Describing the content of trial recruitment interventions using the TIDieR reporting checklist: a systematic methodology review

BACKGROUND

Recruiting participants to clinical trials is an ongoing challenge, and relatively little is known about what recruitment strategies lead to better recruitment. Recruitment interventions can be considered complex interventions, often involving multiple components, targeting a variety of groups, and tailoring to different groups. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting checklist (which comprises 12 items recommended for reporting complex interventions) to guide the assessment of how recruitment interventions are described. We aimed to (1) examine to what extent we could identify information about each TIDieR item within recruitment intervention studies, and (2) observe additional detail for each item to describe useful variation among these studies.

METHODS

We identified randomized, nested recruitment intervention studies providing recruitment or willingness to participate rates from two sources: a Cochrane review of trials evaluating strategies to improve recruitment to randomized trials, and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls database. First, we assessed to what extent authors reported information about each TIDieR item. Second, we developed descriptive categorical variables for 7 TIDieR items and extracting relevant quotes for the other 5 items.

RESULTS

We assessed 122 recruitment intervention studies. We were able to extract information relevant to most TIDieR items (e.g., brief rationale, materials, procedure) with the exception of a few items that were only rarely reported (e.g., tailoring, modifications, planned/actual fidelity). The descriptive variables provided a useful overview of study characteristics, with most studies using various forms of informational interventions (55%) delivered at a single time point (90%), often by a member of the research team (59%) in a clinical care setting (41%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our TIDieR-based variables provide a useful description of the core elements of complex trial recruitment interventions. Recruitment intervention studies report core elements of complex interventions variably; some process elements (e.g., mode of delivery, location) are almost always described, while others (e.g., duration, fidelity) are reported infrequently, with little indication of a reason for their absence. Future research should explore whether these TIDieR-based variables can form the basis of an approach to better reporting of elements of successful recruitment interventions.

Trial Forge Guidance 4: a guideline for reporting the results of randomised Studies Within A Trial (SWATs)

BACKGROUND

Evidence to support decisions on trial processes is minimal. One way to generate this evidence is to use a Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to test trial processes or explore methodological uncertainties. SWAT evidence relies on replication to ensure sufficient power and broad applicability of findings. Prompt reporting is therefore essential; however, SWAT publications are often the first to be abandoned in the face of other time pressures. Reporting guidance for embedded methodology trials does exist but is not widely used. We sought therefore to build on these guidelines to develop a straightforward, concise reporting standard, which remains adherent to the CONSORT guideline.

METHODS

An iterative process was used to develop the guideline. This included initial meetings with key stakeholders, development of an initial guideline, pilot testing of draft guidelines, further iteration and pilot testing, and finalisation of the guideline.

RESULTS

We developed a reporting guideline applicable to randomised SWATs, including replications of previous evaluations. The guideline follows the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and provides example text to ensure ease and clarity of reporting across all domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The SWAT reporting guideline will aid authors, reviewers, and journal editors to produce and review clear, structured reports of randomised SWATs, whilst also adhering to the CONSORT guideline.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EQUATOR Network - Guidelines Under Development ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#SWAT ). Registered on 25 March 2021.

Understanding implementation of findings from trial method research: a mixed methods study applying implementation frameworks and behaviour change models

BACKGROUND

Trial method research produces recommendations on how to best conduct trials. However, findings are not routinely implemented into practice. To better understand why, we conducted a mixed method study on the challenges of implementing trial method research findings into UK-based clinical trial units.

METHODS

Three stages of research were conducted. Firstly, case studies of completed projects that provided methodological recommendations were identified within trial design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. These case studies were used as survey examples to query obstacles and facilitators to implementing method research. Survey participants were experienced trial staff, identified via email invitations to UK clinical trial units. This survey assessed the case studies' rates of implementation, and demographic characteristics of trial units through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Further, interviews were conducted with senior members of trial units to explore obstacles and facilitators in more detail. Participants were sampled from trial units that indicated their willingness to participate in interviews following the survey. Interviews, and analysis, were structured via the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model of Behaviour. Finally, potential strategies to leverage lessons learned were generated via the Behaviour Change Wheel.

RESULTS

A total of 27 UK trial units responded to the survey. The rates of implementation across the case studies varied, with most trial units implementing recommendations in trial conduct and only few implementing recommendations in reporting. However, most reported implementing recommendations was important but that they lacked the resources to do so. A total of 16 senior members of trial units were interviewed. Several themes were generated from interviews and fell broadly into categories related to the methods recommendations themselves, the trial units, or external factors affecting implementation. Belief statements within themes indicated resources issues and awareness of recommendations as frequent implementation obstacles. Participation in trial networks and recommendations packaged with relevant resources were cited frequently as implementation facilitators. These obstacles and facilitators mirrored results from the survey. Results were mapped, via the Behaviour Change Wheel, to intervention functions likely to change behaviours of obstacles and facilitators identified. These intervention functions were developed into potential solutions to reduce obstacles and enhance facilitators to implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Several key areas affecting implementation of trial method recommendations were identified. Potential methods to enhance facilitators and reduce obstacles are suggested. Future research is needed to refine these methods and assess their feasibility and acceptability.

Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme

Background

Randomised controlled trials ('trials') are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted.

Objectives

PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial.

Design

A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously.

Setting

Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible.

Participants

Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom.

Interventions

Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial.

Main outcome measures

Number of host trials funded.

Results

Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials.

Limitations

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed (n = 2) or prematurely terminated (n = 3).

Conclusions

PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial.

Future work

Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice.

Study registration

All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Involving patients and the public In sTatistIcal Analysis pLans (INITIAL): A delphi survey

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in trials aims to enhance research by improving its relevance and transparency. Planning for statistical analysis begins at the design stage of a trial within the protocol and is refined and detailed in a Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP). While PPI is common in design and protocol development it is less common within SAPs. This study aimed to reach consensus on the most important and relevant statistical analysis items within an SAP to involve patients and the public.

METHODS

We developed a UK-based, two-round Delphi survey through an iterative consultation with public partners, statisticians, and trialists. The consultation process started with 55 items from international guidance for statistical analysis plans. We aimed to recruit at least 20 participants per key stakeholder group for inclusion in the final analysis of the Delphi survey. Participants were asked to vote on each item using a Likert scale from 1 to 9, where a rating of 1 to 3 was labelled as having 'limited importance'; 4 to 6 as 'important but not critical' and 7 to 9 as 'critical' to involve patients and the public. Results from the second round determined consensus on critical items for PPI.

RESULTS

The consultation exercise led to the inclusion of 15 statistical items in the Delphi survey. We recruited 179 participants, of whom 72% (129: 36 statisticians, 29 patients or public partners, 25 clinical researchers or methodologists, 27 trial managers, and 12 PPI coordinators) completed both rounds. Participants were on average 48 years old, 60% were female, 84% were White, 64% were based in England and 84% had at least five years' experience in trials. Four items reached consensus regarding critical importance for patient and public involvement: presentation of results to trial participants; summary and presentation of harms; interpretation and presentation of findings in an academic setting; factors impacting how well a treatment works. No consensus was reached for the remaining 11 items. In general, the results were consistent across stakeholder groups.

DISCUSSION

We identified four critical items to involve patients and the public in statistical analysis plans. The remaining 11 items did not reach consensus and need to be considered in a case-by-case basis with most responders considering patient and public involvement important (but not critical). Our research provides a platform to enable focused future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and enhance the relevance of statistical analyses to patients and the public.

Effectiveness of conservative management versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the prevention of recurrent symptoms and complications in adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease (C-GALL trial): pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of conservative management compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the prevention of symptoms and complications in adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease.

DESIGN

Parallel group, pragmatic randomised, superiority trial.

SETTING

20 secondary care centres in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

434 adults (>18 years) with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease referred to secondary care, assessed for eligibility between August 2016 and November 2019, and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive conservative management or laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

INTERVENTIONS

Conservative management or surgical removal of the gallbladder.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary patient outcome was quality of life, measured by area under the curve, over 18 months using the short form 36 (SF-36) bodily pain domain, with higher scores (range 0-100) indicating better quality of life. Other outcomes included costs to the NHS, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

Of 2667 patients assessed for eligibility, 434 were randomised: 217 to the conservative management group and 217 to the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. By 18 months, 54 (25%) participants in the conservative management arm and 146 (67%) in the cholecystectomy arm had received surgery. The mean SF-36 norm based bodily pain score was 49.4 (standard deviation 11.7) in the conservative management arm and 50.4 (11.6) in the cholecystectomy arm. The SF-36 bodily pain area under the curve up to 18 months did not differ (mean difference 0.0, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to 1.7; P=1.00). Conservative management was less costly (mean difference -£1033, (-$1334; -€1205), 95% credible interval -£1413 to -£632) and QALYs did not differ (mean difference -0.019, 95% credible interval -0.06 to 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In the short term (≤18 months), laparoscopic surgery is no more effective than conservative management for adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, and as such conservative management should be considered as an alternative to surgery. From an NHS perspective, conservative management may be cost effective for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease. As costs, complications, and benefits will continue to be incurred in both groups beyond 18 months, future research should focus on longer term follow-up to establish effectiveness and lifetime cost effectiveness and to identify the cohort of patients who should be routinely offered surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN55215960.

How do trial teams plan for retention during the design stage of the trial? A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Retention to trials is important to ensure the results of the trial are valid and reliable. The SPIRIT guidelines (18b) require "plans to promote participant retention and complete follow-up, including list of any outcome data to be collected for participants who discontinue or deviate from intervention protocols" be included in trial protocols. It is unknown how often protocols report this retention information. The purpose of our scoping review is to establish if, and how, trial teams report plans for retention during the design stage of the trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review with searches in key databases (PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science from 2014 to 2019 inclusive) to identify randomised controlled trial protocols. We produced descriptive statistics on the characteristics of the trial protocols and also on those adhering to SPIRIT item 18b. A narrative synthesis of the retention strategies was also conducted.

