Generic placeholder image

Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials


ISSN (Print): 1574-8871
ISSN (Online): 1876-1038

General Research Article

Assessment of Knowledge and Awareness Among the Stakeholders of Clinical Research at the Site: A Collaborative, Electronic-Survey Approach to Identify the Indicators of Quality

Author(s): Chandana Pal, Aravind Kumar Rengan, Latha Moodahadu*, Jayanthi Swaminathan and Balakrishna Nagalla

Volume 18, Issue 1, 2023

Published on: 18 November, 2022

Page: [56 - 68] Pages: 13

DOI: 10.2174/1574887118666221019100542

Price: $65


Background: There has been a concern about the quality of clinical trials conducted in terms of data integrity, accuracy or ethical conduct. This study aimed to assess the tangible gap existing in knowledge and application of rules and guidelines among the Researcher, Research staff (RS) and Ethics Committee (EC) members - the three research stakeholders at the study sites.

Methods: A validated e-questionnaire with details for demography, role, years of experience, affiliation and questions on knowledge and understanding about their clinical research functions based on the New Drugs and Clinical Trials (NDCT) Rules 2019, including: ‘Role and responsibility, Regulations, Reporting timelines, Documentation, Conflict of interest and Miscellaneous’ was circulated among the seven research sites of one organization with their fourteen Institutional ECs, as part of planned annual survey. Responses with >60% correct answers were arbitrarily considered to represent adequate knowledge.

Results: Of 201 participants, there were 27.4% Researchers, 50.2% were from the EC and 22.4% RS. A greater proportion of the Researchers (43.6%) had >5 years of experience. The mean ± SD of correct answers obtained was 66.9 ± 14.77 and was statistically significant (p<0.05) among the groups, highest for the EC members (71.4 ± 11.51), those with 2-5 years of experience (68.4 ± 14.40), and least for the RS (56.8 ± 11.93). Researchers (> 90%) were aware of their role in the clinical trial agreement and the importance of the trial registration in the Clinical Trials Registry India. There were gaps in the knowledge on Informed Consent (IC) process and post-trial access. Awareness regarding the IC process was adequate among the RS (84%). Awareness that the responsibility of all delegation at the site finally lies with the Researchers was adequate (60%), but 20% incorrectly believed that the sponsor can have access to subject identification details. Deficiencies were noted regarding documentation, NDCT rules -2019 and serious adverse event (SAE) reporting process. Five percent answered that Data Clarification Forms were generated after reviewing the case report forms. The awareness that NDCT rules-2019 was not for medical devices, student projects or Investigator Initiated Studies was inadequate (56%). The EC members’ awareness of roles and responsibilities was adequate (≥ 90%). Knowledge gaps were noted in EC monitoring of the ongoing trials (32%) and SAE reporting on the SUGAM portal (8.8%), where stakeholders can access the regulator's web services using a single window interface for clinical trial related activities.

Conclusion: There are gaps in the knowledge of the 3 stakeholders at the site. Identifying and rectifying the gray areas will improve the site's performance. There is a need for regular training and assessments.

Keywords: Stakeholders, clinical research, electronic-survey approach, NDCT rules 2019, SUGAM portal, CRA.

