Investigation and research on the state of clinical trials during epidemic period of COVID-19

With coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreading, the rhythm of clinical trials has been challenged. Based on the guidelines and relevant regulations of clinical trials during the epidemic period, the Drum Tower Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing University School of medicine has designed a survey to investigate the current situation of clinical trials. Association, CRA, clinical research coordinator (CRC), and test managers were involved in the research. According to the survey results, most researchers reflected that the progress of clinical trials was affected (68.24%), and the clinical trials of non-oral drugs were greatly affected (69.96%), which was mainly manifested in the malignant tumor project (88.2%), during the trial, the most obvious influence is 92.7% for out of visit window, and the subject worrying about the deterioration of disease (78.97%), the risk of drug overtemperature exists in mailing drugs (60.09%), and the number of trials timeliness (89.09%) and integrity (79.61%) were the most affected. Therefore, it is a new working mode for our clinical trial institutions to improve the emergency mechanism of clinical trials, strengthen the supervision of trials, and realize the sharing of clinical trial data and the whole process information management. © 2021, Chinese Journal of New Drugs Co. Ltd. All right reserved.

Citizen Assessments of Government Actions in the COVID-19 Outbreak in China

This study investigates citizen assessments of government actions in the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Empirical analyses based on a large-scale online survey indicate that the Chinese public expects the government to improve its support for the frontline medical staff, management of public stress and anxiety, and disclosure of government information. Specifically, indirect exposure to COVID-19 through second-hand information is negatively associated with citizen assessments of government actions;by contrast, the first-hand frontline experience with the epidemic is positively associated with citizen assessments of government actions. Findings suggest that citizens with first-hand experience might be more able to judge government actions under the actual constraints of resources and opportunities, and are less likely to overemphasize the costs or risks associated with government actions than others without frontline experience. Our work suggests that governments should effectively communicate detailed information regarding government actions to the public during public health emergencies, as more informed citizens might be more supportive of governments with limited resources and, probably, more actively collaborate with governments.