By embracing this leadership approach, clinical research stakeholders can prioritize more effective staff training and readiness.
In the evolving landscape of clinical research, the balance between “I-Frame” and “S-Frame” interventions is critical for success. While systemic (“S-Frame”) interventions address organizational and structural barriers, individual-focused (“I-Frame”) interventions that enhance personal capabilities and readiness are equally essential. For senior executives in clinical research, understanding this balance and investing in “I-Frame” interventions can significantly accelerate trial timelines, site start-up, and overall study success.
I-Frame: These focus on the individual, emphasizing personalized training, readiness to change, cognitive psychology, and/or nudge theory. I-Frame interventions aim to improve the skills, behaviors, and overall preparedness of individuals within the clinical research ecosystem.
S-Frame: These address systemic barriers and the broader organizational context. They involve modifications to structural and environmental factors that influence behavior, such as implementing new technologies or changing organizational policies, protocols, and practices.
In the context of clinical research, there is a noticeable imbalance between I-Frame and S-Frame interventions. New clinical trials often see significant investments in technology and systems solutions aimed at addressing organizational challenges. These S-Frame interventions, while important, must be balanced with the need for robust I-Frame scaffolding.
Case study: Technology vs. training
Consider a scenario where a contract research organization invests heavily in new software to streamline trial management. This S-Frame intervention attempts to address systemic inefficiencies but often neglects the support of site staff, even creating additional staff burden. Without proper I-Frame interventions to ensure that staff are well-trained and ready to use the new technology effectively, the benefits of the S-Frame solution are limited. The site staff might struggle with the new system, leading to delays and errors that could have been prevented with adequate individual-focused training and scaffolding.
When I-Frame interventions are overlooked, several issues can arise:
Clinical research stakeholders, especially those responsible for planning, designing, and overseeing clinical trials, must understand and support the needs of individual clinical research professionals and site teams.
By embracing the I-Frame of clinical research, stakeholders can prioritize more effective staff training and readiness, ultimately leading to faster timelines, smoother site start-ups, and more successful trials.
While S-Frame interventions address critical systemic issues, the importance of I-Frame interventions cannot be overstated. A balanced approach that includes robust support for individual capabilities will enhance the overall effectiveness and efficiency of clinical research and development endeavors.
Brian S. McGowan, PhD, FACEHP, is Chief Learning Officer and Co-Founder at ArcheMedX, Inc.
Unifying Industry to Better Understand GCP Guidance
May 7th 2025In this episode of the Applied Clinical Trials Podcast, David Nickerson, head of clinical quality management at EMD Serono; and Arlene Lee, director of product management, data quality & risk management solutions at Medidata, discuss the newest ICH E6(R3) GCP guidelines as well as how TransCelerate and ACRO have partnered to help stakeholders better acclimate to these guidelines.
Oveporexton Shows Superior Efficacy in Phase II Narcolepsy Type 1 Trial Without Hepatotoxicity
May 16th 2025In the TAK-861-2001 Phase IIb study, oveporexton significantly improved wakefulness, daytime sleepiness, and cataplexy frequency in patients with narcolepsy type 1, outperforming current therapies and avoiding liver toxicity seen with earlier OX2R agonists, according to results published in The New England Journal of Medicine.