RESULTS

Eight-hundred and twenty-four protocols met our inclusion criteria. RCTs (n = 722) and pilot and feasibility trial protocols (n = 102) reported using the SPIRIT guidelines during protocol development 35% and 34.3% of the time respectively. Of these protocols, only 9.5% and 11.4% respectively reported all aspects of SPIRIT item 18b "plans to promote participant retention and to complete follow-up, including list of any outcome data for participants who discontinue or deviate from intervention protocols". Of the RCT protocols, 36.8% included proactive "plans to promote participant retention" regardless of whether they reported using SPIRIT guidelines or not. Most protocols planned "combined strategies" (48.1%). Of these, the joint most commonly reported were "reminders and data collection location and method" and "reminders and monetary incentives". The most popular individual retention strategy was "reminders" (14.7%) followed by "monetary incentives- conditional" (10.2%). Of the pilot and feasibility protocols, 40.2% included proactive "plans to promote participant retention" with the use of "combined strategies" being most frequent (46.3%). The use of "monetary incentives - conditional" (22%) was the most popular individual reported retention strategy.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of reporting of plans to promote participant retention in trial protocols. Proactive planning of retention strategies during the trial design stage is preferable to the reactive implementation of retention strategies. Prospective retention planning and clear communication in protocols may inform more suitable choice, costing and implementation of retention strategies and improve transparency in trial conduct.

Site staff perspectives on communicating trial results to participants: Cost and feasibility results from the Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed-methods trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. Show RESPECT (ISRCTN96189403) tested ways of sharing results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Sharing results via a printed summary improved patient satisfaction. Little is known about staff experience and the costs of communicating results with participants. We report the costs of communication approaches used in Show RESPECT and the views of site staff on these approaches.

METHODS

We allocated 43 hospitals (sites) to share results with trial participants through one of eight intervention combinations (2 × 2 × 2 factorial; enhanced versus basic webpage, printed summary versus no printed summary, email list invitation versus no invitation). Questionnaires elicited data from staff involved in sharing results. Open- and closed-ended questions covered resources used to share results and site staff perspectives on the approaches used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview and free-text data were analysed thematically. The mean additional site costs per participant from each intervention were estimated jointly as main effects by linear regression.

RESULTS

We received questionnaires from 68 staff from 41 sites and interviewed 11 site staff. Sites allocated to the printed summary had mean total site costs of sharing results £13.71/patient higher (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.19, 30.60; p = 0.108) than sites allocated no printed summary. Sites allocated to the enhanced webpage had mean total site costs £1.91/patient higher (95% CI: -14, 18.74; p = 0.819) than sites allocated to the basic webpage. Sites allocated to the email list had costs £2.87/patient lower (95% CI: -19.70, 13.95; p = 0.731) than sites allocated to no email list. Most of these costs were staff time for mailing information and handling patients' queries. Most site staff reported no concerns about how they had shared results (88%) and no challenges (76%). Most (83%) found it easy to answer queries from patients about the results and thought the way they were allocated to share results with participants would be an acceptable standard approach (76%), with 79% saying they would follow the same approach for future trials. There were no significant effects of the randomised interventions on these outcomes. Site staff emphasised the importance of preparing patients to receive the results, including giving opt-in/opt-out options, and the need to offer further support, particularly if the results could confuse or distress some patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding a printed summary to a webpage (which significantly improved participant satisfaction) may increase costs to sites by ~£14/patient, which is modest in relation to the cost of trials. The Show RESPECT communication interventions were feasible to implement. This information could help future trials ensure they have sufficient resources to share results with participants.

Emergency Department Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Trauma Patients With Exsanguinating Hemorrhage: The UK-REBOA Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Bleeding is the most common cause of preventable death after trauma.

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) when used in the emergency department along with standard care vs standard care alone on mortality in trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Pragmatic, bayesian, randomized clinical trial conducted at 16 major trauma centers in the UK. Patients aged 16 years or older with exsanguinating hemorrhage were enrolled between October 2017 and March 2022 and followed up for 90 days.

Intervention

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 allocation) to a strategy that included REBOA and standard care (n = 46) or standard care alone (n = 44).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days. Ten secondary outcomes included mortality at 6 months, while in the hospital, and within 24 hours, 6 hours, or 3 hours; the need for definitive hemorrhage control procedures; time to commencement of definitive hemorrhage control procedures; complications; length of stay; blood product use; and cause of death.

Results

Of the 90 patients (median age, 41 years [IQR, 31-59 years]; 62 [69%] were male; and the median Injury Severity Score was 41 [IQR, 29-50]) randomized, 89 were included in the primary outcome analysis because 1 patient in the standard care alone group declined to provide consent for continued participation and data collection 4 days after enrollment. At 90 days, 25 of 46 patients (54%) had experienced all-cause mortality in the REBOA and standard care group vs 18 of 43 patients (42%) in the standard care alone group (odds ratio [OR], 1.58 [95% credible interval, 0.72-3.52]; posterior probability of an OR >1 [indicating increased odds of death with REBOA], 86.9%). Among the 10 secondary outcomes, the ORs for mortality and the posterior probabilities of an OR greater than 1 for 6-month, in-hospital, and 24-, 6-, or 3-hour mortality were all increased in the REBOA and standard care group, and the ORs were increased with earlier mortality end points. There were more deaths due to bleeding in the REBOA and standard care group (8 of 25 patients [32%]) than in standard care alone group (3 of 18 patients [17%]), and most occurred within 24 hours.

Conclusions and Relevance

In trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage, a strategy of REBOA and standard care in the emergency department does not reduce, and may increase, mortality compared with standard care alone.

Trial Registration

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16184981.

Understanding pre-hospital blood transfusion decision-making for injured patients: an interview study

BACKGROUND

Blood transfusion for bleeding trauma patients is a promising pre-hospital intervention with potential to improve outcomes. However, it is not yet clear which patients may benefit from pre-hospital transfusions. The aim of this study was to enhance our understanding of how experienced pre-hospital clinicians make decisions regarding patient blood loss and the need for transfusion, and explore the factors that influence clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Pre-hospital physicians, from two air ambulance sites in the south of England, were interviewed between December 2018 and January 2019. Participants were involved in teaching or publishing on the management of bleeding trauma patients and had at least 5 years of continuous and contemporary practice at consultant level. Interviews were semi-structured and explored how decisions were made and what made decisions difficult. A qualitative description approach was used with inductive thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes related to blood transfusion decision-making in trauma.

RESULTS

Ten pre-hospital physicians were interviewed and three themes were identified: recognition-primed analysis, uncertainty and imperfect decision analysis. The first theme describes how participants make decisions using selected cues, incorporating their experience and are influenced by external rules and group expectations. What made decisions difficult for the participants was encapsulated in the uncertainty theme. Uncertainty emerged regarding the patient's true underlying physiological state and the treatment effect of blood transfusion. The last theme focuses on the issues with decision-making itself. Participants demonstrated lapses in decision awareness, often incomplete decision evaluation and described challenges to effective learning due to incomplete patient outcome information.

CONCLUSION

Pre-hospital clinicians make decisions about bleeding and transfusion which are recognition-primed and incorporate significant uncertainty. Decisions are influenced by experience and are subject to bias. Improved understanding of the decision-making processes provides a theoretical perspective of how decisions might be supported in the future.

Exploring the perspectives of selectors and collecters of trial outcome data: an international qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Selecting and collecting data to support appropriate primary and secondary outcomes is a critical step in designing trials that can change clinical practice. In this study, we aimed to investigate who contributes to the process of selecting and collecting trial outcomes, and how these people are involved. This work serves two main purposes: (1) it provides the trials community with evidence to demonstrate how outcomes are currently selected and collected, and (2) it allows people involved in trial design and conduct to pick apart these processes to consider how efficiencies and improvements can be made.

METHODS

One-with-one semi-structured interviews, supported by a topic guide to ensure coverage of key content. The Framework approach was used for thematic analysis of data, and themes were linked through constant comparison of data both within and across participant groups. Interviews took place between July 2020 and January 2021. Participants were twenty-nine international trialists from various contributor groups, working primarily on designing and/or delivering phase III pragmatic effectiveness trials. Their experience spanned various funders, trial settings, clinical specialties, intervention types, and participant populations.

RESULTS

We identified three descriptive themes encompassing the process of primary and secondary outcome selection, collection, and the publication of outcome data. Within these themes, participants raised issues around the following: 1) Outcome selection: clarity of the research question; confidence in selecting trial outcomes and how confidence decreases with increased experience; interplay between different interested parties; how patients and the public are involved in outcome selection; perceived impact of poor outcome selection including poor recruitment and/or retention; and use of core outcome sets. 2) Outcome collection: disconnect between decisions made by outcome selectors and the practical work done by outcome collectors; potential impact of outcome measures on trial participants; potential impact on trial staff workload; and use of routinely collected data. 3) Publication of outcome data: difficulties in finding time to write and revise manuscripts for publication due to time and funding constraints. Participants overwhelmingly focused on the process of outcome selection, a topic they talked about unprompted. When prompted, participants do discuss outcome collection, but poor communication between selectors and collectors at the trial design stage means that outcome selection is rarely linked with the data collection workload it generates.

DISCUSSION

People involved in the design and conduct of trials fail to connect decisions around outcome selection with data collection workload. Publication of outcome data and effective dissemination of trial results are hindered due to the project-based culture of some academic clinical trial research.

e-Consent in UK academic-led clinical trials: current practice, challenges and the need for more evidence

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person healthcare visits were reduced. Consequently, trial teams needed to consider implementing remote methods for conducting clinical trials, including e-Consent. Although some clinical trials may have implemented e-Consent prior to the pandemic, anecdotes of uptake for this method increased within academic-led trials. When the increased use of this process emerged, representatives from several large academic clinical trial groups within the UK collaborated to discuss ways in which trialists can learn from one another when implementing e-Consent.

