Premium
Emergency Medicine Leadership in Industry‐sponsored Clinical Trials
Author(s) -
Newgard Craig D.,
Kim Sunghye,
Camargo Carlos A.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
academic emergency medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.221
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1553-2712
pISSN - 1069-6563
DOI - 10.1197/aemj.10.2.169
Subject(s) - medicine , clinical trial , family medicine , pharmaceutical industry , alternative medicine , medical education , pathology , pharmacology
Objective: To identify and characterize emergency medicine (EM) researchers who, since 1990, have served on a steering committee (SC) or as overall principal investigator (PI) of an industry‐sponsored, multicenter clinical trial involving a pharmaceutical or device. Methods: North American EM research directors (RDs) and other prominent EM investigators (for those hospitals without a RD) were identified from eight sources, including the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine RD Interest Group and the Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC) database. The identified investigators were sent a screening survey requesting information regarding industry‐sponsored clinical research at their site. The individual EM investigators identified by this screening survey were then interviewed by telephone (validation survey) to further explore their leadership experience in industry‐sponsored clinical trials. Results: Of 153 identified RDs and prominent EM researchers, 138 responded to the screening survey (90% response rate). Eighty‐five EM investigators reportedly had served on a SC or as overall PI for an industry‐sponsored clinical trial. Of these 85 North American EM investigators, 77 were available for a structured telephone interview (91% response rate). Although 41 (53%) of the investigators confirmed their leadership role, 36 (47%) had not served in either role. Among the 41 confirmed investigators, 19 (25%) had served as a SC member, 10 (13%) had served as overall PI, and 12 (16%) had experience in both roles. Individual responses provided suggestions for pursuing such leadership positions. Conclusions: These data suggest the opportunity to expand EM leadership in industry‐sponsored clinical trials and demonstrate the need for validation of reports obtained by a departmental research contact. The suggestions from EM researchers who have attained these leadership roles may provide strategies for investigators interested in pursuing these positions.