Graphical Abstract
Barnes M, Flaherty J, Caron M, Naqvee A, Bierer B. The evolving regulatory landscape for clinical trials in India. Food Drug Law J 2018; 73(4): 601-23.
Bajpai V. Rise of clinical trials industry in India: An analysis. Int Sch Res Notices 2013; 2013.
Mondal S, Abrol D. Clinical trials industry in India: A systematic review. New Delhi: Institute for Studies in Industrial Development 2015.
Muthuswamy V. Status of ethical review and challenges in India. Indian Pediatr 2005; 42(12): 1189-90.
[PMID: 16424554]
Glickman SW, McHutchison JG, Peterson ED, et al. Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research. N Engl J Med 2009; 360(8): 816-23.
[] [PMID: 19228627]
Nundy S, Gulhati CM. A new colonialism? Conducting clinical trials in India. Engl J Med 2005; 352(16): 1633-6.
[] [PMID: 15843665]
Sikdar S, Banerjee K, Bhowmick S, Chatterjee T. An evaluation of knowledge, attitude, and practice of institutional ethics committee members from eastern India regarding ethics committee functioning and pharmacovigilance activities conducted during clinical trials: A pilot study. Perspect Clin Res 2014; 5(3): 115-20.
[] [PMID: 24987581]
ICH GCP guidelines. 2016. Available from: (cited 27th Nov 2021)
Good Clinical Practices guidelines (India). 2003. Available from: (cited 27th Nov 2021).
Gogtay N, Ravi R, Thatte U. Regulatory requirements for clinical trials in India: What academicians need to know. Indian J Anaesth 2017; 61(3): 192-9.
[] [PMID: 28405032]
Thatte UM, Figer B, Gogtay NJ. Compliance of Mumbai-based clinical trial sites with the Quality Council of India guidelines and evaluation of the challenges faced by the investigators. Perspect Clin Res 2021; 12(3): 133-9.
[] [PMID: 34386377]
Vennu V, Saini PP. India’s clinical trial regulatory changes, Indian researchers Awareness of recently changed regulations, and the impact of the new drugs and clinical trial rules: A review. Indian J Pharm Sci 2020; 82(5): 726-40.
Johnson J, Gupta NV. Recent advances in quality management of clinical trials. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2013; 5(3): 34-8.
Dan S, Ghosh B, Gorain B, Pal TK. Mandatory registration of the research ethics committees in India. Appl Clin Res Clin Trials Regul Aff 2014; 1(2): 88-92.
Thatte U, Marathe P. Ethics Committees in India: Past, present and future. Perspect Clin Res 2017; 8(1): 22-30.
[] [PMID: 28194334]
Bhatt A. Ethics Committees: Challenge of evidence-based accreditation. Perspect Clin Res 2017; 8(3): 105-6.
[PMID: 28828303]
Thatte UM, Nishandar TB, Birajdar AR, Gogtay NJ. Current status of standardized, quality and ethical oversight of clinical research in the country: An audit of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (registration of ethics committees) and national accreditation board for hospital and healthcare providers (accreditation) databases. Perspect Clin Res 2019; 10(2): 84-90.
[] [PMID: 31008075]
Central Drug Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) User Manual For e-Governance Solution for CDSCO Version 1.0. In: Centre for Development of Advanced Computing. Available from: (cited 17th June 2022)
Al Demour S, Alzoubi KH, Alabsi A, Al Abdallat S, Alzayed A. Knowledge, awareness, and attitudes about research ethics committees and informed consent among resident doctors. Int J Gen Med 2019; 12: 141-5.
[] [PMID: 31114291]
New Drugs and Clinical Trial Rules 2019. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare 2019. Available from: encms/export/sites/CDSCO_WEB/Pdf-documents/NewDrugs_CTRules_2019.pdf (cited 27th Nov 2021).
Section 1.56. E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice: Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1) Guidance for Industry. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) 2018. Available from: (cited 6th Jul 2022).
SUGAM an e-Governase solution for CDSCO and state food and drug administration. Central Drug Standard Control Organization. Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India Available from: (cited 27th Nov 2021).
Bangera S, Latha MS. Site selection for clinical research in India. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2015; 8(1): 10-4.
Kho ME, Rawski E, Makarski J, Brouwers MC. Recruitment of multiple stakeholders to health services research: Lessons from the front lines. BMC Health Serv Res 2010; 10(1): 123.
[] [PMID: 20465795]
National Ethical guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research involving human participants. Indian Council of Medical Research. 2017. Available from: https://main.ic (cited 27th Nov 2021).
Jadhav M, Bhatt A. Ethics in clinical research in India: A survey of clinical research professionals' perceptions. Perspect Clin Res 2013; 4(1): 4-8.
[] [PMID: 23533971]

Rights & Permissions Print Export Cite as
© 2023 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy