Increase value and reduce waste in research on psychological therapies

Increasing Value and Reducing Waste of Research on Neurofeedback Effects in Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A State-of-the-Art-Review

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is often considered challenging to treat due to factors that contribute to its complexity. In the last decade, more attention has been paid to non-pharmacological or non-psychological therapies for PTSD, including neurofeedback (NFB). NFB is a promising non-invasive technique targeting specific brainwave patterns associated with psychiatric symptomatology. By learning to regulate brain activity in a closed-loop paradigm, individuals can improve their functionality while reducing symptom severity. However, owing to its lax regulation and heterogeneous legal status across different countries, the degree to which it has scientific support as a psychiatric treatment remains controversial. In this state-of-the-art review, we searched PubMed, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE and identified meta-analyses and systematic reviews exploring the efficacy of NFB for PTSD. We included seven systematic reviews, out of which three included meta-analyses (32 studies and 669 participants) that targeted NFB as an intervention while addressing a single condition-PTSD. We used the MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 and the criteria described by Cristea and Naudet (Behav Res Therapy 123:103479, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.103479 ) to identify sources of research waste and increasing value in biomedical research. The seven assessed reviews had an overall extremely poor quality score (5 critically low, one low, one moderate, and none high) and multiple sources of waste while opening opportunities for increasing value in the NFB literature. Our research shows that it remains unclear whether NFB training is significantly beneficial in treating PTSD. The quality of the investigated literature is low and maintains a persistent uncertainty over numerous points, which are highly important for deciding whether an intervention has clinical efficacy. Just as importantly, none of the reviews we appraised explored the statistical power, referred to open data of the included studies, or adjusted their pooled effect sizes for publication bias and risk of bias. Based on the obtained results, we identified some recurrent sources of waste (such as a lack of research decisions based on sound questions or using an appropriate methodology in a fully transparent, unbiased, and useable manner) and proposed some directions for increasing value (homogeneity and consensus) in designing and reporting research on NFB interventions in PTSD.

Setting an International Research Agenda for Fear of Cancer Recurrence: An Online Delphi Consensus Study

Background

Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is common amongst cancer survivors. There is rapidly growing research interest in FCR but a need to prioritize research to address the most pressing clinical issues and reduce duplication and fragmentation of effort. This study aimed to establish international consensus among clinical and academic FCR experts regarding priorities for FCR research.

Methods

Members of the International Psycho-oncology Society (IPOS) Fear of Cancer Recurrence Special Interest Group (FORwards) were invited to participate in an online Delphi study. Research domains identified in Round 1 were presented and discussed at a focus group (Round 2) to consolidate the domains and items prior to presentation in further survey rounds (Round 3) aimed at gaining consensus on research priorities of international significance.

Results

Thirty four research items were identified in Round 1 and 33 of the items were consolidated into six overarching themes through a focus group discussion with FCR experts. The 33 research items were presented in subsequent rounds of the delphi technique. Twenty one participants contributed to delphi round 1, 16 in round 2, and 25 and 29 participants for subsequent delphi rounds. Consensus was reached for 27 items in round 3.1. A further four research items were identified by panelists and included in round 3.2. After round 3.2, 35 individual research items were ratified by the panelists. Given the high levels of consensus and stability between rounds, no further rounds were conducted. Overall intervention research was considered the most important focus for FCR research. Panelists identified models of care that facilitate greater access to FCR treatment and evaluation of the effectiveness of FCR interventions in real world settings as the two research items of highest priority. Defining the mechanisms of action and active components across FCR/P interventions was the third highest priority identified.

Conclusion

The findings of this study outline a research agenda for international FCR research. Intervention research to identify models of care that increase access to treatment are based on a flexible approach based on symptom severity and can be delivered within routine clinical care were identified as research areas to prioritize. Greater understanding of the active components and mechanisms of action of existing FCR interventions will facilitate increased tailoring of interventions to meet patient need.

Driving better intervention outcomes in eating disorders: A systematic synthesis of research priority setting and the involvement of consumer input

OBJECTIVE

Setting specific research priorities and involving consumers in this process is one pathway to driving better intervention outcomes in eating disorders (EDs). We reviewed research priority setting in the field and the involvement of consumers in this priority setting.

METHOD

A systematic review following the PRSIMA statement was conducted and eight studies were identified for inclusion; four included substantial input from consumers, and four were researcher led. Similarities and differences across the types of studies were examined.

RESULTS

Research priorities informed by consumers were primarily concerned with producing better interventions and outcomes. A large degree of overlap with researcher-led priorities was present. The former studies had a greater focus on early intervention, bridging the research-practice gap, and recovery, while the latter were more likely to address diagnosis, genetic factors, brain circuitry, and pharmacotherapy. Priorities endorsed across more than one consumer-informed study included: the role of self-harm, working with health care professionals to increase early detection, supporting transition between services, and six issues about improved treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The ED field needs to engage in more meaningful involvement of co-design across consumers, clinicians and researchers along the entire research journey, not just research priority setting. An integrated research strategy incorporating a co-design perspective has the potential to drive better outcomes.

Towards the enhancement of quality publication practices in clinical psychological science

Addressing the 'replication crisis' and questionable research practices are at the forefront of international research agendas in clinical psychological science. The aim of this paper is to consider how the quality of research practices can be improved by a specific focus on publication practices. Currently, the responsibility for documenting quality research practices is primarily placed on authors. However, barriers to improved quality publication practices cut across all levels of the research community and require a broader approach that shares the burden for ensuring the production of high quality publications. We describe a framework that is intended to be ambitious and aspirational and encourage discussion and adoption of strategies to improve quality publication practices (QPPs). The framework cuts across multiple stakeholders and is designed to enhance (a) the quality of reporting; (b) adherence to protocols and guidelines; (c) timely accessibility of study materials and data. We discuss how QPPs might be improved by (a) funding bodies considering formally supporting QPPs; (b) research institutions encouraging a research culture that espouses quality research practices, and internally supporting QPP review processes and professional development in QPPs; (c) journals expanding editorial teams to include reviewers with design and statistical expertise, considering strategies to enhance QPP adherence during the peer review process, and committing to ongoing assessment and development of QPP training for peer reviewers; and (d) authors and peer reviewers integrating QPPs during the manuscript preparation/peer review process, engaging in ongoing QPP training, and committing to openness and transparency initiatives. We discuss the current state and potential next steps within each stage of the framework and provide information and resources to enhance QPPs. We hope that the suggestions offered here inspire research institutions, leaders and faculty to discuss, reflect on, and take action towards, integrating these, or other, QPPs into their research practice and workplace.