IMPACT study on intervening with a manualised package to achieve treatment adherence in people with tuberculosis: protocol paper for a mixed-methods study, including a pilot randomised controlled trial

Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies

BACKGROUND

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

METHODS

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

RESULTS

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

CONCLUSION

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions

Background

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

Methods

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

Results

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

Conclusion

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

"You have to change your whole life": A qualitative study of the dynamics of treatment adherence among adults with tuberculosis in the United Kingdom

Maintaining adherence to treatment for tuberculosis (TB) is essential if the disease is to be eliminated. As part of formative research to develop an intervention to improve adherence, we documented the lived experiences of adults receiving anti-TB treatment (ATT) in three UK cities and examined how personal, social, and structural circumstances interacted to impact on individuals’ adherence to treatment. Using a topic guide that explored social circumstances and experiences of TB care, we conducted in-depth interviews with 18 adults (six women) who were being or had been treated for TB (patients) and four adults (all women) who were caring for a friend, relative, or partner being treated for TB (caregivers). We analysed transcripts using an adapted framework method that classified factors affecting adherence as personal, social, structural, health systems, or treatment-related. Eleven of 18 patients were born outside the UK (in South, Central, and East Asia, and Eastern and Southern Africa); among the seven who were UK-born, four were Black, Asian, or Minority Ethnic and three were White British. TB and its treatment were often disruptive: in addition to debilitating symptoms and side effects of ATT, participants faced job insecurity, unstable housing, stigma, social isolation, worsening mental health, and damaged relationships. Those who had a strong support network, stable employment, a routine that could easily be adapted, a trusting relationship with their TB team, and clear understanding of the need for treatment reported finding it easier to adhere to ATT. Changes in circumstances sometimes had dramatic effects on an individual’s ability to take ATT; participants described how the impact of certain acute events (e.g., the onset of side effects or fatigue, episodes of stigmatisation, loss of income) were amplified by their timing or through their interaction with other elements of the individual’s life. We suggest that the dynamic and fluctuating nature of these factors necessitates comprehensive and regular review of needs and potential problems, conducted before and during ATT; this, coupled with supportive measures that consider (and seek to mitigate) the influence of social and structural factors, may help improve adherence.

Relational Dynamics of Treatment Behavior Among Individuals with Tuberculosis in High-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

Although tuberculosis (TB) incidence has significantly declined in high-income, low-incidence (HILI) countries, challenges remain in managing TB in vulnerable populations who may struggle to stay on anti-TB treatment (ATT). Factors associated with non-adherence to ATT are well documented; however, adherence is often narrowly conceived as a fixed binary variable that places emphasis on individual agency and the act of taking medicines, rather than on the demands of being on treatment more broadly. Further, the mechanisms through which documented factors act upon the experience of being on treatment are poorly understood. Adopting a relational approach that emphasizes the embeddedness of individuals within dynamic social, structural, and health systems contexts, this scoping review aims to synthesize qualitative evidence on experiences of being on ATT and mechanisms through which socio-ecological factors influence adherence in HILI countries. Six electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed literature published in English between January 1990 and May 2020. Additional studies were obtained by searching references of included studies. Narrative synthesis was used to analyze qualitative data extracted from included studies. Of 28 included studies, the majority (86%) reported on health systems factors, followed by personal characteristics (82%), structural influences (61%), social factors (57%), and treatment-related factors (50%). Included studies highlighted three points that underpin a relational approach to ATT behavior: 1) individual motivation and capacity to take ATT is dynamic and intertwined with, rather than separate from, social, health systems, and structural factors; 2) individuals' pre-existing experiences of health-seeking influence their views on treatment and their ability to commit to long-term regular medicine-taking; and 3) social, cultural, and political contexts play an important role in mediating how specific factors work to support or hinder ATT adherence behavior in different settings. Based on our analysis, we suggest that person-centered clinical management of tuberculosis should 1) acknowledge the ways in which ATT both disrupts and is managed within the everyday lives of individuals with TB; 2) appreciate that individuals' circumstances and the support and resources they can access may change over the course of treatment; and 3) display sensitivity towards context-specific social and cultural norms affecting individual and collective experiences of being on ATT.

All nonadherence is equal but is some more equal than others? Tuberculosis in the digital era

Adherence to treatment for tuberculosis (TB) has been a concern for many decades, resulting in the World Health Organization's recommendation of the direct observation of treatment in the 1990s. Recent advances in digital adherence technologies (DATs) have renewed discussion on how to best address nonadherence, as well as offering important information on dose-by-dose adherence patterns and their variability between countries and settings. Previous studies have largely focussed on percentage thresholds to delineate sufficient adherence, but this is misleading and limited, given the complex and dynamic nature of adherence over the treatment course. Instead, we apply a standardised taxonomy - as adopted by the international adherence community - to dose-by-dose medication-taking data, which divides missed doses into 1) late/noninitiation (starting treatment later than expected/not starting), 2) discontinuation (ending treatment early), and 3) suboptimal implementation (intermittent missed doses). Using this taxonomy, we can consider the implications of different forms of nonadherence for intervention and regimen design. For example, can treatment regimens be adapted to increase the "forgiveness" of common patterns of suboptimal implementation to protect against treatment failure and the development of drug resistance? Is it reasonable to treat all missed doses of treatment as equally problematic and equally common when deploying DATs? Can DAT data be used to indicate the patients that need enhanced levels of support during their treatment course? Critically, we pinpoint key areas where knowledge regarding treatment adherence is sparse and impeding scientific progress.

IMPACT study on intervening with a manualised package to achieve treatment adherence in people with tuberculosis: protocol paper for a mixed-methods study, including a pilot randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Compared with the rest of the UK and Western Europe, England has high rates of the infectious disease tuberculosis (TB). TB is curable, although treatment is for at least 6 months and longer when disease is drug resistant. If patients miss too many doses (non-adherence), they may transmit infection for longer and the infecting bacteria may develop resistance to the standard drugs used for treatment. Non-adherence may therefore risk both their health and that of others. Within England, certain population groups are thought to be at higher risk of non-adherence, but the factors contributing to this have been insufficiently determined, as have the best interventions to promote adherence. The objective of this study was to develop a manualised package of interventions for use as part of routine care within National Health Services to address the social and cultural factors that lead to poor adherence to treatment for TB disease.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study uses a mixed-methods approach, with six study components. These are (1) scoping reviews of the literature; (2) qualitative research with patients, carers and healthcare professionals; (3) development of the intervention; (4) a pilot randomised controlled trial of the manualised intervention; (5) a process evaluation to examine clinical utility; and (6) a cost analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethics approval on 24 December 2018 from Camberwell St. Giles Ethics Committee, UK (REC reference 18/LO/1818). Findings will be published and disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, published in an end of study report to our funder (the National Institute for Health Research, UK) and presented to key stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN95243114 SECONDARY IDENTIFYING NUMBERS: University College London/University College London Hospitals Joint Research Office 17/0726.National Institute for Health Research, UK 16/88/06.