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
|
Orkin AM, Charles M, Norris K, Thomas R, Chapman L, Wright A, Campbell DM, Handford C, Klaiman M, Hopkins S, Shahin R, Thorpe K, Jüni P, Parsons J, Sellen K, Goso N, Hunt R, Leece P, Morrison LJ, Stergiopoulos V, Turner S, Strike C. Mixed methods feasibility study for the surviving opioid overdose with naloxone education and resuscitation (SOONER) trial. Resusc Plus 2021; 6:100131. [PMID: 34223388 PMCID: PMC8244470 DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100131] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2021] [Revised: 04/20/2021] [Accepted: 04/26/2021] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim We plan to conduct a randomised clinical trial among people likely to witness opioid overdose to compare the educational effectiveness of point-of-care naloxone distribution with best-available care, by observing participants’ resuscitation skills in a simulated overdose. This mixed methods feasibility study aims to assess the effectiveness of recruitment and retention strategies and acceptability of study procedures. Methods We implemented candidate-driven recruitment strategies with verbal consent and destigmatizing study materials in a family practice, emergency department, and addictions service. People ≥16 years of age who are likely to witness overdose were randomized to point-of-care naloxone distribution or referral to an existing program. We evaluated participant skills as a responder to a simulated overdose 3–14 days post-recruitment. Retention strategies included flexible scheduling, reminders, cash compensation and refreshments. The primary outcome was recruitment and retention feasibility, defined as the ability to recruit 28 eligible participants in 28 days, with <50% attrition at the outcome simulation. Acceptability of study procedures and motivations for participation were assessed in a semi-structured interview. Results We enrolled 30 participants over 24 days, and retained 21 participants (70%, 95%CI 56.7–100). The most common motivation for participation was a desire to serve the community or loved ones in distress. Participants reported that study procedures were acceptable and that the outcome simulation provided a supportive and affirming environment. Conclusion The planned trial is ready for implementation. Recruitment and retention is feasible and study processes are acceptable for people who are likely to witness overdose. (Registration: NCT03821649).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aaron M Orkin
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, ON M5B 1T8, Canada.,Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave, Toronto, ON M5G 1V7, Canada.,Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College St Room 500, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7, Canada.,Inner City Health Associates, 59 Adelaide St E, Toronto, ON M5C 1K6, Canada
| | - Mercy Charles
- Applied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, 250 Yonge St, Toronto, ON M5G 1B1, Canada
| | - Kristine Norris
- Applied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, 250 Yonge St, Toronto, ON M5G 1B1, Canada
| | - Rekha Thomas
- Applied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, 250 Yonge St, Toronto, ON M5G 1B1, Canada
| | - Leigh Chapman
- Population Health & Social Medicine Program, University Health Network, 101 College St, Toronto, ON M5G 1L7, Canada
| | - Amy Wright
- Ryerson University, 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
| | - Douglas M Campbell
- Allan Waters Family Simulation Centre Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, 209 Victoria St. Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada
| | - Curtis Handford
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, 61 Queen St E #3, Toronto, ON M5C 2T2, Canada
| | - Michelle Klaiman
- Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St, Toronto, ON M5B 1X1, Canada
| | - Shaun Hopkins
- Toronto Public Health, 277 Victoria St, Toronto, ON M5B 2L6, Canada
| | - Rita Shahin
- Toronto Public Health, 277 Victoria St, Toronto, ON M5B 2L6, Canada
| | - Kevin Thorpe
- Applied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, 250 Yonge St, Toronto, ON M5G 1B1, Canada
| | - Peter Jüni
- Applied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, 250 Yonge St, Toronto, ON M5G 1B1, Canada
| | - Janet Parsons
- Applied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, 250 Yonge St, Toronto, ON M5G 1B1, Canada
| | - Kate Sellen
- Design for Health, OCAD University, 100 McCaul St, Toronto, ON M5T 1W1, Canada
| | - Nick Goso
- Design for Health, OCAD University, 100 McCaul St, Toronto, ON M5T 1W1, Canada
| | - Richard Hunt
- Design for Health, OCAD University, 100 McCaul St, Toronto, ON M5T 1W1, Canada
| | - Pamela Leece
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave, Toronto, ON M5G 1V7, Canada.,Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College St Room 500, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7, Canada.,Public Health Ontario, 480 University Ave #300, Toronto, ON M5G 1V2, Canada
| | - Laurie J Morrison
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, ON M5B 1T8, Canada
| | - Vicky Stergiopoulos
- Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1000 Queen St W, Toronto, ON M6J 1H4, Canada
| | - Suzanne Turner
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, 61 Queen St E #3, Toronto, ON M5C 2T2, Canada
| | - Carol Strike
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, ON M5B 1T8, Canada.,Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College St Room 500, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
New and Emerging Opioid Overdose Risk Factors. CURRENT ADDICTION REPORTS 2021; 8:319-329. [PMID: 33907663 PMCID: PMC8061156 DOI: 10.1007/s40429-021-00368-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Purpose of Review The purpose of this review is to provide a review of the current literature surrounding opioid overdose risk factors, focusing on relatively new factors in the opioid crisis. Recent Findings Both a market supply driving force and a subpopulation of people who use opioids actively seeking out fentanyl are contributing to its recent proliferation in the opioid market. Harm reduction techniques such as fentanyl testing strips, naloxone education and distribution, drug sampling behaviors, and supervised injection facilities are all seeing expanded use with increasing amounts of research being published regarding their effectiveness. Availability and use of interventions such as medication for opioid use disorder and peer recovery coaching programs are also on the rise to prevent opioid overdose. Summary The opioid epidemic is an evolving crisis, necessitating continuing research to identify novel overdose risk factors and the development of new interventions targeting at-risk populations.