METHODS

A survey of UKCRC-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken in April-June 2021 to understand the implementation of and their views on the use of e-Consent and experiences from the perspectives of systems programmers and quality assurance staff on the use of e-Consent. CTUs not using e-Consent were asked to provide any reasons/barriers (including no suitable trials) and any plans for implementing it in the future. Two events for trialists and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives were then held to disseminate findings, foster discussion, share experiences and aid in the identification of areas that the academic CTU community felt required more research.

RESULTS

Thirty-four (64%) of 53 CTUs responded to the survey, with good geographical representation across the UK. Twenty-one (62%) of the responding CTUs had implemented e-Consent in at least one of their trials, across different types of trials, including CTIMPs (Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Product), ATIMPs (Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products) and non-CTIMPs. One hundred ninety-seven participants attended the two workshops for wide-ranging discussions.

CONCLUSION

e-Consent is increasingly used in academic-led trials, yet uncertainties remain amongst trialists, patients and members of the public. Uncertainties include a lack of formal, practical guidance and a lack of evidence to demonstrate optimal or appropriate methods to use. We strongly encourage trialists to continue to share their own experiences of the implementation of e-Consent.

Symptomatic benefits of testosterone treatment in patient subgroups: a systematic review, individual participant data meta-analysis, and aggregate data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Testosterone replacement therapy is known to improve sexual function in men younger than 40 years with pathological hypogonadism. However, the extent to which testosterone alleviates sexual dysfunction in older men and men with obesity is unclear, despite the fact that testosterone is being increasingly prescribed to these patient populations. We aimed to evaluate whether subgroups of men with low testosterone derive any symptomatic benefit from testosterone treatment.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate characteristics associated with symptomatic benefit of testosterone treatment versus placebo in men aged 18 years and older with a baseline serum total testosterone concentration of less than 12 nmol/L. We searched major electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and clinical trial registries for reports published in English between Jan 1, 1992, and Aug 27, 2018. Anonymised individual participant data were requested from the investigators of all identified trials. Primary (cardiovascular) outcomes from this analysis have been published previously. In this report, we present the secondary outcomes of sexual function, quality of life, and psychological outcomes at 12 months. We did a one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis with a random-effects linear regression model, and a two-stage meta-analysis integrating individual participant data with aggregated data from studies that did not provide individual participant data. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018111005.

FINDINGS

9871 citations were identified through database searches. After exclusion of duplicates and publications not meeting inclusion criteria, 225 full texts were assessed for inclusion, of which 109 publications reporting 35 primary studies (with a total 5601 participants) were included. Of these, 17 trials provided individual participant data (3431 participants; median age 67 years [IQR 60-72]; 3281 [97%] of 3380 aged ≥40 years) Compared with placebo, testosterone treatment increased 15-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15) total score (mean difference 5·52 [95% CI 3·95-7·10]; τ2=1·17; n=1412) and IIEF-15 erectile function subscore (2·14 [1·40-2·89]; τ2=0·64; n=1436), reaching the minimal clinically important difference for mild erectile dysfunction. These effects were not found to be dependent on participant age, obesity, presence of diabetes, or baseline serum total testosterone. However, absolute IIEF-15 scores reached during testosterone treatment were subject to thresholds in patient age and baseline serum total testosterone. Testosterone significantly improved Aging Males' Symptoms score, and some 12-item or 36-item Short Form Survey quality of life subscores compared with placebo, but it did not significantly improve psychological symptoms (measured by Beck Depression Inventory).

INTERPRETATION

In men aged 40 years or older with baseline serum testosterone of less than 12 nmol/L, short-to-medium-term testosterone treatment could provide clinically meaningful treatment for mild erectile dysfunction, irrespective of patient age, obesity, or degree of low testosterone. However, due to more severe baseline symptoms, the absolute level of sexual function reached during testosterone treatment might be lower in older men and men with obesity.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Developing strategies to address disparities in retention communication during the consent discussion: development of a behavioural intervention

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are essential to evidence-based medicine. Their success relies on recruitment and retention of participants: problems with either can affect validity of results. Past research on improving trials has focused on recruitment, with less on retention, and even less considering retention at the point of recruitment, i.e., what retention-relevant information is shared during consent processes. The behaviour of trial staff communicating this information during consent is likely to contribute to retention. So, developing approaches to mitigate issues in retention at the point of consent is necessary. In this study, we describe the development of a behavioural intervention targeting the communication of information important to retention during the consent process.

METHODS

We applied the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel to develop an intervention aimed at changing the retention communication behaviours of trial staff. Building on findings from an interview study to understand the barriers/facilitators to retention communication during consent, we identified behaviour change techniques that could moderate them. These techniques were grouped into potential intervention categories and presented to a co-design group of trial staff and public partners to discuss how they might be packaged into an intervention. An intervention was presented to these same stakeholders and assessed for acceptability through a survey based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.

RESULTS

Twenty-six behaviour change techniques were identified with potential to change communication of retention-information at consent. Six trial stakeholders in the co-design group discussed means for implementing these techniques and agreed the available techniques could be most effective within a series of meetings focussed on best practices for communicating retention at consent. The proposed intervention was deemed acceptable through survey results.

CONCLUSION

We have developed an intervention aimed at facilitating the communication of retention at informed consent through a behavioural approach. This intervention will be delivered to trial staff and will add to the available strategies for trials to improve retention.

Changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis

While randomized controlled trials are essential to health research, many of these trials fail to recruit enough participants. Approaching recruitment through the lens of behavioral science can help trialists to understand influences on the decision to participate and use them to increase recruitment. Although this approach is promising, the use of behavioral influences during recruitment is in tension with the ethical principle of respect for persons, as at least some of these influences could be used to manipulate potential participants. In this paper, we examine this tension by discussing two types of behavioral influences: one example involves physician recommendations, and the other involves framing of information to exploit cognitive biases. We argue that despite the apparent tension with ethical principles, influencing trial participants through behavior change strategies can be ethically acceptable. However, we argue that trialists have a positive obligation to analyze their recruitment strategies for behavioral influences and disclose these upfront to the research ethics committee. But we also acknowledge that since neither trialists nor ethics committees are presently well equipped to perform these analyses, additional resources and guidance are needed. We close by outlining a path toward the development of such guidance.

Challenges and opportunities for conducting pre-hospital trauma trials: a behavioural investigation

BACKGROUND

Trials in pre-hospital trauma care are relatively uncommon. There are logistical and methodological challenges related to designing and delivering trials in this setting. Previous studies have assessed challenges reported in individual trials rather than across the pre-hospital trial landscape to identify over-arching factors. The aim of this study was to investigate the challenges and opportunities related to the set-up, design and conduct of pre-hospital trauma trials from across the pre-hospital trial landscape and a specific pre-hospital trauma feasibility study.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with two cohorts of participants: research personnel who had experience of pre-hospital trials, either through direct involvement in conduct or through strategic oversight of national initiatives (n = 7), and clinical staff (n = 16) involved in recruitment to a pre-hospital trauma feasibility study. Thematic analyses were used to assess the barriers and enablers of conducting pre-hospital trauma trials. Two frameworks (The Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour and the Theoretical Domains Framework) were used to guide analyses.

RESULTS

The barriers and enablers reported were relevant to several TDF domains and COM-B components. Across both cohorts, challenges associated with opportunities were reported and included the lack of research experience amongst pre-hospital staff, team dynamics within a rotating shift schedule, and the involvement of external organisations with diverse institutional priorities and infrastructures (e.g. Air Ambulances). The infrequency of eligible cases was also reported to affect the trial design, set-up, and conduct. Other barriers reported related to clinical equipoise amongst staff and institutional pressures, which affected motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has highlighted that pre-hospital trials face many context-specific but also generic challenges. Pre-hospital trauma trial teams could consider the findings to develop targeted, behaviourally focused, solutions to the challenges identified in order to enhance the set-up and conduct of trials in this setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04145271. Trial registration date: October 30, 2019. Note that this paper does not report results from a specific trial but does include participants who were involved in the conduct of a registered pre-hospital feasibility study.

Complex and alternate consent pathways in clinical trials: methodological and ethical challenges encountered by underserved groups and a call to action

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is considered a fundamental requirement for participation in trials, yet obtaining consent is challenging in a number of populations and settings. This may be due to participants having communication or other disabilities, their capacity to consent fluctuates or they lack capacity, or in emergency situations where their medical condition or the urgent nature of the treatment precludes seeking consent from either the participant or a representative. These challenges, and the subsequent complexity of designing and conducting trials where alternative consent pathways are required, contribute to these populations being underserved in research. Recognising and addressing these challenges is essential to support trials involving these populations and ensure that they have an equitable opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, research. Given the complex nature of these challenges, which are encountered by both adults and children, a cross-disciplinary approach is required.

DISCUSSION

A UK-wide collaboration, a sub-group of the Trial Conduct Working Group in the MRC-NIHR Trial Methodology Research Partnership, was formed to collectively address these challenges. Members are drawn from disciplines including bioethics, qualitative research, trials methodology, healthcare professions, and social sciences. This commentary draws on our collective expertise to identify key populations where particular methodological and ethical challenges around consent are encountered, articulate the specific issues arising in each population, summarise ongoing and completed research, and identify targets for future research. Key populations include people with communication or other disabilities, people whose capacity to consent fluctuates, adults who lack the capacity to consent, and adults and children in emergency and urgent care settings. Work is ongoing by the sub-group to create a database of resources, to update NIHR guidance, and to develop proposals to address identified research gaps.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, organisations, and countries is essential if the ethical and methodological challenges surrounding trials involving complex and alternate consent pathways are to be addressed. Explicating these challenges, sharing resources, and identifying gaps for future research is an essential first step. We hope that doing so will serve as a call to action for others seeking ways to address the current consent-based exclusion of underserved populations from trials.

