1
|
Pfledderer CD, von Klinggraeff L, Burkart S, da Silva Bandeira A, Lubans DR, Jago R, Okely AD, van Sluijs EMF, Ioannidis JPA, Thrasher JF, Li X, Beets MW. Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2024; 10:57. [PMID: 38582840 PMCID: PMC10998328 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-024-01485-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/08/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences. METHODS To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences. RESULTS A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading. CONCLUSION We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher D Pfledderer
- Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health in Austin, Austin, TX, 78701, USA.
- Michael and Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health in Austin, Austin, TX, 78701, USA.
| | | | - Sarah Burkart
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | | | - David R Lubans
- College of Human and Social Futures, The University of Newcastle Australia, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia
| | - Russell Jago
- Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1QU, UK
| | - Anthony D Okely
- Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia
| | | | - John P A Ioannidis
- Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - James F Thrasher
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | - Xiaoming Li
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | - Michael W Beets
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pfledderer CD, von Klinggraeff L, Burkart S, da Silva Bandeira A, Lubans DR, Jago R, Okely AD, van Sluijs EM, Ioannidis JP, Thrasher JF, Li X, Beets MW. Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions. RESEARCH SQUARE 2023:rs.3.rs-3370077. [PMID: 38168263 PMCID: PMC10760234 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3370077/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2024]
Abstract
Background In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences. Methods To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences. Results A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading. Conclusion We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Sarah Burkart
- University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health
| | | | | | - Russ Jago
- University of Bristol Population Health Sciences
| | | | | | | | | | - Xiaoming Li
- University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
STOP- a training intervention to optimise treatment for smoking cessation in community pharmacies: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Med 2022; 20:212. [PMID: 35761321 PMCID: PMC9238035 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02412-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2022] [Accepted: 05/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Community pharmacies serve people with high levels of tobacco-related illness, but throughput in NHS Stop Smoking Services in pharmacies remains relatively low. We investigated the effectiveness of a complex intervention to increase service uptake and retention. METHODS We randomised 60 pharmacies in England and Wales to the STOP intervention or usual practice in a pragmatic, parallel-group, controlled trial over 11 months. Smokers were blind to the allocation. The intervention was theory-based consultation skills training for pharmacy staff with environmental prompts (badges, calendars and behavioural cues). The primary outcome was the number of smokers attending an initial consultation and setting a quit date. RESULTS The intervention made no significant difference in setting a quit date, retention or quit rate. A total of 631 adult smokers (service users) enrolled and set a quit date in intervention pharmacies compared to 641 in usual practice pharmacies, a rate ratio of 0.75 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.23) adjusted for site and number of prescriptions. A total of 432 (68%) service users were retained at 4 weeks in intervention and 500 (78%) in usual practice pharmacies (odds ratio 0.80, 0.41 to 1.55). A total of 265 (42%) service users quit smoking at 4 weeks in intervention and 276 (43%) in usual practice pharmacies (0.96, 0.65 to 1.43). The pharmacy staff were positive about the intervention with 90% (56/62) stating that it had improved their skills. Sixty-eight per cent would strongly recommend the training to others although there was no difference in self-efficacy for service delivery between arms. Seventy of 131 (53%) service users did not complete the 6-month follow-up assessment. However, 55/61 (90%) service users who completed follow-up were satisfied or very satisfied with the service. All usual practice arm service users (n = 33) and all but one in the intervention arm (n = 27) would recommend the service to smokers. CONCLUSIONS We found high levels of retention and acceptable quit rates in the NHS pharmacy stop smoking service. Despite pharmacy staff providing positive feedback on the STOP intervention, it made no difference to service throughput. Thus, other factors may currently limit service capacity to help smokers to quit. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN, ISRCTN16351033 . Retrospectively registered.
