Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Nurse awareness of clinical research: a survey in a Japanese University Hospital

  • Hiroaki Yanagawa1Email author,
  • Shigemi Takai1,
  • Michiko Yoshimaru1,
  • Toshiko Miyamoto1,
  • Rumi Katashima1 and
  • Kikue Kida2
BMC Medical Research Methodology201414:85

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-85

Received: 5 August 2013

Accepted: 25 June 2014

Published: 2 July 2014

Abstract

Background

Clinical research plays an important role in establishing new treatments and improving the quality of medical practice. Since the introduction of the concept of clinical research coordinators (CRC) in Japan, investigators and CRC work as a clinical research team that coordinates with other professionals in clinical trials leading to drug approval (registration trials). Although clinical nurses collaborate with clinical research teams, extended clinical research teams that include clinical nurses may contribute to the ethical and scientific pursuit of clinical research.

Methods

As knowledge of clinical research is essential for establishing an extended clinical research team, we used questionnaires to survey the knowledge of clinical nurses at Tokushima University Hospital. Five-point and two-point scales were used. Questions as for various experiences were also included and the relationship between awareness and experiences were analyzed.

Results

Among the 597 nurses at Tokushima University Hospital, 453 (75.9%) responded to the questionnaires. In Japan, registration trials are regulated by pharmaceutical affairs laws, whereas other types of investigator-initiated research (clinical research) are conducted based on ethical guidelines outlined by the ministries of Japan. Approximately 90% of respondents were aware of registration trials and clinical research, but less than 40% of the nurses were aware of their difference. In clinical research terminology, most respondents were aware of informed consent and related issues, but ≤50% were aware of other things, such as the Declaration of Helsinki, ethical guidelines, Good Clinical Practice, institutional review boards, and ethics committees. We found no specific tendency in the relationship between awareness and past experiences, such as nursing patients who were participating in registration trials and/or clinical research or taking a part in research involving patients as a nursing student or a nurse.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that clinical nurses have only limited knowledge on clinical research and the importance to have chances to make nurses aware of clinical research-related issues is suggested to establish an extended research team. Because of the study limitations, further study is warranted to determine the role of clinical nurses in establishing a suitable infrastructure for ethical pursuit of clinical research.

Keywords

Nurses Research ethics Clinical research Awareness Contribution

Background

Clinical research plays an important role in improving the quality of medical practice, including the approval of drugs and medical devices (designated “registration trials” in the present article). The Japanese infrastructure for registration trials has improved since the introduction of the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) standard in 1997 and plans for the promotion of registration trials by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare and the Ministry of Culture and Science of Japan. The contribution of clinical research coordinators (CRC) in registration trials is now widely recognized not only for practical pursuit, but also for quality assurance in these trials.

On the other hand, investigator-initiated health research is conducted based on Japanese governmental guidelines, such as the 2001 Ethical Guidelines for Human Genome and Gene Analysis Research, the 2002 Ethical Guidelines for Epidemiological Research, and the 2003 Ethical Guidelines for Clinical Studies. Pharmaceutical Affairs Law and GCP are not applied to other types of investigator-initiated clinical research (designated “clinical research” in the present article) in Japan. Ordinary, physicians play roles of investigators and the contribution of CRC to clinical research is still limited, mainly for financial reasons. To overcome this inferiority in infrastructure, increasing the contribution of health professionals other than physicians in clinical research and registration trials could be a suitable strategy, not only for practical reasons, but also in regards to ethical conduct. Among various health professionals, clinical nurses, such as ward-based clinical nurses, are major in number and are currently engaged in clinical practice primarily as a nursing team. Several studies have revealed nurses’ attitudes and knowledge regarding nursing research [13] and the possible contribution of nurses in clinical ethics [4, 5]. However, little is known about nurses’ views and knowledge about clinical research and registration trials.

At Tokushima University Hospital, a rural teaching hospital in Japan, we have a “local” registration rule for investigators in registration trials and clinical research. Attendance at clinical trial seminars emphasizing research ethics, organized regularly by the Clinical Trial Center for Developmental Therapeutics (CTCDT), is mandatory for investigators. The registration rule for physicians was originally established in 2001 in response to the GCP as an original rule for maintaining the quality of trials at Tokushima University Hospital. In 2009, the Ethical Guidelines for Clinical Studies was revised and the coverage of the local rule expanded to all investigators in order to maintain the quality of clinical research at Tokushima University Hospital. Currently, the attendance of clinical nurses at clinical trial seminars is still limited.