Qualitative data sharing practices in clinical trials in the UK and Ireland: towards the production of good practice guidance

Background: Data sharing enables researchers to conduct novel research with previously collected datasets, thus maximising scientific findings and cost effectiveness, and reducing research waste. The value of sharing, even de-identified, quantitative data from clinical trials is well recognised with a moderated access approach recommended. While substantial challenges to sharing quantitative data remain, there are additional challenges for sharing qualitative data in trials. Incorporating the necessary information about how qualitative data will be shared into already complex trial recruitment and consent processes proves challenging. The aim of this study was to explore whether and how trial teams share qualitative data collected as part of the design, conduct, analysis, or delivery of clinical trials. Methods: Phase 1 involved semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews and focus groups with key trial stakeholder groups including trial managers and clinical trialists (n=3), qualitative researchers in trials (n=9), members of research funding bodies (n=2) and trial participants (n=1). Data were analysed using thematic analysis. In Phase 2, we conducted a content analysis of 16 participant information leaflets (PIL) and consent forms (CF) for trials that collected qualitative data. Results: Three key themes were identified from our Phase 1 findings: ' Understanding and experiences of the potential benefits of sharing qualitative data from trials', 'Concerns about qualitative data sharing', and ' Future guidance and funding'. In phase 2, the PILs and CFs received revealed that the benefits of data sharing for participants were only explained in two of the study documents. Conclusions: The value of sharing qualitative data was acknowledged, but there are many uncertainties as to how, when, and where to share this data. In addition, there were ethical concerns in relation to the consent process required for qualitative data sharing in trials. This study provides insight into the existing practice of qualitative data sharing in trials.

The RoboCOS Study: Development of an international core outcome set for the comprehensive evaluation of patient, surgeon, organisational and population level impacts of robotic assisted surgery

BACKGROUND

The introduction of robot-assisted surgery is costly and requires whole system transformation, which makes the assessment of benefits (or drawbacks) complex. To date, there has been little agreement on which outcomes should be used in this regard. The aim of the RoboCOS study was to develop a core outcome set for the evaluation of robot-assisted surgery that would account for its impact on the whole system.

METHODS

Identification of a long-list of potentially relevant outcomes through systematic review of trials and health technology assessments; interviews with individuals from a range of stakeholder groups (surgeons, service managers, policy makers and evaluators) and a focus group with patients and public; prioritisation of outcomes via a 2-round online international Delphi survey; consensus meeting.

RESULTS

721 outcomes were extracted from the systematic reviews, interviews and focus group which were conceptualised into 83 different outcome domains across four distinct levels (patient, surgeon, organisation and population) for inclusion in the international Delphi prioritisation survey (128 completed both rounds). The consensus meeting led to the agreement of a 10-item core outcome set including outcomes at: patient level (treatment effectiveness; overall quality of life; disease-specific quality of life; complications (including mortality); surgeon level (precision/accuracy; visualisation); organisation (equipment failure; standardisation of operative quality; cost-effectiveness); and population (equity of access).

CONCLUSION

The RoboCOS core outcome set, which includes the outcomes of importance to all stakeholders, is recommended for use in all future evaluations of robot-assisted surgery to ensure relevant and comparable reporting of outcomes.

A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials

BACKGROUND

Data collection is a substantial part of trial workload for participants and staff alike. How these hours of work are spent is important because stakeholders are more interested in some outcomes than others. The ORINOCO study compared the time spent collecting primary outcome data to the time spent collecting secondary outcome data in a cohort of trials.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for phase III trials indexed between 2015 and 2019. From these, we randomly selected 120 trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention plus an additional random selection of 20 trials evaluating a public health intervention. We also added eligible trials from a cohort of 189 trials in rheumatology that had used the same core outcome set. We then obtained the time taken to collect primary and secondary outcomes in each trial. We used a hierarchy of methods that included data in trial reports, contacting the trial team and approaching individuals with experience of using the identified outcome measures. We calculated the primary to secondary data collection time ratio and notional data collection cost for each included trial.

RESULTS

We included 161 trials (120 phase III; 21 core outcome set; 20 public health), which together collected 230 primary and 688 secondary outcomes. Full primary and secondary timing data were obtained for 134 trials (100 phase III; 17 core outcome set; 17 public health). The median time spent on primaries was 56.1 h (range: 0.0-10,746.7, IQR: 226.89) and the median time spent on secondaries was 190.7 hours (range: 0.0-1,356,832.9, IQR: 617.6). The median primary to secondary data collection time ratio was 1.0:3.0 (i.e. for every minute spent on primary outcomes, 3.0 were spent on secondaries). The ratio varied by trial type: phase III trials were 1.0:3.1, core outcome set 1.0:3.4 and public health trials 1.0:2.2. The median notional overall data collection cost was £8015.73 (range: £52.90-£31,899,140.70, IQR: £20,096.64).

CONCLUSIONS

Depending on trial type, between two and three times as much time is spent collecting secondary outcome data than collecting primary outcome data. Trial teams should explicitly consider how long it will take to collect the data for an outcome and decide whether that time is worth it given importance of the outcome to the trial.

How do we know a treatment is good enough? A survey of non-inferiority trials

BACKGROUND

Non-inferiority and equivalence trials aim to determine whether a new treatment is good enough (non-inferior) or as good as (equivalent to) another treatment. To inform the decision about non-inferiority or equivalence, a margin is used. We aimed to identify the current methods used to determine non-inferiority or equivalence margins, as well as the main challenges and suggestions from trialists.

METHODS

We developed an online questionnaire that included both closed and open-ended questions about methods to elicit non-inferiority or equivalence margins, underlying principles, and challenges and suggestions for improvement. We recruited trialists with experience of determining a margin by contacting corresponding authors for non-inferiority or equivalence trials. We used descriptive statistics and content analysis to identify categories in qualitative data.

RESULTS

We had forty-one responses, all from non-inferiority trials. More than half of the trials were non-pharmacological (n = 21, 51%), and the most common primary outcome was clinical (n = 29, 71%). The two most used methods to determine the margin were as follows: a review of the evidence base (n = 27, 66%) and opinion seeking methods (n = 24, 59%). From those using reviews, the majority used systematic reviews or reviews of multiple RCTs to determine the margin (n = 17, 63%). From those using opinion seeking methods, the majority involved clinicians with or without other professionals (n = 19, 79%). Respondents reported that patients' opinions on the margin were sought in four trials (16%). Median confidence in overall quality of the margin was 5 out of 7 (maximum confidence); however, around a quarter of the respondents were "completely unconfident" that the margin reflected patient's views. We identified "stakeholder involvement" as the most common category to determine respondent's confidence in the quality of the margins and whether it reflected stakeholder's views. The most common suggestion to improve the definition of margins was "development of methods to involve stakeholders," and the most common challenge identified was "communication of margins."

CONCLUSIONS

Responders highlighted the need for clearer guidelines on defining a margin, more and better stakeholder involvement in its selection, and better communication tools that enable discussions about non-inferiority trials with stakeholders. Future research should focus on developing best practice recommendations.

Feasibility, effectiveness and costs of a decision support intervention for consultees and legal representatives of adults lacking capacity to consent (CONSULT): protocol for a randomised Study Within a Trial

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials play a vital role in underpinning evidence-based care. However, trials involving adults with impaired capacity to consent raise a number of ethical and methodological challenges, leading to the frequent exclusion of this group from trials. This includes challenges around involving family members as alternative 'proxy' decision-makers. Family members are often given little information about their role as a consultee or legal representative. Some family members find making a decision about trial participation difficult and may experience an emotional and decisional burden as a result. Families have reported a need for greater support and guidance when making such decisions, leading to the development of a decision aid ('Making decisions about research for others') for family members acting as consultee/legal representative. The decision aid now requires evaluation to determine its effectiveness in supporting families to make more informed decisions.

METHODS

This protocol describes a prospective, multi-centre, randomised-controlled Study Within a Trial (SWAT) to evaluate the effectiveness of the decision aid. The SWAT will initially be embedded in approximately five host trials. SWAT participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention (decision aid alongside standard information about the host trial provided to consultees/legal representatives) or control (standard information alone). The primary outcome is the quality of proxy consent decision, assessed by the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD). The SWAT design is informed by previous qualitative research. Initial feasibility will be explored in one host trial, followed by the main SWAT. An embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation will enable the SWAT findings to be contextualised and identify factors likely to affect implementation.

DISCUSSION

This SWAT will generate the first evidence for recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent and add to knowledge about the use of decision support interventions in trial participation decisions. The SWAT will be embedded in a range of trials, and the heterogenous nature of the host trials, settings and populations involved will enable the intervention to be evaluated in a wide range of contexts. However, a pragmatic and flexible approach to conducting the SWAT is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The SWAT is registered as SWAT #159 with the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository (registered 09.08.2020). Each host trial will be registered on a clinical trials registry.

How do trial teams plan for retention during the design stage of the trial? A scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

Retention remains a major challenge for many clinical trials. The SPIRIT guidelines state the following information on retention should be included in the trial protocol "Plans to promote participant retention and complete follow-up, including list of any outcome data to be collected for participants who discontinue or deviate from intervention protocols". This guidance shows the importance of planning retention methods and handling missing data as this can impact how the results of the trial are interpreted. The most recent Cochrane review of strategies to improve retention in clinical trials highlighted that some trials implemented multiple retention strategies and we questioned whether the use of multiple strategies was planned at the design stage and included in the protocol or are strategies implemented when retention becomes an issue within the trial. The purpose of our scoping review is to establish if and how trial teams prepare for retention at the design phase of clinical trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will follow the methodological framework and guidelines for scoping reviews outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will search MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science. A comprehensive search strategy for PubMed was developed in collaboration with an experienced research librarian. We will include protocols for phase 2, 3, and 4 RCTs as well as pilot and feasibility studies. The screening process will involve two reviewers. EM will independently screen all titles and abstracts. FS will screen 10% of the overall search output, and where necessary full protocol texts will be screened to determine eligibility. We will randomly sample eligible protocols to ensure the protocols represent a variety of trial and intervention types. Data will be extracted from each protocol and the results will be synthesised. The analysis will be qualitative using a narrative summary and descriptive statistics where appropriate.

