Parents' and young people's involvement in designing a trial of ventilator weaning

Developments in the Design, Conduct, and Reporting of Child Health Trials

To identify priority areas to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of pediatric clinical trials, the international expert network, Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health, was assembled and published the first 6 Standards in Pediatrics in 2012. After a recent review summarizing the 247 publications by StaR Child Health authors that highlight research practices that add value and reduce research "waste," the current review assesses the progress in key child health trial methods areas: consent and recruitment, containing risk of bias, roles of data monitoring committees, appropriate sample size calculations, outcome selection and measurement, and age groups for pediatric trials. Although meaningful change has occurred within the child health research ecosystem, measurable progress is still disappointingly slow. In this context, we identify and review emerging trends that will advance the agenda of increased clinical usefulness of pediatric trials, including patient and public engagement, Bayesian statistical approaches, adaptive designs, and platform trials. We explore how implementation science approaches could be applied to effect measurable improvements in the design, conducted, and reporting of child health research.

Informed consent and assent guide for paediatric clinical trials in Europe

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trial sponsors spend considerable resources preparing informed consent (IC) and assent documentation for multinational paediatric clinical trial applications in Europe due to the limited and dispersed patient populations, the variation of national legal and ethical requirements, and the lack of detailed guidance. The aim of this study was to design new easy-to-use guide publicly available on European Medicines Agency's, Enpr-EMA website for all stakeholders.

METHODS

Current EU legal, ethical and regulatory guidance for paediatric clinical trials were collated, analysed and divided into 30 subject elements in two tables. The European Network of Young Person's Advisory Group reviewed the data and provided specific comments. A three-level recommendation using 'traffic light' symbols was designed for four age groups of children, according to relevance and the requirements.

RESULTS

A single guide document includes two tables: (1) general information and (2) trial-specific information. In the age group of 6-9 years old, 92% of the trial-specific subject elements can be or should be included in the IC discussion. Even in the youngest possible age group (2-5 years old children), the number of elements considered was, on average, 52%.

CONCLUSION

The EU Clinical Trial Regulation (2014) does not contain specific requirements exclusively for paediatric clinical trials. This work is the first to extensively collate all the current legal, regulatory and ethical documentation on the IC process, together with input from adolescents. This guide may increase the ethical standards in paediatric clinical trials.

Children and young people's contributions to public involvement and engagement activities in health-related research: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing interest in how children and young people can be involved in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research. However, relatively little robust evidence exists about which children and young people are reported as being involved or excluded from PPIE; the methods reported as being used to involve them in PPIE; and the reasons presented for their involvement in PPIE and what happens as a result. We performed a scoping review to identify, synthesise and present what is known from the literature about patient and public involvement and engagement activities with children and young people in health related research.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by searches in Scopus, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane and PsychInfo databases, and hand checking of reference lists and grey literature. An adapted version of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) was used as a framework to collate the data. Two reviewers independently screened articles and decisions were consensually made.

MAIN FINDINGS

A total of 9805 references were identified (after duplicates were removed) through the literature search, of which 233 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Forty studies published between 2000 and 2019 were included in the review. The review reveals ambiguities in the quality of reporting of PPIE with children with clear reporting on demographics and health conditions. The review found that children and young people were commonly involved in multiple stages of research but there was also significant variation in the level at which children and young people were involved in PPIE. Evaluation of the impact of children and young people's involvement in PPIE was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Consultation, engagement and participation can all offer children and young people worthwhile ways of contributing to research with the level, purpose and impact of involvement determined by the children and young people themselves. However, careful decisions need to be made to ensure that it is suited to the context, setting and focus so that the desired PPIE impacts are achieved. Improvements should be made to the evaluation and reporting of PPIE in research. This will help researchers and funders to better understand the benefits, challenges and impact of PPIE with children and young people on health research.

An evaluation of the experiences of young people in Patient and Public Involvement for palliative care research

BACKGROUND

The active involvement of patients and the public in the design and conduct of research (Patient and Public Involvement) is important to add relevance and context. There are particular considerations for involving children and young people in research in potentially sensitive and emotional subject areas such as palliative care.