We have already reported physicians’ view on registration trials [6], and considered understanding clinical nurses’ awareness of research, including “local” situations, may contribute to the establishment of a clinical research infrastructure. Therefore, we focused on clinical nurses and used questionnaires to survey their status at Tokushima University Hospital. Since past experiences may influence on nurses’ awareness, we included several questions concerning experiences related to registration trials, clinical research, and research involving patients.

Methods

We assessed nurses’ awareness of health research, including registration trials and clinical research, in a cross-sectional study conducted at Tokushima University Hospital.

A questionnaire was designed for use in this study, and was first administered to six CRC of the CTCDT of Tokushima University Hospital and the questionnaire was revised according to their suggestions. The questionnaire was anonymous and contained six parts with 47 questions (see Additional file 1). The first part consisted of five demographic questions. The second part consisted of five questions to determine the nurse’s general awareness of registration trials, clinical research, and CRC. The third part consisted of 14 questions concerning registration trials (8 questions), clinical research (4 questions), and nursing research (2 questions). The fourth part consisted of 9 questions concerning research-related terminology. The fifth part included 4 questions concerning experiences related to registration trials, clinical research, and research involving patients. Two questions about view of nurses’ role and willingness to work as CRC were also included in the fifth part. The sixth part consisted of 8 questions related to the nurse’s experience with education. In questions to survey awareness in the second and the fourth part, a five-point scale (confident, quite aware, aware, less aware, and not aware), was used. In the third part, nurses were advised to check if they were aware of the each issue. In other questions, two-point scale (yes and no), was used. Some questions concerned “local” situations at Tokushima University Hospital.

The questionnaire was provided to matrons of outpatient clinics and wards of Tokushima University Hospital and delivered to clinical nurses on occasion such as clinic- or ward-based conferences and was collected anonymously in 2011.

Data were expressed as the mean ± SD or n (%). We compared the awareness of clinical research-related issues based on the nurses’ experiences, such as nursing patients who were participating in registration trials and/or clinical research, and taking a part in research involving patients as a nursing student or a nurse, and analyzed the differences using the χ2 test. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. All P-values were based on two-sided tests. All statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS software, version 21.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics Base Authorized).

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tokushima University Hospital.

Results

Respondent characteristics

Among the 597 nurses at Tokushima University Hospital, 453 (75.9%) questionnaires were completed and included in this analysis. The respondents included 15 males (3.3%) and 432 females (95.4%); 6 (1.3%) respondents provided no answer for gender. Concerning area of work, 360 (79.5%) of the respondents worked in wards, 90 (19.9%) worked in outpatient clinics, and 3 (0.6%) provided no information. The age distribution of the respondents was as follows: 20–29 years (n = 186, 41.1%), 30–39 years (n = 122, 26.9%), 40–49 years (n = 74, 16.3%), ≥ 50 years (n = 57, 12.6%), no answer (n = 14, 3.1%). The total nursing experience was as follows: <1 year (n = 23, 5.1%), 1–4 years (n = 125, 27.5%), 5–9 years (n = 86, 19.0%), 10–14 years (n = 55, 12.1%), 15–19 years (n = 44, 9.7%), 20–24 years (n = 33, 7.3%), 24–29 years (n = 29, 6.4%), ≥30 years (n = 41, 9.1%), no answer (n = 17, 3.8%). The nursing experience at Tokushima University Hospital was as follows: <1 year (n = 53, 11.7%), 1–4 years (n = 174, 38.3%), 5–9 years (n = 86, 19.0%), 10–14 years (n = 36, 7.9%), 15–19 years (n = 24, 5.3%), 20–24 years (n = 13, 2.9%), 24–29 years (n = 26, 5.7%), ≥30 years (n = 33, 7.3%), no answer (n = 8, 1.8%). The median values for all respondents are provided with ranges in Table 1.
Table 1

Respondent age, nursing experience, and experience at Tokushima University Hospital

 

Median (range), years

Age

32 (20–61)

Total nursing experience

9.0 (<1 – 41)

Nursing experience at Tokushima University Hospital

4.7 (<1 – 41)

General awareness of registration trials, clinical research, and CRC

In Japan, registration trials are regulated by pharmaceutical affairs laws. In contrast, clinical research is conducted based on the ethical guidelines of the ministries of Japan.