DISCUSSION

The scoping review will help trial methodologists better understand if retention strategies are planned for during the design stage of the trial contributing to the PRioRiTy II unanswered question "How should people who run trials plan for retention during their funding application and creation of the trial (protocol development)?".

Current issues and future considerations for the wider implementation of robotic-assisted surgery: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The effective implementation of a fast-changing healthcare delivery innovation, such as robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), into a healthcare system, can be affected (both positively and negatively) by external contextual factors. As part of a wider project investigating ways to optimise the implementation of RAS, this qualitative study aimed to uncover current issues of RAS and predictions about the future of robotic surgery. We refer to 'current issues' as the topical and salient challenges and opportunities related to the introduction of RAS in the UK healthcare system, from the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the delivery and implementation of RAS.

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted. A thematic analysis was conducted to summarise salient issues that were articulated by the participants.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The interview sample (n=35) comprised surgeons, wider theatre staff and other relevant personnel involved in the introduction and delivery of RAS services across the UK, including service managers and policymakers/commissioners. Two focus groups were also conducted with surgical trainees (n=7) and members of the public (n=8), respectively.

RESULTS

The results revealed a largely positive attitude towards the introduction of RAS technology and an expectation of continued rapid expansion. Areas perceived to be particularly pertinent and requiring ongoing attention were also highlighted, including the need to achieve improved quality control, expertise quantification and training issues and the need to educate the public. Issues of centralisation, service organisation and equity of access were also emphasised.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study has highlighted a range of issues perceived to be particularly pertinent to the current and future provision of RAS which should be addressed. The areas outlined can enable healthcare managers and surgeons to plan for the adoption and/or expansion of RAS services.

Development of a co-designed behaviour change intervention aimed at healthcare professionals recruiting to clinical trials in maternity care

Background

The evidence on what strategies can improve recruitment to clinical trials in maternity care is lacking. As trial recruiters, maternity healthcare professionals (MHCPs) perform behaviours (e.g. talking about trials with potential participants, distributing trial information) they may not ordinarily do outside of the trial. Most trial recruitment interventions do not provide any theoretical basis for the potential effect (on behaviour) or describe if stakeholders were involved during development. The study aim was to use behavioural theory in a co-design process to develop an intervention for MHCPs tasked with approaching all eligible potential participants and inviting them to join a maternity trial and to assess the acceptability and feasibility of such an intervention.

Methods

This study applied a step-wise sequential mixed-methods approach. Key stages were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Techniques (BCT) Taxonomy to map the accounts of MHCPs, with regard to challenges to trial recruitment, to theoretically informed behaviour change strategies. Our recruitment intervention was co-designed during workshops with MHCPs and maternity service users. Acceptability and feasibility of our intervention was assessed using an online questionnaire based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) and involved a range of trial stakeholders.

Results

Two co-design workshops, with a total of nine participants (n = 7 MHCP, n = 2 maternity service users), discussed thirteen BCTs as potential solutions. Ten BCTs, broadly covering Consequences and Reframing, progressed to intervention development. Forty-five trial stakeholders (clinical midwives, research midwives/nurses, doctors, allied health professionals and trial team members) participated in the online TFA questionnaire. The intervention was perceived effective, coherent, and not burdensome to engage with. Core areas for future refinement included Anticipated opportunity and Self-efficacy.

Conclusion

We developed a behaviour change recruitment intervention which is based on the accounts of MHCP trial recruiters and developed in a co-design process. Overall, the intervention was deemed acceptable. Future evaluation of the intervention will establish its effectiveness in enabling MHCPs to invite all eligible people to participate in a maternity care trial, and determine whether this translates into an increase in maternity trial recruitment rates.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06816-6.

Developing principles for sharing information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms with patients: report of a modified Delphi survey

BACKGROUND

The way information about potential harms of trial intervention is shared within participant information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and can cause subjective 'nocebo' harms. This study aimed to develop principles to improve the composition of information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms within PILs so that variability and avoidable harms are reduced.

METHODS

We conducted a two-round modified online Delphi survey, followed by a consensus meeting. For the first round of the survey, 27 statements were developed based on previous research and relevant guidance from the UK, the USA and the World Health Organization. Participants included members from each of the following stakeholder groups: patient and public representatives, research ethics committee members, industry representatives, medico-legal experts, psychologists and trial managers. Each participant was asked to rate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. In the second round, participants were invited to reappraise their ratings after reviewing the results of the first round. Finally, two members from each stakeholder group participated in a meeting to confirm those statements for which there was agreement.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty participants completed round 1, and 201 participants completed round 2. In round 1, consensus was reached for 16 statements. In round 2, consensus was reached for an additional three statements. The consensus meeting confirmed the survey results and consolidated the statements. This process resulted in seven principles: (1) all potential harms of a given intervention should be listed, (2) all potential harms should be separated into serious and less serious, (3) it must be made explicit that not all potential harms are known, (4) all potential benefits should be listed, (5) all potential benefits and harms need to be compared with what would happen if the participant did not take part in the trial, (6) suitable visual representations should be added where appropriate and (7) information regarding potential benefits and harms should not be presented apart by one or more pages.

CONCLUSIONS

Our modified Delphi process successfully generated seven principles that can and should be used to guide how information is conveyed to patients in information leaflets regarding potential trial benefits and harms.

Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY(PATHWAY): protocol for development of a stakeholder led clinical prioritization tool

AIMS

The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors).

RESULTS

The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210.

CONCLUSION

The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753-758.

Recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent: methodological and ethical considerations for designing Studies Within a Trial (SWATs)

BACKGROUND

The number of interventions to improve recruitment and retention of participants in trials is rising, with a corresponding growth in randomised Studies Within Trials (SWATs) to evaluate their (cost-)effectiveness. Despite recognised challenges in conducting trials involving adults who lack capacity to consent, until now, no individual-level recruitment interventions have focused on this population. Following the development of a decision aid for family members making non-emergency trial participation decisions on behalf of people with impaired capacity, we have designed a SWAT to evaluate the decision aid in a number of host trials (CONSULT). Unlike in recruitment SWATs to date, the CONSULT intervention is aimed at a 'proxy' decision-maker (a family member) who is not a participant in the host trial and does not receive the trial intervention. This commentary explores the methodological and ethical considerations encountered when designing such SWATs, using the CONSULT SWAT as a case example. Potential solutions to address these issues are also presented.

DISCUSSION

We encountered practical issues around informed consent, data collection, and follow-up which involves linking the intervention receiver (the proxy) with recruitment and retention data from the host trial, as well as issues around randomisation level, resource use, and maintaining the integrity of the host trial. Unless addressed, methodological uncertainty about differential recruitment and heterogeneity between trial populations could potentially limit the scope for drawing robust inferences and harmonising data from different SWAT host trials. Proxy consent is itself ethically complex, and so when conducting a SWAT which aims to disrupt and enhance proxy consent decisions, there are additional ethical issues to be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Designing a SWAT to evaluate a recruitment intervention for non-emergency trials with adults lacking capacity to consent has raised a number of methodological and ethical considerations. Explicating these challenges, and some potential ways to address them, creates a starting point for discussions about conducting these potentially more challenging SWATs. Increasing the evidence base for the conduct of trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent is intended to improve both the ability to conduct these trials and their quality, and so help build research capacity for this under-served population.

Effect of age, sex, and morbidity count on trial attrition: meta-analysis of individual participant level data from phase 3/4 industry funded clinical trials

Objectives

To estimate the association between individual participant characteristics and attrition from randomised controlled trials.

Design

Meta-analysis of individual participant level data (IPD).

Data sources

Clinical trial repositories (Clinical Study Data Request and Yale University Open Data Access).

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Eligible phase 3 or 4 trials identified according to prespecified criteria (PROSPERO CRD42018048202).

Main outcome measures

Association between comorbidity count (identified using medical history or concomitant drug treatment data) and trial attrition (failure for any reason to complete the final trial visit), estimated in logistic regression models and adjusted for age and sex. Estimates were meta-analysed in bayesian linear models, with partial pooling across index conditions and drug classes.

Results

In 92 trials across 20 index conditions and 17 drug classes, the mean comorbidity count ranged from 0.3 to 2.7. Neither age nor sex was clearly associated with attrition (odds ratio 1.04, 95% credible interval 0.98 to 1.11; and 0.99, 0.93 to 1.05, respectively). However, comorbidity count was associated with trial attrition (odds ratio per additional comorbidity 1.11, 95% credible interval 1.07 to 1.14). No evidence of non-linearity (assessed via a second order polynomial) was seen in the association between comorbidity count and trial attrition, with minimal variation across drug classes and index conditions. At a trial level, an increase in participant comorbidity count has a minor impact on attrition: for a notional trial with high level of attrition in individuals without comorbidity, doubling the mean comorbidity count from 1 to 2 translates to an increase in trial attrition from 29% to 31%.

Conclusions

Increased comorbidity count, irrespective of age and sex, is associated with a modest increased odds of participant attrition. The benefit of increased generalisability of including participants with multimorbidity seems likely to outweigh the disadvantages of increased attrition.

