|
1
|
Support for earlier review of protocol/eligibility criteria
|
66
|
29%
|
|
2
|
Want clarity/consistency of information
|
20
|
9%
|
|
3
|
Already feedback to sponsor when criteria problematic
|
14
|
6%
|
|
4
|
Criteria are often too restrictive
|
12
|
5%
|
|
5
|
Criteria should be more inclusive of “real-world” patients
|
11
|
5%
|
|
6
|
Support for sponsor-provided eligibility checklists
|
9
|
4%
|
|
7
|
Happy to ask sponsor if have queries about criteria
|
8
|
3%
|
|
=8
|
Justification for criteria would be useful
|
7
|
3%
|
|
=8
|
Criteria can be long and complex
|
7
|
3%
|
|
=10
|
Criteria need to be more specific
|
6
|
3%
|
|
=10
|
Research Nurse involvement is/could be key in ensuring criteria quality
|
6
|
3%
|
|
=10
|
The right people/enough people already tend to be involved in protocol development
|
6
|
3%
|