Therefore, we asked nurses regarding their awareness of registration trials and clinical research and the differences between them. As shown in Table 2, most respondents were aware (confident, quite aware, or aware) of registration trials (95.1%) and clinical research (87.9%), but only 36.6% of the respondents were aware (confident, quite aware, or aware) of their difference. As for CRC, 55.6% of the respondents were aware (confident, quite aware, or aware) of CRC, but only 34.9% were aware of the role of CRC.
Table 2

General awareness of registration trials, clinical research, and CRC

 

Confident

Quite aware

Aware

Less aware

Not aware

No answer

Registration trials

64 (14.1%)

264 (58.4%)

103 (22.7%)

21 (4.6%)

1 (0.2%)

0 (0.0%)

Clinical research

49 (10.8%)

229 (50.6%)

120 (26.5%)

50 (11.0%)

5 (1.1%)

0 (0.0%)

Difference between registration trials and clinical research

11 (2.4%)

60 (13.2%)

95 (21.0%)

220 (48.7%)

65 (14.3%)

2 (0.4%)

Presence of CRC

34 (7.5%)

136 (30.0%)

82 (18.1%)

124 (27.4%)

76 (16.8%)

1 (0.2%)

Role of CRC

18 (4.0%)

43 (9.5%)

97 (21.4%)

192 (42.4%)

101 (22.3%)

2 (0.4%)

Awareness of issues related to registration trials, clinical research, and nursing research

As shown in Table 3, most respondents were aware of the following issues related to registration trials: “registration trials are necessary for drug registration”, “informed consent is essential for registration trials”, “refusal of registration trials causes no disadvantage”, and “participants can withdraw anytime”. On the other hand, ≤50% of respondents were aware that “review by institutional review board is mandatory”, “CRC support registration trials”, “some registration trials use placebo”, and “reward for participants is prepared in registration trials”.
Table 3

Awareness of issues related to registration trials, clinical research, and nursing research

 

Aware

Not aware

1. Awareness of issues related to registration trials

  

Registration trials are necessary for drug registration

401 (88.5%)

52 (11.5%)

Review by institutional review board is mandatory

194 (42.8%)

259 (57.2%)

CRC support registration trials

200 (44.2%)

253 (55.8%)

Informed consent is essential for a registration trial

422 (93.2%)

31 (6.8%)

Refusal of a registration trial causes no disadvantage

394 (87.0%)

59 (13.0%)

Some registration trials use placebo

232 (51.2%)

221 (48.8%)

Participants can withdraw anytime

345 (76.2%)

108 (23.8%)

Reward for participants is prepared in registration trials

221 (48.8%)

232 (51.2%)

2. Awareness of issues related to clinical research

  

Clinical research includes research using labeled drugs

192 (42.4%)

261 (57.6%)

Review by ethics committee is mandatory

242 (53.4%)

211 (46.6%)

Governmental ethical guidelines are applied to clinical research

245 (54.1%)

208 (45.9%)

Institutional registration is mandatory for investigators at Tokushima University Hospital*

148 (32.7%)

305 (67.3%)

3. Awareness on issues related to nursing research

  

Review by ethics committee is mandatory

370 (81.7%)

83 (18.3%)

Institutional registration is mandatory for nurse investigators at Tokushima University Hospital*

244 (53.9%)

209 (46.1%)

*Concerns the “local” rule at Tokushima University Hospital.

Concerning issues related to clinical research, ≤50% of respondents were aware of the four issues examined, and only 32.7% were aware of the “local” rule: “institutional registration is mandatory for investigators at Tokushima University”.

More than 80% of the respondents were aware that review by an ethics committee is mandatory for nursing research, and 53.9% of the respondents were aware that institutional registration is mandatory for nurse investigators at Tokushima University Hospital.