What influences communication about retention in randomised trials: a multi-trial, theory-based analysis exploring trial staff perspectives

BACKGROUND

Retention (participants completing a trial) is a persistent, and often under-studied, challenge within clinical trials. Research on retention has focussed on understanding the actions of participants who decide to remain or withdraw from trial participation and developing interventions to target improvements. To better understand how trial staff may influence participants to remain or withdraw from trials, it is important to explore the experiences of staff that recruit and retain said participants and how the process of recruitment impacts retention.

METHODS

Two qualitative interview studies informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) were conducted with staff involved in various stages of clinical trials. The first set of interviews were focussed on staff perceptions about why participants failed to be retained and what helped to keep others engaged in trials, but also explored more generally what strategies or factors contributed to retention in trials. The second set of interviews were focussed on staff perceptions specifically about the recruitment and informed consent process and how that may influence trial retention. All interviews were analysed using the TDF and assigned to relevant behavioural domains according to perceived barriers/facilitators of the target behaviour. Belief statements were generated, summarising the narrative content of related responses within these behavioural domains. These belief statements were further analysed for themes that captured higher order relationships between separate beliefs within and between behavioural domains.

RESULTS

Twenty-five participants (9 retention staff and 16 recruitment staff) were interviewed. Themes describing the barriers/facilitators to retention broadly, and to communication of retention information at consent, were generated. Four themes on retention broadly and six themes on communication of retention information at consent were identified. Overall, beliefs within all fourteen TDF domains populated these themes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study explored staff perspectives on retention and how they interpret their behaviour as contributing to retention success. Perspectives varied considerably but several key themes regarding communication were seen consistently. Specific barriers and facilitators within these findings will serve to guide the design of a behavioural intervention aimed at addressing issues within retention. Findings contribute to a notable gap in the literature on staff behaviour in trials and on retention generally.

Trial Forge Guidance 3: randomised trials and how to recruit and retain individuals from ethnic minority groups-practical guidance to support better practice

Randomised trials, especially those intended to directly inform clinical practice and policy, should be designed to reflect all those who could benefit from the intervention under test should it prove effective. This does not always happen. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) INCLUDE project identified many groups in the UK that are under-served by trials, including ethnic minorities.This guidance document presents four key recommendations for designing and running trials that include the ethnic groups needed by the trial. These are (1) ensure eligibility criteria and recruitment pathway do not limit participation in ways you do not intend, (2) ensure your trial materials are developed with inclusion in mind, (3) ensure staff are culturally competent and (4) build trusting partnerships with community organisations that work with ethnic minority groups. Each recommendation comes with best practice advice, public contributor testimonials, examples of the inclusion problem tackled by the recommendation, or strategies to mitigate the problem, as well as a collection of resources to support implementation of the recommendations.We encourage trial teams to follow the recommendations and, where possible, evaluate the strategies they use to implement them. Finally, while our primary audience is those designing, running and reporting trials, we hope funders, grant reviewers and approvals agencies may also find our guidance useful.

963 THE IMPACT OF AGE, SEX AND MORBIDITY COUNT ON EARLY TERMINATION: A META-ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL PATIENT DATA FROM CLINICAL TRIALS

Introduction

Multimorbidity is found in around half of people with any long-term condition but is substantially less common in randomised controlled trials (‘trials’). Multimorbidity may diminish a participant’s ability to complete a trial. However, empirical estimates of the association between individual patient characteristics and early termination are lacking.

Method

Individual patient-level data were obtained from Phase 3/4 trials contained within two clinical trial repositories. Eligible trials for inclusion were identified according to pre-specified criteria (PROSPERO CRD42018048202). Within each trial, the association between morbidity count and early termination (failure for any reason to complete the final trial visit) was estimated in logistic regression models, adjusting for age and sex. These estimates were meta-analysed in Bayesian linear models, with partial pooling across index conditions and drug classes. Using these estimates, the impact of morbidity count on early termination was modelled for a set of notional trials.

Results

In 92 trials across 20 index conditions and 17 drug classes, the mean morbidity count ranged from 0.3–2.7. Neither age nor sex was associated with early termination (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.98–1.11; OR 1.00, 95% PI 0.95–1.07 respectively). Morbidity count was associated with early termination (OR per additional morbidity: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.14). There was no evidence of non-linearity in the association between morbidity count and early termination, and there was minimal variation across drug classes and index conditions. For a notional trial with high level of early termination in individuals without multimorbidity, doubling the mean morbidity count from 1 to 2 increases risk of early termination from 29% to 31%.

Conclusion

Multimorbidity, irrespective of age and sex, is associated with a relatively modest increased odds of early termination of trial participation. The benefit of increased generalisability of trials by including patients with multimorbidity appears likely to outweigh the disadvantages of lower retention.

Core outcome set for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity of outcomes is a problem for assessing intervention effectiveness when considering treatments for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease. The value to all stakeholders of outcomes that have been measured and reported to date is also unclear. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease.

METHODS

An in person-meeting was held with patients to prioritize potentially important outcomes from a previously developed longlist of outcomes. This was followed by an online three-round Delphi survey that was conducted with healthcare professionals. The results of each consensus process were compared and combined to produce the final core outcome set.

RESULTS

A total of 82 participants enrolled in round 1 of the Delphi survey, with a final sample of 40 participants contributing to round 3. Five patients contributed to the in-person group meeting. Following the consensus processes, 11 outcomes were considered to be core by patients and healthcare professionals, and included in the core outcome set. These were: quality of life; overall health state; overall satisfaction; overall pain; common bile duct injury; biliary leak; haemorrhage; need for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; intra-abdominal collections; admission/readmission for problems; and reoperation.

CONCLUSION

A core outcome set for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease has been developed with patients and healthcare professionals. Eleven outcomes across four key domains have been identified. These represent the minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in trials evaluating interventions for gallstone disease.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for trauma patients with uncontrolled torso haemorrhage: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial (the UK-REBOA trial)

BACKGROUND

Haemorrhage is the most common cause of preventable death after injury. REBOA is a novel technique whereby a percutaneously inserted balloon is deployed in the aorta, providing a relatively quick means of temporarily controlling haemorrhage and augmenting cerebral and coronary perfusion, until definitive control of haemorrhage can be attained. The aim of the UK-REBOA trial is to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a policy of standard major trauma centre treatment plus REBOA, as compared with standard major trauma centre treatment alone, for the management of uncontrolled torso haemorrhage caused by injury.

METHODS

Pragmatic, Bayesian, group-sequential, randomised controlled trial, performed in 16 major trauma centres in England. We aim to randomise 120 injured patients with suspected exsanguinating haemorrhage to either standard major trauma centre care plus REBOA or standard major trauma centre care alone. The primary clinical outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary clinical outcomes include 3-h, 6-h, and 24-h mortality; in-hospital mortality; 6-month mortality; length of stay (in hospital and intensive care unit); 24-h blood product use; need for haemorrhage control procedure (operation or angioembolisation); and time to commencement of haemorrhage control procedure (REBOA, operation, or angioembolisation). The primary economic outcome is lifetime incremental cost per QALY gained, from a health and personal social services perspective.

DISCUSSION

This study, which is the first to randomly allocate patients to treatment with REBOA or standard care, will contribute high-level evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of REBOA in the management of trauma patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage and will provide important data on the feasibility of implementation of REBOA into mainstream clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN16184981.

Behavioural optimisation to address trial conduct challenges: case study in the UK-REBOA trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials comprise multiple processes at various stages of the trial lifecycle. These processes often involve complex behaviours such as recruiting vulnerable patient populations and clinicians having to deliver complex trial interventions successfully. Few studies have utilised a behavioural framework to assess challenges and develop strategies for effective trial recruitment and delivery of trial interventions. This study reports the application of an innovative methodological approach to understand core trial processes, namely recruitment and intervention delivery, using a behavioural science approach to develop strategies designed to mitigate trial process problems.

METHODS

The UK-REBOA trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (a novel intervention) in injured patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage. A behavioural investigation ('diagnosis') was conducted using theory-informed (Theoretical Domains Framework, TDF) semi-structured interviews with site staff from the UK-REBOA trial to examine trial processes which could be improved in relation to trial recruitment and delivery of the intervention. Interviews were analysed using the TDF to identify influences on behaviour, which were then mapped to techniques for behaviour change and developed into potential solutions.

RESULTS

The behavioural diagnosis of the challenges experienced during trial processes highlighted factors relevant to a range of TDF domains: Skills, Environmental context and resources, Beliefs about capabilities, Beliefs about consequences, Social influences, and Memory, attention, and decision-making processes. Within the solution development phase, we identified 24 suitable behaviour change techniques that were developed into proposed solutions to target reported process problems with the aim of changing behaviour to improve recruitment and/or intervention delivery. Proposed solutions included targeted changes to trial training content, suggestions to restructure the environment (e.g. reinforced the purpose of the trial with information about the social and environmental consequences) and other strategies to reduce barriers to recruitment and intervention delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the feasibility of applying a behavioural approach to investigate ('diagnose') behavioural trial process problems and subsequently develop and implement targeted solutions ('treatment') in an active trauma trial. Understanding the factors that affected behaviour, attitudes and beliefs in this trauma trial allowed us to implement theoretically informed, evidence-based solutions designed to enhance trial practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 16,184,981.

Identifying the outcomes important to men with hypogonadism: A qualitative evidence synthesis

OBJECTIVE

Men with male hypogonadism (MH) experience sexual dysfunction, which improves with testosterone replacement therapy (TRT). However, randomised controlled trials provide little consensus on functional and behavioural symptoms in hypogonadal men; these are often better captured by qualitative information from individual patient experience.

METHODS

We systematically searched major electronic databases to identify qualitative data from men with hypogonadism, with or without TRT. Two independent authors performed the selection, extraction, and thematic analysis of data. Quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research tools.