AIM

To evaluate the experiences of young people of Patient and Public Involvement for a paediatric palliative care research study.

DESIGN

Anonymous written feedback was collected from group members about their experiences of Patient and Public Involvement in a paediatric palliative care research study. An inductive thematic analysis of the feedback was conducted using NVivo.

SETTING / PARTICIPANTS

Young people aged 12-22 years who were members of existing advisory groups at a children's hospital, hospice and the clinical research network in the West Midlands, UK.

RESULTS

Feedback was provided by 30 young people at three meetings, held between December 2016 and February 2017. Three themes emerged: (1) Involvement: Young people have a desire to be involved in palliative care research, and recognise the importance of the subject area.(2) Impact: Researchers should demonstrate the impact of the involvement work on the research, by regularly providing feedback. (3) Learning: Opportunities to learn both about the topic and about research more widely were valued.

CONCLUSIONS

Young people want to be involved in palliative care research, and recognise its importance. A continuous relationship with the researcher throughout the study, with clear demonstration of the impact that their input has on the research plans, are important.

Sedation AND Weaning In Children (SANDWICH): protocol for a cluster randomised stepped wedge trial

INTRODUCTION

Weaning from ventilation is a complex process involving several stages that include recognition of patient readiness to begin the weaning process, steps to reduce ventilation while optimising sedation in order not to induce distress and removing the endotracheal tube. Delay at any stage can prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation. We developed a multicomponent intervention targeted at helping clinicians to safely expedite this process and minimise the harms associated with unnecessary mechanical ventilation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a 20-month cluster randomised stepped wedge clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with an internal pilot and a process evaluation. It is being conducted in 18 paediatric intensive care units in the UK to evaluate a protocol-based intervention for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation. Following an initial 8-week baseline data collection period in all sites, one site will be randomly chosen to transition to the intervention every 4 weeks and will start an 8-week training period after which it will continue the intervention for the remaining duration of the study. We aim to recruit approximately 10 000 patients. The primary analysis will compare data from before the training (control) with that from after the training (intervention) in each site. Full details of the analyses will be in the statistical analysis plan.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was reviewed and approved by NRES Committee East Midlands-Nottingham 1 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 17/EM/0301). All sites started patient recruitment on 5 February 2018 before randomisation in April 2018. Results will be disseminated in 2020. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN16998143.

How to involve children and young people in what is, after all, their research

Third in a series of four articles addressing ethical approaches and issues in undertaking clinical research with children and young people.

Engaging children and families in pediatric Health Research: a scoping review

AIM

Patient engagement (PE) in pediatric health services research is challenging due to contextual factors such as busyness of parenting, work schedules, and diverse family structures. This scoping review seeks to comprehensively map current PE strategies with parents and families across existing published pediatric health research literature.

METHODS

We followed Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and Levac et al., (2010) six-stage scoping review process. We conducted the search strategy in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Psychinfo databases. Data were extracted from included articles; evidence tables were developed and narrative synthesis was completed.

RESULTS

Of 3925 retrieved records, seventeen articles were included in the review. Patient engagement primarily occurred through strategies such as advisory groups, meetings, focus groups and interviews. Strategies were used to engage patients at various levels, for different purposes (e.g., to inform, participate, consult, involve collaborate and/or lead). These strategies were also used at various stages of the research process. Navigating power differences, time and money were commonly reported challenges. Inconsistent terminology plagued (e.g., stakeholder engagement, consumer participation, patient and public involvement, participatory research) this body of literature and clarity is urgently needed.

CONCLUSIONS

This review offers insights into current PE strategies used in pediatric health services research and offers insight for researchers considering employing PE in the future.

Designing a nurse-delivered delirium bundle: What intensive care unit staff, survivors, and their families think?