Awareness of research-related terminology

Next, we asked nurses about their awareness of research-related terminology, including informed consent, informed consent form, consent documents, representative of the subject, Declaration of Helsinki, Japanese Governmental ethical guidelines, GCP, institutional review boards, and ethics committees (Figure 1). More than 95% of the respondents were aware (confident, quite aware, or aware) of informed consent and related issues (informed consent form and consent documents), 53.4% of the respondents were aware of Japanese governmental guidelines, and 9.7% of the respondents were aware of GCP. More respondents were aware of the ethics committees that review clinical research than of the institutional review boards that review registration trials (71.5% vs. 31.8%, respectively).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2288-14-85/MediaObjects/12874_2013_Article_1101_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Awareness of research-related terminology.

Views and experience related to registration trials, clinical research, and research involving patients

As shown in Table 4, more than 90% of the respondents agreed that nurses need to know more about registration trials and clinical research, and 25.6% showed their willingness to work as CRC. We found that 30.2% of the respondents had experience nursing of patients who were participating in registration trials and/or clinical research. The respondents had experience taking a part in research involving patients as a nursing student (14.3%) or a nurse (36.9%).
Table 4

View and experience related to registration trials, clinical research, and nursing research

 

Yes

No

No answer

It is necessary for nurses to know more about registration trials and clinical research

413 (91.2%)

35 (7.7%)

5 (1.1%)

I have experience nursing patients who were participating in registration trials and/or clinical research

137 (30.2%)

314 (69.4%)

2 (0.4%)

I have experience being asked by patients about registration trials and/or clinical research

59 (13.0%)

392 (86.6%)

2 (0.4%)

I am willing to work as CRC

116 (25.6%)

325 (71.8%)

12 (2.6%)

I have experience taking a part in research involving patients as a nursing student

65 (14.3%)

348 (76.8%)

40 (8.9%)

I have experience taking a part in research involving patients as a nurse

167 (36.9%)

246 (54.2%)

40 (8.9%)

Influence of various experiences related to registration trials, clinical research, and research involving patients on awareness

Since awareness of nurses may vary depending on their past experience surveyed in the present study, we compared proportion of respondents that provided positive answer concerning awareness in subgroups. For this analysis, “confident”, “quite aware”, and “aware” were considered as positive answers concerning awareness. The subgroups were those with or without each experience, such as nursing patients who were participating in registration trials and/or clinical research, and taking a part in research involving patients as a nursing student or a nurse.

The results in categories of “general awareness of registration trials and clinical research” and “awareness of research-related terminology” are shown in Table 5. Although each subgroup with experience showed significantly higher proportion of respondents with positive answer in one or several issues in awareness than subgroup without experience, we could not find a certain tendency in influence of these experiences as a whole.
Table 5

Number and proportion of respondents that provided positive answer concerning awareness in subgroups (groups with or without various experiences)

 

Number (%) of respondents that provided positive answer

 

Experience nursing patients who were participating in registration trials and/or clinical research

Experience taking a part in research involving patients as a nursing student

Experience taking a part in research involving patients as a nurse

 

(+) (n = 137)

(−) (n = 314)

(+) (n = 65)

(−) (n = 348)

(+) (n = 167)

(−) (n = 246)

1. General awareness

      

 Registration trials

137 (100%)

293 (93.3%)

59 (90.8%)

333 (95.7%)

164 (98.2%)*

228 (92.7%)

 Clinical research

122 (89.1%)

275 (86.7%)

57 (87.7%)

307 (88.2%)

154 (92.2%)*

210 (85.4%)

 Difference between registration trials and clinical research

66 (48.2%)**

99 (31.7%)

15 (23.1%)*

136 (39.1%)

76 (46.1%)**

75 (30.5%)

2. Awareness on research-related terminology

    

 Informed consent

136 (99.3%)

313(99.7%)

65 (100%)

348 (100%)

167 (100%)

246 (100%)

 Informed consent form

133 (97.1%)

302 (96.2%)

61 (93.8%)

337 (97.4%)

160 (97.0%)

238 (96.7%)

 Consent documents

135 (98.5%)

312 (99.4%)

64 (98.5%)

345 (99.7%)

167 (100%)

242 (99.2%)

 Representative of the subject

110 (80.3%)**

204 (65.0%)

43 (66.2%)

243 (71.5%)

119 (73.5%)

167 (69.0%)

