BackgroundInternational clinical trials are now rapidly expanding into Asia. However, the proportion of global trials is higher in South Korea compared to Japan despite implementation of similar governmental support in both countries. The difference in clinical trial environment might influence the respective physicians’ attitudes and experience towards clinical trials. Therefore, we designed a questionnaire to explore how physicians conceive the issues surrounding clinical trials in both countries.MethodsA questionnaire survey was conducted at Kyoto University Hospital (KUHP) and Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH) in 2008. The questionnaire consisted of 15 questions and 2 open-ended questions on broad key issues relating to clinical trials.ResultsThe number of responders was 301 at KUHP and 398 at SNUH. Doctors with trial experience were 196 at KUHP and 150 at SNUH. Among them, 12% (24/196) at KUHP and 41% (61/150) at SUNH had global trial experience. Most respondents at both institutions viewed clinical trials favorably and thought that conducting clinical trials contributed to medical advances, which would ultimately lead to new and better treatments. The main reason raised as a hindrance to conducting clinical trials was the lack of personnel support and time. Doctors at both university hospitals thought that more clinical research coordinators were required to conduct clinical trials more efficiently. KUHP doctors were driven mainly by pure academic interest or for their desire to find new treatments, while obtaining credits for board certification and co-authorship on manuscripts also served as motivation factors for doctors at SNUH.ConclusionsOur results revealed that there might be two different approaches to increase clinical trial activity. One is a social level approach to establish clinical trial infrastructure providing sufficient clinical research professionals. The other is an individual level approach that would provide incentives to encourage doctors to participate in and conduct clinical trials.

When presented with a graded view of human-swine chimeric embryo research with concomitant, specific objectives, a large majority of the general public as well as researchers are willing to accept this research with the aims of disease study, novel drug and treatment development, and transplantation.

The convergent mixed methods design is a common mixed methods research strategy; however, a challenge arises when data are collected concurrently but not analyzed completely independently due to overlapping research aims or certain styles of reasoning. The aims of this study were to (1) implement a crossover-tracks analysis in a convergent design wherein qualitative and quantitative strands were intertwined and informed each other and (2) examine a working hypothesis about the relationship between temporal change in clinical dialogues to examine the strength of patients’ motivation to participate in a clinical consultation. Using hypothetico-deductive method, the dynamic analytical approach shifted between inductive and deductive approaches. The qualitative and quantitative results were merged, and a joint-display depicted the relation for the final interpretation.

Considering many patients travel to foreign countries to seek therapy, more research from non-English-speaking countries is needed.

Summary We report findings from a new survey of US public attitudes toward human-animal chimeric embryo (HACE) research, designed to compare with recently reported Japanese survey data. We find that 59% of the US public can personally accept the process of injecting human induced pluripotent stem cells into genetically modified swine embryos and having human tissues produced in a pig's body transplanted into a human. This is greater acceptance than in Japan, and there is even strong acceptance among those with strong religious affiliations and who self-identify as conservatives. We argue that strong public support for HACE research, as well as the emerging literature suggesting that humanization of research animals is very unlikely, should compel the NIH to lift its current moratorium on HACE research.