RESULTS

We analysed data from five studies published in nine reports that assessed a total of 284 participants. Published data were only available within North America, with no ethnic minority or other underserved groups included. In addition to sexual dysfunction, men with MH experienced adverse changes in physical strength, perceptions of masculinity, cognitive function, and quality of life. The experience of MH appeared dependent on the source(s) of educational material.

DISCUSSION

We propose a patient-centred approach to clinician interactions rather than focusing on discreet MH symptoms. Current evidence about the experience of MH is limited to North America and predominantly white ethnicity, which may not be broadly applicable to other geographic regions. Broadening our understanding of the MH experience may improve the targeting of information to patients. In addition, a multidisciplinary approach may better address symptoms neither attributable to MH nor alleviated by TRT.

Theory-guided interviews identified behavioral barriers and enablers to healthcare professionals recruiting participants to maternity trials

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a behavioral investigation, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), to identify barriers and enablers to maternity healthcare professionals (HCP) inviting all eligible women to participate in a maternity care trial.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We invited HCP recruiters from maternity care trials in high priority research areas including, diabetes, preeclampsia and breastfeeding, from across Ireland and the UK, to take part in a semi-structured interview. Data collection was informed by the TDF, followed by inductive thematic analysis and deductive mapping to the TDF.

RESULTS

Twenty-two recruiters including midwives, nurses, allied health professionals and doctors were interviewed online or by telephone phone. Thematic analysis generated four global themes; Availability and accessibility of resources, Navigating the recruitment pathway, Prioritising clinical responsibilities over research responsibilities and The influence of colleagues and peers. Themes were mapped to the TDF, identifying 13 domains relevant to the behaviour.

CONCLUSION

This paper identifies the factors enabling or inhibiting maternity HCP recruiters to invite all eligible women to participate in a maternity care trial. The findings provide guidance for researchers designing trials for this population and the essential first step in developing a recruiter-focused behaviour change intervention to support recruitment to trials in maternity care.

Using qualitative methods in pilot and feasibility trials to inform recruitment and retention processes in full-scale randomised trials: a qualitative evidence synthesis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review published pretrial qualitative research studies and explore how their findings were used to inform recruitment and retention processes in full-scale trials.

DESIGN

Qualitative evidence synthesis using thematic analysis.

DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We conducted a comprehensive search of databases; Dissertation Abstracts International, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Sociological Abstracts and PsycINFO. We included all reports of pretrial qualitative data on recruitment and retention in clinical trials up to March 2018.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form that captured study aims, design, methodological approach and main findings, including barriers and facilitators to recruitment and or retention. The synthesis was undertaken using Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis method and reported following the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guidelines. Confidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.

RESULTS

Thirty-five papers (connected to 31 feasibility studies) from three different countries, published between 2010 and 2017 were included. All studies were embedded in pilot or feasibility studies to inform design aspects in preparation for a subsequent full-scale trial. Twelve themes were identified as recruitment barriers and three as recruitment facilitators. Two themes were identified as barriers for retention and none as retention facilitators. The findings from qualitative research in feasibility or pilot trials are often not explicitly linked to proposed changes to the recruitment and retention strategies to be used in the future or planned full-scale trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Many trial teams do pretrial qualitative work with the aim of improving recruitment and retention in future full-scale trials. Just over half of all reports of such work do not clearly show how their findings will change the recruitment and retention strategy of the future trial. The scope of pretrial work needs to expand beyond looking for problems and also look for what might help and spend more time on retention.

The development of theory-informed participant-centred interventions to maximise participant retention in randomised controlled trials

Background

A failure of clinical trials to retain participants can influence the trial findings and significantly impact the potential of the trial to influence clinical practice. Retention of participants involves people, often the trial participants themselves, performing a behaviour (e.g. returning a questionnaire or attending a follow-up clinic as part of the research). Most existing interventions that aim to improve the retention of trial participants fail to describe any theoretical basis for the potential effect (on behaviour) and also whether there was any patient and/or participant input during development. The aim of this study was to address these two problems by developing theory- informed, participant-centred, interventions to improve trial retention.

Methods

This study was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy to match participant reported determinants of trial retention to theoretically informed behaviour change strategies. The prototype interventions were described and developed in a co-design workshop with trial participants. Acceptability and feasibility (guided by (by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability) of two prioritised retention interventions was explored during a focus group involving a range of trial stakeholders (e.g. trial participants, trial managers, research nurses, trialists, research ethics committee members). Following focus group discussions stakeholders completed an intervention acceptability questionnaire.

Results

Eight trial participants contributed to the co-design of the retention interventions. Four behaviour change interventions were designed: (1) incentives and rewards for follow-up clinic attendance, (2) goal setting for improving questionnaire return, (3) participant self-monitoring to improve questionnaire return and/or clinic attendance, and (4) motivational information to improve questionnaire return and clinic attendance. Eighteen trial stakeholders discussed the two prioritised interventions. The motivational information intervention was deemed acceptable and considered straightforward to implement whilst the goal setting intervention was viewed as less clear and less acceptable.

Conclusions

This is the first study to develop interventions to improve trial retention that are based on the accounts of trial participants and also conceptualised and developed as behaviour change interventions (to encourage attendance at trial research visit or return a trial questionnaire). Further testing of these interventions is required to assess effectiveness.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06218-8.

What, how, when and who of trial results summaries for trial participants: stakeholder-informed guidance from the RECAP project

OBJECTIVE

To generate stakeholder informed evidence to support recommendations for trialists to implement the dissemination of results summaries to participants.

DESIGN

A multiphase mixed-methods triangulation design involving Q-methodology, content analysis, focus groups and a coproduction workshop (the REporting Clinical trial results Appropriately to Participants project).

SETTING

Phase III effectiveness trials.

PARTICIPANTS

A range of participants were included from ongoing and recently completed trials, public contributors, trialists, sponsors, research funders, regulators, ethics committee members.

RESULTS

Fewer than half of the existing trial result summaries contained information on the clinical implications of the study results, an item deemed to be of high importance to participants in the Q-methodology study. Priority of inclusion of a thank you message varied depending on whether considering results for individuals or populations. The need for personally responsive modes of sharing trial result summaries was highlighted as important. Ideally, participants should be the first to know of the results with regard to the timing of sharing results summaries but given this can be challenging it is therefore important to manage expectations. In addition to patients, it was identified that it is important to engage with a range of stakeholders when developing trial results summaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Results summaries for trial participants should cover four core questions: (1) What question the trial set out to answer?; (2) What did the trial find?; (3) What effect have the trial results had and how will they change National Health Service/treatment?; and (4) How can I find out more? Trial teams should develop appropriately resourced plans and consult patient partners and trial participants on how 'best' to share key messages with regard to content, mode, and timing. The study findings provide trial teams with clear guidance on the core considerations of the 'what, how, when and who' with regard to sharing results summaries.

The People's Trial: supporting the public's understanding of randomised trials

Background

Randomised trials are considered the gold standard in providing robust evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. However, there are relatively few initiatives to help increase public understanding of what randomised trials are and why they are important. This limits the overall acceptance of and public participation in clinical trials. The People’s Trial aims to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims by actively involving them in all aspects of trial design. This was done by involving the public in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial.

Methods

Using a reflexive approach, we describe the processes of development, conduct, and dissemination of The People’s Trial.

Results

Over 3000 members of the public, from 72 countries, participated in The People’s Trial. Through a series of online surveys, the public designed a trial called The Reading Trial. They chose the question the trial would try to answer and decided the components of the trial question. In December 2019, 991 participants were recruited to a trial to answer the question identified and prioritised by the public, i.e. ‘Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison with not reading a book in bed?’ We report the processes of The People’s Trial in seven phases, paralleling the steps of a randomised trial, i.e. question identification and prioritisation, recruitment, randomisation, trial conduct, data analysis, and sharing of findings. We describe the decisions we made, the processes we used, the challenges we encountered, and the lessons we learned.

Conclusion

The People’s Trial involved the public successfully in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial demonstrating the potential for such initiatives to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04185818. Registered on 4 December 2019

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05984-1.

Behavioural approaches to recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a systematic mapping review

OBJECTIVES

To identify studies that applied behavioural approaches to issues of recruitment and/or retention to trials; to describe these approaches; and to identify gaps for future research.

DESIGN

Systematic mapping review of research undertaken in clinical trials within peer-reviewed sources. Review participants were individuals involved in clinical trials, including trial staff, participants, potential participants and former participants.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Web of Science and ASSIA from inception to 15 January 2020 with no date or language restrictions.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies within the context of clinical trials reporting the barriers/facilitators to recruitment and retention, or developing/evaluating solutions to said barriers/facilitators, using a behavioural approach.

RESULTS

31 articles were included. Recruitment-focused studies (n=22, 71%) represented the majority. Studies tended to focus on participant behaviours (n=22, 71%). Underserved populations (n=11, 35%) were a notable subset of studies. Most studies (n=23, 74%) were exploratory but those that evaluated interventions (n=8, 26%) often did so within underserved populations (n=6). A majority of studies (n=30, 97%) did not specify their behaviours consistent with guidelines from behavioural scientists. The most used approaches were social cognitive theory (n=8, 26%), the theory of planned behaviour (n=6, 19%) and the theoretical domains framework (n=5, 16%).

CONCLUSIONS

A range of behavioural approaches have been applied to recruitment and retention to trials. The multitude of recruitment research here is consistent with trials research generally and emphasises the need for research into retention. Authors report target behaviours minimally, which is not conducive to replication. Further research should build on lessons here, such as clearly specifying behaviours. Increased methodological rigour and transparency will lead to robust evidence bases and less research waste in poor recruitment and retention. Overall, trials informed by behavioural approaches promises to be efficient and more participant focused.

The relative importance of information items and preferred mode of delivery when disseminating results from trials to participants: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Participants want to receive the results of trials that they have participated in. Dissemination practices are disparate, and there is limited guidance available on what information to provide to participants and how to deliver it.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to establish what trial participants believe should be included in a results summary and how this information should be delivered.