 Declaration of Helsinki

57 (41.6%)

110 (35.0%)

24 (36.9%)

127 (37.4%)

66 (40.0%)

85 (35.4%)

 Japanese governmental ethical guidelines

75 (54.7%)

167 (53.2%)

39 (60.0%)

183 (53.5%)

100 (60.6%)

122 (50.6%)

 Good clinical practice

21 (15.9%)**

23 (7.3%)

9 (13.8%)

28 (8.3%)

17 (10.5%)

20 (8.3%)

 Institutional review boards

54 (39.4%) *

90 (28.7%)

20 (30.8%)

111 (32.6%)

63 (38.4%)*

68 (28.2%)

 Ethics committees

105 (76.6%)

219 (69.7%)

47 (72.3%)

252 (73.0%)

138 (83.1%)**

161 (66.0%)

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 compared to proportion for respondents without experience.

Experience with health research education

We asked the nurses whether they had taken advantage of the various opportunities to learn about registration trials and clinical research at Tokushima University Hospital and their experience with nursing research. Although a considerable number of respondents had experience with nursing research education inside (38.9%) and outside (51.9%) Tokushima University Hospital, very few respondents (<10%) had experience with education regarding registration trials and clinical research (Table 6). We found that 21.6% of the respondents were aware of the clinical trial seminars organized regularly by the CTCDT of Tokushima University Hospital.
Table 6

Experience in health research education

 

Yes

No

No answer

Experience participating in various seminars

   

 Orientation when starting work at Tokushima University Hospital

17 (3.8%)

411 (90.7%)

25 (5.5%)

 Regular seminar organized by the Clinical Trial Center for Developmental Therapeutics

29 (6.4%)

399 (88.1%)

29 (6.4%)

 Start-up meeting of registration trials at Tokushima University Hospital

20 (4.4%)

408 (90.1%)

25 (5.5%)

 Seminar organized by the Clinical Trial Center for Developmental Therapeutics at wards

0 (0.0%)

428 (94.5%)

25 (5.5%)

 Seminar on clinical research held outside of Tokushima University Hospital

7 (1.5%)

421 (92.9%)

25 (5.5%)

 Seminar organized by the Nursing Department of Tokushima University Hospital

176 (38.9%)

272 (60.0%)

5 (1.1%)

 Seminar on nursing research held outside of Tokushima University Hospital

235 (51.9%)

213 (47.0%)

5 (1.1%)

I know that the Clinical Trial Center for Developmental Therapeutics regularly hosts seminars on clinical research

98 (21.6%)

349 (77.0%)

6 (1.3%)

Discussion

In a review concerning strategies for encouraging physician participation in clinical research, Rahman et al. [7] mentioned the importance of creating a research environment, such as a ‘centralized support services’ organization outside the physician group that facilitates the business of research by handling the clerical and other administrative tasks and communications among the research team. Although investigators participating in registration trials once performed all tasks related to the trial, from patient care to administrative work in Japan [8], a supporting division for clinical research including contribution of CRC is now widely accepted. For example, in a multicenter hypertension study, we found that physicians who recruit participants into a trial consider the presence of a support system with CRC as the reason to participate in the trial [9]. Therefore, the investigators and members of the supporting division of clinical research can be said to constitute a research team, at least in registration trials in Japan. To enable the full potential of the clinical research program, Baer et al. [10] encouraged collaboration among all individuals who support the program, including infusion nurses and pharmacists; because the direct benefit of clinical research may not be apparent to all medical professionals, efforts to promote support among staff are essential and awareness about clinical trials is needed on all levels of the institution and should be incorporated into the mission and vision of the site. In addition, a new plan for the promotion of clinical research and registration trials by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare and the Ministry of Culture and Science of Japan was introduced in 2012. Close communication between supporting divisions of clinical research, including CRC in Japan, and the nursing and pharmacy divisions allows a larger infrastructure to be established for clinical research and registration trials.

In the present study, ≥ 90% of the nurses were aware of registration trials and clinical research and agreed that nurses need to know more about registration trials and clinical research. The nurses were aware of the right of study participants to refuse and withdraw from registration trials, informed consent, and related issues (e.g., informed consent form and consent documents). These findings may reflect the familiarity of informed consent and related issues in clinical practice, and nurses may not be aware of the difference between these issues in clinical practice and in registration trials and clinical research. These possibilities should be examined in additional studies. Nevertheless, the nurses have considerable possibility of contributing to registration trials and clinical research in addition to centralized support services.