Collapse
|
5
|
Abstract
Effective health education needs ongoing evidence to support policy development and action in a public health crisis, like the opioid epidemic in the United States. Opioid Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) programs work to change behaviors through information, education, and resources to empower people to prevent and respond to opioid overdose poisonings. In this review, we sought to identify the first aid educational components of OEND to address opioid overdose poisoning, identify gaps in the existing literature, and support the development of future studies that could then be systematically reviewed. From a systematic review that identified 2057 peer-reviewed manuscripts, 59 studies demonstrated that the educational literature is sparse, of low quality, lacks quality measures and effective methodologies, and suffers from self-reported and highly inconsistent endpoints, making outcome comparisons challenging, if not impossible. The reviewed OEND programs generally used a public health/health education approach focusing on people who inject opioids, their family and friends, first responders, and rarely the general public. Depending on the learners, interventions were broken down to those <15, 16-90, and >90 minutes, which categorically showed differences in knowledge and first aid response actions. Only eight studies used comparison groups which provide a slightly higher level of evidence. Reports of survival appeared to positively correlate with naloxone kit distribution. Opportunity exists to develop policies and plans that support individual and community efforts through evidence-based guidelines, particularly to the domains of first aid education, so that educators and organizations can deliver efficacious programming that meets the needs of their learners.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jamillee L Krob
- Health Sciences, Aultman College of Nursing & Health Sciences, Canton, USA
| | - Aaron Orkin
- Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, CAN
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Franklin Edwards G, Mierisch C, Mutcheson B, Horn K, Henrickson Parker S. A review of performance assessment tools for rescuer response in opioid overdose simulations and training programs. Prev Med Rep 2020; 20:101232. [PMID: 33163333 PMCID: PMC7610043 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101232] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2020] [Revised: 10/11/2020] [Accepted: 10/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Since the 1990s, more than 600 overdose response training and education programs have been implemented to train participants to respond to an opioid overdose in the United States. Given this substantial investment in overdose response training, valid assessment of a potential rescuers' proficiency in responding to an opioid overdose is important. The aim of this article is to review the current state of the literature on outcome measures utilized in opioid overdose response training. Thirty-one articles published between 2014 and 2020 met inclusion criteria. The reviewed articles targeted laypersons, healthcare providers, and first responders. The assessment tools included five validated questionnaires, fifteen non-validated questionnaires, and nine non-validated simulation-based checklists (e.g., completion of critical tasks and time to completion). Validated multiple choice knowledge assessment tools were commonly used to assess the outcomes of training programs. It is unknown how scores on these assessment tools may correlate with actual rescuer performance responding to an overdose. Seven studies reported ceiling effects most likely attributed to participants' background medical knowledge or experience. The inclusion of simulation-based outcome measures of performance, including the commission of critical errors and the time to naloxone administration, provides better insight into rescuer skill proficiency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G. Franklin Edwards
- Translational Biology, Medicine and Health, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
- Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Roanoke, VA, USA
- Carilion Clinic Center for Simulation, Research and Patient Safety, Roanoke, VA, USA
| | - Cassandra Mierisch
- Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA, USA
- Carilion Clinic, Department of Orthopedics and Opioid Task Force, Roanoke, VA, USA
| | | | - Kimberly Horn
- Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Roanoke, VA, USA
- Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Population Health Sciences Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
| | - Sarah Henrickson Parker
- Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Roanoke, VA, USA
- Carilion Clinic Center for Simulation, Research and Patient Safety, Roanoke, VA, USA
- Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA, USA
| |
Collapse
|