Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-21T07:31:23.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

192 Identifying and Describing Hybrid or Fully Remote Research in Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2023

Devan Duenas
Affiliation:
Seattle Children’s Hospital
Charlie Gregor
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Ann Melvin
Affiliation:
Seattle Children’s Hospital
Gigi Perez
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Katie Porter
Affiliation:
Seattle Children’s Hospital
Brian Saelens
Affiliation:
Seattle Children’s Hospital
Chris Goss
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Institute of Translational Health Science (ITHS)Remote Technologies for Research Reference Center (REMOTECH) aims to ease the use of remote technologies in research, addressing barriers to research participation related to in-person and onsite assessments METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We engaged with stakeholders in our CTSA catchment area to understand the use and impact of remote research: implementation practices, participant acceptability, and impact on accrual. This environmental scan consisted of three parts: (1) Facilitated discussion groups with clinical trial regulatory and implementation experts regarding 10 key areas of research operations using composite case studies of research using remote technologies; (2) Semi-structured interviews with research teams who have successfully implemented remote technologies, querying about specific technologies, expected and actual barriers, and impact on the study population; and (3) A survey distributed to 900+ faculty and staff identifying prevalence of hybrid or fully remote research and describing specific remote technologies. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Discussion group preliminary findings show experts recommended prioritizing the assessment of value and burden for both research participants and the research team, that equity and diversity should not be sacrificed to accommodate cost and efficiency, and the importance of evaluating the impact of implementing remote technologies on data collection and analysis. Seventeen of 30 interviews are complete, mid-point analysis shows researchers wanting formal best practices and training in remote research, desire increasing diversity through remote options, and expressing concerns about participant burden. 46% of survey respondents report implementation barriers, including participant burden and confusing regulatory pathways. 17% thought remote technologies were not appropriate for their studies. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We plan to leverage a multidisciplinary team to address the identified barriers and disseminate through a public remote technology information portal. Coding and further analysis is underway, including additional interviews targeting researchers working with adolescents and older adults with an increased focus on equity and diversity.

Type
Health Equity and Community Engagement
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. The Association for Clinical and Translational Science