Being Your Best: protocol for a feasibility study of a codesigned approach to reduce symptoms of frailty in people aged 65 years or more after transition from hospital

A qualitative exploration of challenges recruiting older adults for Being Your Best, a co-designed holistic intervention to manage and reduce frailty: lessons learnt amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in Melbourne, Australia

OBJECTIVES

Researchers face numerous challenges when recruiting participants for health and social care research. This study reports on the challenges faced recruiting older adults for Being Your Best, a co-designed holistic intervention to manage and reduce frailty, and highlights lessons learnt amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

A qualitative study design was used. Referrer interviews were conducted to explore the recruitment challenges faced by the frontline workers. An audit of the research participant (aged ≥65) database was also undertaken to evaluate the reasons for refusal to participate and withdrawal from the study.

SETTING

Hospital emergency departments (EDs) and a home care provider in Melbourne, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Frontline workers and older adults.

RESULTS

From May 2022 to June 2023, 71 referrals were received. Of those referrals, only 13 (18.3%) agreed to participate. Three participants withdrew immediately after baseline data collection, and the remaining 10 continued to participate in the programme. Reasons for older adult non-participation were (1) health issues (25.3%), (2) ineligibility (18.3%), (3) lack of interest (15.5%), (4) perceptions of being 'too old' (11.2%) and (5) perceptions of being too busy (5.6%). Of those participating, five were female and five were male. Eleven referrer interviews were conducted to explore challenges with recruitment, and three themes were generated after thematic analysis: (1) challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) characteristics of the programme and (3) health of older adults.

CONCLUSION

Despite using multiple strategies, recruitment was much lower than anticipated. The ED staff were at capacity associated with pandemic-related activities. While EDs are important sources of participants for research, they were not suitable recruitment sites at the time of this study, due to COVID-19-related challenges. Programme screening characteristics and researchers' inability to develop rapport with potential participants also contributed to low recruitment numbers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620000533998; Pre-results.

Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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