MacLean et al. [11] reported in a study on pediatric emergency nurses that the primary barriers to the nurses’ involvement in research is limited by research knowledge and experience, limited awareness and availability of research resources, lack of dedicated time, and limited recognition of research contributions. In agreement with this report, we found that nurses were not as aware of detailed issues in registration trials and clinical research, including the difference between registration trials and clinical research, some registration trial-related issues, clinical research-related issues, and some terminology. In the present study, we compared awareness in subgroups with or without respondents’ past experiences, such as nursing patients who were participating in registration trials and/or clinical research, and taking a part in research involving patients as a nursing student or a nurse, and no certain influence of these empirical experiences were observed. The findings may indicate that these empirical experiences had little impact to broaden nurses’ knowledge of clinical research-related issues. In contrast, systematic opportunities for education, such as seminars in and/or outside of the hospital, may contribute to nurses’ broader knowledge of clinical research. MacLean et al. [11] also reported that, in order to begin addressing the barriers, the Emergency Nurses Association developed a research curriculum based on the continuing education needs and interests identified by nurses in the United States. At Tokushima University Hospital, we have a local registration rule for clinical research investigators: attendance at clinical trial seminars, which includes basic issues affecting registration trials and clinical research at the postgraduate level, is mandatory if they ask the ethics committee to review their clinical research. The rule applies to nurses only when they work as investigators, such as when conducting their own research. Although 53.9% of the nurses in the present study were aware that institutional registration is mandatory for nurse investigators, their general awareness of the rule was low, and only a few had actually attended the institutional clinical trial seminar. Currently, voluntary attendance at the regular seminar is encouraged, but more opportunities for contact with the significance of clinical research should be considered.

In our previous survey at the First Symposium of the Shikoku Collaborative Group for Clinical Trials held in August 2009, a chance for learning, training, and person-to-person communication among personnel involved in clinical trials in the regional area, more support staff (including CRC) than medical staff exhibited willingness to contact staff from other medical institutions or organizations [12]. In a worldwide investigation of critical care research coordinators, “feelings of isolation” was mentioned among the “worst” aspects of their role [13]. In general, medical staff, such as ward-based clinical nurses, work as a nursing team, and CRC must be able to perform their research roles competently and must adapt to working alone as well as with a variety of clinical professionals. CRC often feel insecure, that they are perceived as a minority group, and that their complaints cannot be accepted by their colleagues who lack understanding and insight into the research process. In the present study, although the presence of CRC was recognized, clinical nurses were less aware of their role and the fact that CRC support registration trials. CRC communication with various professionals as an extended research team with clinical nurses could be a suitable strategy for lessening the feelings of isolation.

In a study of nursing staff involved in phase 1 oncology trials, Matsumoto et al. [14] reported that they encountered unique challenges because they were expected to be clinical trial specialists. Those who faced these challenges sometimes developed a negative attitude toward clinical trials, and the authors suggested the importance of education and support by other members of clinical trial teams to overcome the problem. Ethical issues arise for nurses involved in all phases of clinical trials, regardless of whether they are caregivers, research nurses, trial coordinators, or principal investigators [15]. These findings suggest that CRC communication with clinical nurses may have value for both groups.

Several limitations should be considered in the present study. First, the present study was conducted in one university hospital in Japan. Although almost Japanese hospitals has limited infrastructure for clinical research and clinical nurses are mainly engaged in clinical practice in Japan, the survey does not wholly reflect the awareness of nurses in Japan. Moreover, the health system and clinical research infrastructure vary among various countries, generalizability of the results in the present study in international settings should be examined in future studies. Second, the questionnaire was designed originally to survey the present awareness and experiences of nurses. Since awareness of nurses may vary depending on their past experience surveyed in the present study, we tried to compare awareness according to the respondents’ experiences. Although overall tendency was described in the present study, establishment of questionnaire that is suitable to compare these issues should be warranted.