METHODS

A mixed-methods design was used with focus groups and interviews involving women convenience-sampled from two host randomized-controlled trials. Participants ranked information items in order of their importance for inclusion in a trial results summary and potential modes of delivery by preference. All participants provided written informed consent.

RESULTS

Sixteen women (mean age [SD] = 71.6 [9.7] years) participated. Participants ranked 'individual results from the study' and 'summary of overall trial results' as most important. Themes such as reassurance and setting results in context were identified as contributing to participants' decisions around ranking. 'A thank you for your contribution to the study' was ranked the least important. Delivery by post was the preferred mode of receiving results, with receiving a hard copy of results cited as helpful to refer back to.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide insight into what information trial participants deem as important when receiving trial results and how they would like results delivered. Involving patients during development of trial results to be communicated to participants could help to ensure that the right information is delivered in the right way.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Public partners were involved in focussed aspects of study conduct.

Developing an online, searchable database to systematically map and organise current literature on retention research (ORRCA2)

BACKGROUND

Addressing recruitment and retention challenges in trials is a key priority for methods research, but navigating the literature is difficult and time-consuming. In 2016, ORRCA (www.orrca.org.uk) launched a free, searchable database of recruitment research that has been widely accessed and used to support the update of systematic reviews and the selection of recruitment strategies for clinical trials. ORRCA2 aims to create a similar database to map the growing volume and importance of retention research.

METHODS

Searches of Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Library, restricted to English language and publications up to the end of 2017. Hand searches of key systematic reviews were undertaken and randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions within the ORRCA database on 1 October 2020 were also reviewed for any secondary retention outcomes. Records were screened by title and abstract before obtaining the full text of potentially relevant articles. Studies reporting or evaluating strategies, methods and study designs to improve retention within healthcare research were eligible. Case reports describing retention challenges or successes and studies evaluating participant reported reasons for withdrawal or losses were also included. Studies assessing adherence to treatments, attendance at appointments outside of research and statistical analysis methods for missing data were excluded. Eligible articles were categorised into one of the following evidence types: randomised evaluations, non-randomised evaluations, application of retention strategies without evaluation and observations of factors affecting retention. Articles were also mapped against a retention domain framework. Additional data were extracted on research outcomes, methods and host study context.

RESULTS

Of the 72,904 abstracts screened, 4,364 full texts were obtained, and 1,167 articles were eligible. Of these, 165 (14%) were randomised evaluations, 99 (8%) non-randomised evaluations, 319 (27%) strategies without evaluation and 584 (50%) observations of factors affecting retention. Eighty-four percent (n = 979) of studies assessed the numbers of participants retained, 27% (n = 317) assessed demographic differences between retained and lost participants, while only 4% (n = 44) assessed the cost of retention strategies. The most frequently reported domains within the 165 studies categorised as 'randomised evaluations of retention strategies' were participant monetary incentives (32%), participant reminders and prompts (30%), questionnaire design (30%) and data collection location and method (26%).

CONCLUSION

ORRCA2 builds on the success of ORRCA extending the database to organise the growing volume of retention research. Less than 15% of articles were randomised evaluations of retention strategies. Mapping of the literature highlights several areas for future research such as the role of research sites, clinical staff and study design in enhancing retention. Future studies should also include cost-benefit analysis of retention strategies.

Bah humbug! Association between sending Christmas cards to trial participants and trial retention: randomised study within a trial conducted simultaneously across eight host trials

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of sending Christmas cards to participants in randomised controlled trials to increase retention rate at follow-ups, and to explore the feasibility of doing a study within a trial (SWAT) across multiple host trials simultaneously.

DESIGN

Randomised SWAT conducted simultaneously across eight host trials.

SETTING

Eight randomised controlled trials researching various areas including surgery and smoking cessation.

PARTICIPANTS

3223 trial participants who were still due at least one follow-up from their host randomised controlled trial.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomised (1:1, separately by each host trial) to either received a Christmas card in mid-December 2019 or to not receive a card.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Proportion of participants completing their next follow-up (retention rate) within their host randomised controlled trial.

RESULTS

1469 participants (age 16-94 years; 70% (n=1033) female; 96% (813/847) white ethnicity) across the eight host randomised controlled trials were involved in the analysis (cut short owing to covid-19). No evidence was found of a difference in retention rate between the two arms for any of the host trials when analysed separately or when the results were combined (85.3% (639/749) for cards versus 85.4% (615/720) for no card; odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 1.29; P=0.77). No difference was observed when comparing just participants who were due a follow-up in the 30 days after receiving the card (odds ratio 0.96, 0.42 to 2.21). No evidence of a difference in time to complete the questionnaire was found (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.13; P=0.80). These results were robust to post hoc sensitivity analyses. The cost of this intervention was £0.76 (€0.91; $1.02) per participant, and it will have a carbon footprint of approximately 140 g CO2 equivalent per card. One benefit of this approach was the need to only submit one ethics application.

CONCLUSIONS

Sending Christmas cards to participants in randomised controlled trials does not increase retention. Undertaking a SWAT within multiple randomised controlled trials at the same time is, however, possible. This approach should be used more often to build an evidence base to support selection of recruitment and retention strategies. Although no evidence of a boost to retention was found, embedding a SWAT in multiple host trials simultaneously has been shown to be possible.

STUDY REGISTRATION

SWAT repository https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,846275,en.pdf#search=SWAT%2082.

Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison to not reading a book in bed? The People's Trial-an online, pragmatic, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The best way of comparing healthcare treatments is through a randomised trial. In a randomised trial, we compare something (a treatment or intervention) to something else, often another treatment. Who gets what is decided at random, meaning everyone has an equal chance of getting any of the treatments. This means any differences found can be put down to the treatment received rather than other things, such as where people live, or health conditions they might have. The People's Trial aimed to help the public better understand randomised trials by inviting them to design and carry out a trial. The question chosen by the public for The People's Trial was: 'Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep, in comparison to not reading a book in bed?' This paper describes that trial, called 'The Reading Trial'.

METHODS

The Reading Trial was an online, randomised trial. Members of the public were invited to take part through social media campaigns. People were asked to either read a book in bed before going to sleep (intervention group) or not read a book in bed before going to sleep (control group). We asked everyone to do this for 7 days, after which they measured their sleep quality.

RESULTS

During December 2019, a total of 991 people took part in The Reading Trial, half (496 (50%)) in the intervention group and half (495 (50%)) in the control group. Not everyone finished the trial: 127 (25.6%) people in the intervention group and 90 (18.18%) people in the control group. Of those providing data, 156/369 (42%) people in the intervention group felt their sleep improved, compared to 112/405 (28%) of those in the control group, a difference of 14%. When we consider how certain we are of this finding, we estimate that, in The Reading Trial, sleep improved for between 8 and 22% more people in the intervention group compared to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Reading a book in bed before going to sleep improved sleep quality, compared to not reading a book in bed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818. Registered on 4 December 2019.

Testing approaches to sharing trial results with participants: The Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed methods trial

BACKGROUND

Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. We tested an Enhanced Webpage versus a Basic Webpage, Mailed Printed Summary versus no Mailed Printed Summary, and Email List Invitation versus no Email List Invitation to see which approach resulted in the highest patient satisfaction with how the results were communicated.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We carried out a cluster randomised, 2 by 2 by 2 factorial, nonblinded study within a trial, with semistructured qualitative interviews with some patients (ISRCTN96189403). Each cluster was a UK hospital participating in the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial. Interventions were shared with 384 ICON8 participants who were alive and considered well enough to be contacted, at 43 hospitals. Hospitals were allocated to share results with participants through one of the 8 intervention combinations based on random permutation within blocks of 8, stratified by number of participants. All interventions contained a written plain English summary of the results. The Enhanced Webpage also contained a short video. Both the Enhanced Webpage and Email contained links to further information and support. The Mailed Printed Summary was opt-out. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 1 month after patients had been offered the interventions. Patients' reported satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale, analysed by ordinal logistic regression estimating main effects for all 3 interventions, with random effects for site, restricted to those who reported receiving the results and assuming no interaction. Data collection took place in 2018 to 2019. Questionnaires were sent to 275/384 randomly selected participants and returned by 180: 90/142 allocated Basic Webpage, 90/133 Enhanced Webpage; 91/141 no Mailed Printed Summary, 89/134 Mailed Printed Summary; 82/129 no Email List Invitation, 98/146 Email List Invitation. Only 3 patients opted out of receiving the Mailed Printed Summary; no patients signed up to the email list. Patients' satisfaction was greater at sites allocated the Mailed Printed Summary, where 65/81 (80%) were quite or very satisfied compared to sites with no Mailed Printed Summary 39/64 (61%), ordinal odds ratio (OR) = 3.15 (1.66 to 5.98, p < 0.001). We found no effect on patient satisfaction from the Enhanced Webpage, OR = 1.47 (0.78 to 2.76, p = 0.235) or Email List Invitation, OR = 1.38 (0.72 to 2.63, p = 0.327). Interviewees described the results as interesting, important, and disappointing (the ICON8 trial found no benefit). Finding out the results made some feel their trial participation had been more worthwhile. Regardless of allocated group, patients who received results generally reported that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. The main limitation of our study is the 65% response rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all respondents wanted to know the results and were glad to receive them. Adding an opt-out Mailed Printed Summary alongside a webpage yielded the highest reported satisfaction. This study provides evidence on how to share results with other similar trial populations. Further research is needed to look at different results scenarios and patient populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: ISRCTN96189403.

Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials: the ASPIRE project including expert workshop

BACKGROUND

The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials.

DESIGN

To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout.

SETTING

A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines.

RESULTS

To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

LIMITATIONS

Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space.

FUNDING

Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.