europe. Appl Clin Trials 1998; 7(3): 46–51.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bohaychuk W, Ball G, Lawrence G, Sotirov K. A qualitative view of international compliance. Appl Clin Trials 1998; 7(4): 26–35.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gamache V. FDA complaints against investigative sites still rising. CenterWatch 2001; 8(1): 11–5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bohaychuk W, Ball G, Lawrence G, Sotirov K. Protocol content and management. Appl Clin Trials 1999; 8(3): 67–77.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ward E, King M, Lloyd M, Bower P, Friedli K. Conducting randomized trials in general practice: methodological and practical issues. Br J Gen Pract 1999; 49: 919–22.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 1143–56.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taylor KM, Margolese RG, Soskolne CL. Physicians' reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomised clinical trial of surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1984; 310: 1363–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lovato LC, Hill K, Hertert S, Hunninghake DB, Probstfield JL. Recruitment for controlled clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography. Contr Clin Trials 1997; 18: 328–57.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tognoni G, Alli C, Avanzini F, Bettelli G, Colombo F, Corso R, et al. Randomised clinical trials in general practice: lessons from a failure. BMJ 1991; 303: 969–71.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Windt D, Koes BW, van Aarst M, Heemskerk M, Bouter LM. Practical aspects of conducting a pragmatic randomised trial in primary care: patient recruitment and outcome assessment. Br J Gen Pract 2000; 50: 371–4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Langley C, Gray S, Selley S, Bowie C, Price C. Clinicians' attitudes to recruitment to randomised trials in cancer care: a qualitative study. J Health Serv Res Policy 2000; 5: 164–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brittain-Dissont T. SMOs - more letters from America. Helix 2001; May 10–1.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glass HE, Kane RA. Why investigators take part in clinical trials? Appl Clin Trials 2000; 9(6): 46–54.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anonymous. Investigator scrutiny and certification. ACRP 2001 White Paper. Monitor 2001; 15(2): 26–31.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gwede CK, Johnson D, Trotti A. Measuring the workload of clinical research coordinators. Part I, tools to study workload issues. Appl Clin Trials 2000; 9(1): 40–4.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Szpindor SA. Current regulatory considerations and challenges for the clinical investigative sites. Monitor 2000; 14(4): 35–42.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donato BJ, Gibson TR. Clinical trials in the USA. GCP Journal 2001; 8: 14–21.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pharmaceutical Information Centre. Clinical Trials in Finland 1999. Helsinki: Libris, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keinonen T, Nieminen S, Saareks V, Miettinen P, Saano V, Ylitalo P. The quality and characteristics of clinical drug study notifications reviewed by the regulatory agency in Finland. Contr Clin Trials 2002; 2: 42–51.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    National Agency for Medicines and Social Insurance Institution. Finnish Statistics on Medicines 2000. Helsinki: Edita, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pharma Industry of Finland. Kliiniset lääketutkimukset Suomessa 2001. [Clinical Trials in Finland 2001.] (Annual query for statistics). Helsinki: Pharma Industry of Finland, 2002.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krippendorff K. Content Analysis. An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1986.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1998.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Green J. Commentary: grounded theory and the constant comparative method. BMJ 1998; 316: 1064–5.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311: 42–5.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000; 320: 114–6.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zisson S. Large site networks quietly take the field. CenterWatch 2001; 8(1): 4–7.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schuster DP, McGill J. Attract clinical trials to an AMC. Appl Clin Trials 2001; 10 (11): 44–52.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nathan DG. Clinical research: perceptions, reality, and proposed solutions. NIH director's panel on clinical research. JAMA 1998; 280: 1427–31.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosenberg L. Physician-Scientists - endangered and essential. Science 1999; 283: 331–2.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bodenheimer T. Uneasy alliance - clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1539–44.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Newman TJ. Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 510–1.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Swanson GM, Ward AJ. Recruiting minorities into clinical trials: toward a participant-friendly system. J Nat Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 1747–59.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hunninghake DB, Darby CA, Probstfield JL. Recruitment experience in clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography. Contr Clin Trials 1987; 8 (4 Suppl): 6S–30S.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bonner J. Taking on development delays. CenterWatch-Europe 2002; 2(1): 9–14.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Allen W. European CROs muscle into the study conduct services market. CenterWatchEurope 2001; 1(4): 4–10.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Peters J. AMCs finding and fueling growth. CenterWatch 2001; 8(1): 8–12.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hyppölä H, Virjo I, Mattila K, Kumpusalo E, Kujala S, Hilla H et al. Lääkäri 98. [Physician 98.] [Report on a questionnaire study about Finnish physicians graduated in 1987–1996 and comparison with the situations ten and five years earlier.] Publications of the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2000: 10. Helsinki: Edita, 2000.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hyppölä H, Kumpusalo E, Neittaanmäki L, Mattila K, Virjo I, Kujala S. Where should special attention be paid in undergraduate medical education? Two surveys among Finnish doctors. Med Educ 1996; 30: 31–7.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Editorial. Researcher, clinician, or a teacher? Lancet 2001; 357(9268): 1543.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Saukko P, Andersson L, Ihalainen J, Mattila K, Halila H. Tiedepoliittisen työryhmän muistio 1996. [Memorandum of the Science Policy Committee 1996.] Helsinki: Finnish Medical Association, 1996Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Keinonen
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. Keränen
    • 3
    • 4
  • T. Klaukka
    • 5
  • V. Saano
    • 6
  • P. Ylitalo
    • 7
  • H. Enlund
    • 8
    • 9
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology and ToxicologyUniversity of KuopioKuopio
  2. 2.Finland and MedFiles LtdKuopioFinland E‐mail
  3. 3.Department of Pharmacological SciencesUniversity of TampereTampereFinland
  4. 4.Department of NeurologyTurku University HospitalTurkuFinland
  5. 5.Social Insurance InstitutionHelsinkiFinland
  6. 6.National Agency for MedicinesHelsinkiFinland
  7. 7.Tampere University HospitalTampereFinland
  8. 8.Department of Pharmacy PracticeKuwait UniversitySafatKuwait
  9. 9.Department of Social PharmacyUniversity of KuopioFinland

Personalised recommendations