Conclusions

In spite of various limitations, we found that clinical nurses have only limited knowledge of clinical research, and experience nursing patients who participate in clinical research may result in a broader knowledge of clinical research. Nurses must have the opportunity to be aware of clinical research-related issues, and examining that nurses’ broader knowledge of clinical research can contribute to the development of extended research teams for clinical research. Because of the study limitations, further study is warranted to determine the role of clinical nurses in establishing suitable infrastructure for clinical research.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the nurses of Tokushima University Hospital for their participation in this study, as well as Akiyo Akaishi, Soichiro Tajima, Tsugumi Amou, Shiho Yamato, Miho Watanabe, and Chiho Sato, Clinical Trial Center for Developmental Therapeutics, Tokushima University Hospital, for their encouragement and support.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Clinical Trial Center for Developmental Therapeutics, Tokushima University Hospital
(2)
Division of Nursing, Tokushima University Hospital

References

  1. Björkström ME, Hamrin EK: Swedish nurses’ attitudes towards research and development within nursing. J Adv Nurs. 2001, 34: 706-714.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Moreno-Casbas T, Fuentelsaz-Gallego C, Gil de Miguel A, Gonzalez-Marıa E, Clarke SP: Spanish nurses’ attitudes towards research and perceived barriers and facilitators of research utilisation: a comparative survey of nurses with and without experience as principal investigators. J Clin Nurs. 2011, 20: 1936-1947.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Timmins F, McCabe C, McSherry R: Research awareness: managerial challenges for nurses in the Republic of Ireland. J Nurs Manage. 2012, 20: 224-235.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Wocial LD, Bledsoe P, Helft PR, Everett LQ: Nurse ethicist: innovative resource for nurses. J Prof Nurs. 2010, 26: 287-292.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cusveller B: Nurses serving on clinical ethics committees: a qualitative exploration of a competency profile. Nurs Ethics. 2012, 19: 431-442.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Yanagawa H, Nishiya M, Miyamoto T, Shikishima M, Imura M, Nakanishi R, Ariuchi N, Akaishi A, Takai S, Abe S, Kisyuku M, Kageyama C, Sato C, Yamagami M, Urakawa N, Sone S, Irahara M: Clinical trials for drug approval: a pilot study of the view of doctors at Tokushima University Hospital. J Med Invest. 2006, 53: 292-296.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Rahman S, Majumder MAA, Shaban SF, Rahman N, Ahmed M, Abdulrahman KB, D’Souza UJA: Physician participation in clinical research and trials: issues and approaches. Adv Med Edu Pract. 2011, 2: 85-93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Ebihara A, Takahashi K, Ikemoto F, Yamamoto K: Clinical pharmacology and clinical trials in Japan. J Mol Med. 1996, 74: 479-486.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Yanagawa H, Kishuku M, Akaike M, Azuma H, Irahara M: View of physicians on and barriers to patient enrollment in a multicenter clinical trial: experience in a Japanese rural area. Int Arch Med. 2010, 3: 7-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Baer AR, Zon R, Devine S, Lyss AP: The clinical research team. J Oncol Pract. 2011, 7: 188-192.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. MacLean S, Désy P, Juarez A, Perhats C, Gacki-Smith J: Research education needs of pediatric emergency nurses. J Emerg Nurs. 2006, 32: 17-22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Yanagawa H, Irahara M, Houchi H, Kakehi Y, Moritoyo T, Nomoto M, Miyamura M, Shuin T, Shikoku Collaborative Group for Promotion of Clinical Trials: View and present status of personnel involved in clinical trials: a survey of participants from the First Symposium of the Shikoku Collaborative Group for Promotion of Clinical Trials. J Med Invest. 2011, 58: 81-85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Eastwood GM, Roberts B, Williams G, Rickard CM: A worldwide investigation of critical care research coordinators’ self-reported role and professional development priorities: the winner survey. J Clin Nurs. 2013, 22: 838-847.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Matsumoto K, Nagamura F, Ogami Y, Yamashita N, Kamibeppu K: Difficulties of nursing staff involved in phase 1 oncology trials in Japan. Cancer Nurs. 2011, 34: 369-375.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Oberle K, Allen M: Ethical considerations for nurses in clinical trials. Nurs Ethics. 2006, 13: 180-186.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/14/85/prepub

Copyright

© Yanagawa et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.

Advertisement