BACKGROUND

Implementation of quality improvement interventions can be enhanced by exploring the perspectives of those who will deliver and receive them. We designed a non-pharmacological bundle for delirium management for a feasibility trial, and we sought to obtain the views of intensive care unit (ICU) staff, survivors, and families on the barriers and facilitators to its implementation.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine the barriers and facilitators to a multicomponent bundle for delirium management in critically ill patients comprising (1) education and family participation, (2) sedation minimisation and pain, agitation, and delirium protocol, (3) early mobilisation, and (4) environmental interventions for sleep, orientation, communication, and cognitive stimulation.

METHODS

Nine focus group interviews were conducted with ICU staff (n = 68) in 12 UK ICUs. Three focus group interviews were conducted with ICU survivors (n = 12) and their family members (n = 2). Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed using the Braun and Clarke framework.

RESULTS

Overall, staff, survivors, and their families agreed the bundle was acceptable. Facilitating factors for delivering the bundle were staff and relatives' education about potential benefits and encouraging family presence. Facilitating factors for sedation minimisation were evening ward rounds, using non-verbal pain scores, and targeting sedation scores. Barriers identified by staff were inadequate resources, poor education, relatives' anxiety, safety concerns, and ICU culture. Concerns were raised about patient confidentiality when displaying orientation materials and managing resources for early mobility. Survivors cited that flexible visiting and re-establishing normality were important factors; and staff workload, lack of awareness, and poor communication were factors that needed to be considered before implementation.

CONCLUSION

Generally, the bundle was deemed acceptable and deliverable. However, like any complex intervention, component adaptations will be required depending on resources available to the ICU; in particular, involvement of pharmacists in the ward round and physiotherapists in mobilising intubated patients.

Stakeholder Engagement in Trial Design: Survey of Visitors to Critically Ill Patients Regarding Preferences for Outcomes and Treatment Options during Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation

RATIONALE

Stakeholder engagement in research is expected to provide unique insights, make research investments more accountable and transparent, and ensure that future research is applicable to patients and family members.

OBJECTIVES

To inform the design of a trial of strategies for weaning from mechanical ventilation, we sought to identify preferences of patient visitors regarding outcome and treatment measures.

METHODS

We conducted an interviewer-administered questionnaire of visitors of critically ill patients in two family waiting rooms serving three intensive care units (ICUs) in Toronto, Canada. Respondents rated the importance of general and ventilation-related outcomes in two hypothetical scenarios (before a first spontaneous breathing trial, and after a failed spontaneous breathing trial) and selected a preferred technique for the breathing trials. With regard to the patient they were visiting, respondents identified the most important outcome to them at ICU admission, during the ICU stay, and at ICU discharge.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We analyzed 322 questionnaires (95.5% response rate). All outcomes were highly rated (average range: 7.82-9.74). Across scenarios, outcomes rated as most important were ICU and hospital survival (9.72, 9.70), avoiding complications (9.45), quality of life (9.394), patient comfort (9.393), and returning to previous living arrangements (9.31). Overall, the most important ventilation-related outcomes were being ventilator-free (8.95), avoiding reintubation (8.905), and passing a spontaneous breathing trial (8.903). Passing a spontaneous breathing trial assumed greater importance after an initial failed attempt. "Time to event" outcomes were less important to visitors. We did not identify a preferred spontaneous breathing trial technique. Although ICU survival was the most important outcome at ICU admission and during the ICU stay, visitors rated quality of life higher than hospital survival at ICU discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Visitors to critically ill patients prioritized two general outcomes (ICU and hospital survival) and three ventilation-related outcomes (being ventilator free, avoiding reintubation, passing a spontaneous breathing trial), and valued avoiding complications, maintaining quality of life, comfort, and returning to previous living arrangements. The outcomes preferences of the survey respondents evolved temporally during the ICU stay.