Collapse
|
4
|
Appalasamy JR, Selvaraj A, Wong YH, Dujaili JA, Kow CS. Effects of educational interventions on the smoking cessation service provided by community pharmacists: A systematic review. Res Social Adm Pharm 2022; 18:3524-3533. [DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2022.01.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2021] [Revised: 01/24/2022] [Accepted: 01/26/2022] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
5
|
Exploring the quality of smoking cessation in community pharmacies: A simulated patient study. Res Social Adm Pharm 2021; 18:2997-3003. [PMID: 34284972 DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.07.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2021] [Revised: 07/15/2021] [Accepted: 07/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prevalence of cigarette smoking continues to be a major public health problem In the United Arab Emirates (UAE); the government has recently implemented policies to reduce smoking prevalence. Innovative strategies to support cessation are needed. Community pharmacies are vital venues to extend the reach and effectiveness of smoking cessation support. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the quality of community pharmacist smoking cessation counseling in the UAE. METHODS A cross-sectional, simulated patient (SP) study was conducted among N = 111 urban community pharmacies selected at random in Sharjah city. Two scenarios were developed to cover different types of cessation needs of treatment-seeking smokers and where pharmacists could have a major role in assisting with smoking cessation pharmacotherapy. The quality of pharmacist counseling was defined in terms of comprehensiveness and communication skills. Two formal assessment tools were used; an analytical checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of pharmacists smoking cessation counseling, and a global assessment form to evaluate communication skills. A descriptive analysis of the data was undertaken. RESULTS A total of 101 pharmacists participated in the study. Pharmacist assessment of smoking cessation-specific information and provision of counseling were minimal. Pharmacists most frequently assessed nicotine dependence and provided generic guidance on the use of nicotine replacement products (NRTs) to manage withdrawal, but they largely did not obtain relevant histories (e.g., medical/medication histories, previous quit attempts, smoking triggers), explain individualized management strategies (e.g., setting quit date, changing environment, reassurance and encouragement), or provide advice about ongoing support. Pharmacists attained low scores in verbal and nonverbal communication and were frequently unempathetic and judgmental towards female SPs. CONCLUSIONS Pharmacist-led smoking cessation programs can expand primary care-based cessation opportunities in the UAE and address the demand for cessation services. Pharmacists will benefit from additional training on the provision of smoking cessation interventions, with an emphasis on patient-centered communication skills.
Collapse
|
6
|
Collins JC, Chong WW, de Almeida Neto AC, Moles RJ, Schneider CR. The simulated patient method: Design and application in health services research. Res Social Adm Pharm 2021; 17:2108-2115. [PMID: 33972178 DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.04.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2020] [Revised: 03/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
The simulated patient method is becoming increasingly popular in health services research to observe the behaviour of healthcare practitioners in a naturalistic setting. This method involves sending a trained individual (simulated patient among other names), who is indistinguishable from a regular consumer, into a healthcare setting with a standardised scripted request. This paper provides an overview of the method, a brief history of its use in health services research, comparisons with other methods, ethical considerations, and considerations for the development of studies using the simulated patient method in health services research, with examples from pharmacy and other fields. Methods of analysis, mixed-methods, and the use of simulated patients with feedback are also discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jack C Collins
- Sydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
| | - Wei Wen Chong
- Centre of Quality Management of Medicines, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | | | - Rebekah J Moles
- Sydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Carl R Schneider
- Sydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Sohanpal R, Jumbe S, James WY, Steed L, Yau T, Rivas C, Madurasinghe V, Houlihan C, Berdunisov V, Taylor M, Taylor SJC, Griffiths C, Eldridge S, Walton R. Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacies (STOP) intervention: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. Trials 2019; 20:337. [PMID: 31182134 PMCID: PMC6558670 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3368-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2018] [Accepted: 04/15/2019] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND NHS community pharmacies provide effective smoking cessation services; however, there is scope for increasing throughput and improving quit rates. This trial examines whether the Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacies (STOP) intervention can improve smoker engagement to increase service throughput, retention and quitting. METHODS This study is a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial in 60 pharmacies in England and Wales. All workers in intervention pharmacies are offered STOP training while control pharmacies provide usual care. The STOP intervention, based on behavioural and organisational theories, comprises educational sessions for staff and environmental prompts in the pharmacy. Intervention fidelity is assessed by actors visiting pharmacies posing as smokers. The primary outcome is throughput, defined as the number of smokers who join the programme, set a firm quit date and undergo at least one stop smoking treatment session, and is measured using routinely collected data. Secondary outcomes include retention and quit rates at 4 weeks and continuous abstinence at 6 months verified by salivary cotinine. Cost-effectiveness is estimated using quality-adjusted life years and the probability that the intervention is effective at different levels of willingness to pay is calculated. DISCUSSION The trial will generate evidence to inform the public health smoking cessation strategy in England and Wales, and may help to shape service commissioning decisions. The STOP intervention model may help inform the undertaking of a range of health behaviour change tasks in community pharmacies. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN16351033. Retrospectively registered on 21 March 2017.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ratna Sohanpal
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Sandra Jumbe
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Wai-Yee James
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Liz Steed
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Tammy Yau
- California Northstate University, 9700 West Taron Drive, Elk Grove, CA 95757 USA
| | - Carol Rivas
- Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK
| | - Vichithranie Madurasinghe
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Colin Houlihan
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Vlad Berdunisov
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Matthew Taylor
- York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, York, UK
| | - Stephanie J. C. Taylor
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Chris Griffiths
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Sandra Eldridge
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Robert Walton
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|