Survived so what? Identifying priorities for research with children and families post-paediatric intensive care unit

The involvement of patients and the public in the development, implementation and evaluation of health care services and research is recognized to have tangible benefits in relation to effectiveness and credibility. However, despite >96% of children and young people surviving critical illness or injury, there is a paucity of published reports demonstrating their contribution to informing the priorities for aftercare services and outcomes research. We aimed to identify the service and research priorities for Paediatric Intensive Care Unit survivors with children and young people, their families and other stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face, multiple-stakeholder consultation event, held in the Midlands (UK), to provide opportunities for experiences, views and priorities to be elicited. Data were gathered using write/draw and tell and focus group approaches. An inductive content analytical approach was used to categorize and conceptualize feedback. A total of 26 individuals attended the consultation exercise, including children and young people who were critical care survivors; their siblings; parents and carers; health professionals; academics; commissioners; and service managers. Consultation findings indicated that future services, interventions and research must be holistic and family-centred. Children and young people advisors reported priorities that focused on longer-term outcomes, whereas adult advisors identified priorities that mapped against the pathways of care. Specific priorities included developing and testing interventions that address unmet communication and information needs. Furthermore, initiatives to optimize the lives and longer-term functional and psycho-social outcomes of Paediatric Intensive Care Unit survivors were identified. This consultation exercise provides further evidence of the value of meaningful patient and public involvement in identifying the priorities for research and services for Paediatric Intensive Care Unit survivors and illuminates differences in proposed priorities between children, young people and adult advisors.

Patient and public involvement in Paediatric Intensive Care research: considerations, challenges and facilitating factors

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Paediatric Intensive Care (PIC) provides care to extremely ill children. Research in this area can be difficult because children are often too sick to discuss being involved in a study and parents are too upset about their child to think about taking part. This makes it even more important that research is well designed. We conducted a review of the literature about involving patients and the public (PPI) in PIC research. We wanted to know what PPI has taken place, who had been consulted and how this was undertaken. We reviewed the titles and abstracts of 4717 papers but found only 4 relevant papers. Three of the papers had consulted with parents of children who had been on PIC but only one study had spoken directly to a child themselves. The studies had used a number of different methods to invite people to take part but there did not appear to be one solution. All of the studies thought PPI was good for the development of their research but none of them had tried to measure what had changed as a result. There are difficulties associated with carrying out PPI in the PIC setting. Researchers need to share more of their experiences, positive and negative, so we can try to identify the best ways of carrying out PPI in PIC studies. This will help ensure that research studies are designed which address the needs and concerns of children and their parents.

ABSTRACT

Introduction Involving the public in health care research is reported to enhance the quality, appropriateness, acceptability and relevance to patients and the public (INVOLVE, Briefing notes for researchers, 2012; Staniszewska et al., Int J Technol Assess Health Care 274:391-9, 2011). Conducting research with children and young people is regarded as challenging and this makes it even more important that the research is well designed and understands the perspective of the child and family. We conducted a narrative literature review of the Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) literature, in the context of Paediatric Intensive Care (PIC). Our aims were to identify what PPI activity has taken place, with whom researchers engaged and what outcomes they reported. Method Electronic databases Medline, CINAHL and Embase (January 2000- June 2016) were searched using the search terms patient and public involvement and consultation. Participants were defined as child, parent, paediatric or pediatric and the context as intensive or critical care. Papers were excluded where activity reflected 'participants' as research subjects. Included papers were reviewed using the GRIPP checklist to appraise the quality of reporting. Results The search strategy identified 4717 abstracts. Seventeen papers were reviewed in full and four papers were included, all of which are case studies, describing a consultation approach. None of the papers described PPI as a multi-stage process. Only one study engaged with a former PIC patient and the majority of those consulted did not have any PIC experience. Activity was reported as being of benefit but there was no measurement of the impact of PPI. Conclusion There are numerous challenges associated with the conduct of research in PIC. It is therefore essential that the perspective of children, young people and their parents have been considered in the design of trials. However, there are few published accounts of PPI within the PIC context and the accounts that exist highlight issues about who to approach and when, and a lack of clarity about the best ways to engage with them. Research Ethics Committees and funding bodies expect to see evidence of PPI in research applications and we need to develop our understanding of what contributes towards successful PPI in this context.