Protocol for a mixed method acceptability evaluation of a codesigned bundled COmmunication intervention for use in the adult ICU during the COVID-19 PandEmic: the COPE study

Codesign and evaluation of advanced therapeutic information resources for and with families of children with neurological conditions: a mixed methods cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

Parents and caregivers of children with neurological conditions express interest in new and developing treatments and trials; however, they have limited knowledge of, and access to, reliable information. This study aims to empower and equip decision-making and support communication in the application of advanced neurotherapeutics and personalised medicine, covering gene therapy, stem cell therapy, neurostimulation and neuroimmunotherapies.

DESIGN

A suite of online psychoeducational resources has been created and evaluated to establish implementation success. A codesign approach was incorporated in this mixed methods cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Quaternary children's hospital network.

PATIENTS

Across three phases, 105 parents of children with neurological conditions, clinicians and advocacy group representatives participated.

INTERVENTIONS

A suite of psychoeducational resources about advanced therapeutics in clinical trials was codeveloped with parents and evaluated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of Intervention Measures, Preparedness for Decision-Making Scale, Decision Self-efficacy Scale and open-ended qualitative feedback.

RESULTS

The resources provide an acceptable, appropriate, credible and feasible source of information. Parents also established they help with preparedness and confidence in decision-making regarding the applications of neurotherapeutics.

CONCLUSIONS

This study and its results are aligned with, and supports, the needs and preferences of caregivers of children with neurological conditions, promoting information provision, healthcare engagement and clinical decision-making. These resources will form a foundation for accurate and contemporary scientific knowledge that is distilled and available to a wide range of stakeholders.

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.

Adapting co-design methodology to a virtual environment: co-designing a communication intervention for adult patients in critical care

BACKGROUND

Research co-design is recommended to reduce misalignment between researcher and end-user needs and priorities for healthcare innovation. Engagement of intensive care unit patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders in co-design has historically relied upon face-to-face meetings. Here, we report on our co-design processes for the development of a bundled intensive care unit patient communication intervention that used exclusively virtual meeting methods in response to COVID-19 pandemic social distancing restrictions.

METHODS

We conducted a series of virtual co-design sessions with a committee of stakeholder participants recruited from a medical-surgical intensive care unit of a community teaching hospital in Toronto, Canada. Published recommendations for co-design methods were used with exclusively virtual adaptations to improve ease of stakeholder participation as well as the quality and consistency of co-design project set-up, facilitation, and evaluation. Virtual adaptations included the use of email for distributing information, videos, and electronic evaluations as well as the use of a videoconferencing platform for synchronous meetings. We used a flexible meeting plan including asynchronous virtual methods to reduce attendance barriers for time-constrained participants.

RESULTS

Co-design participants included a patient and a family member (n = 2) and professionally diverse healthcare providers (n = 9), plus a facilitator. Overall, participants were engaged and reported a positive experience with the virtually adapted co-design process. Reported benefits included incorporation of diverse viewpoints in the communication intervention design and implementation plan. Challenges related to lack of hands-on time during development of the co-designed intervention and participant availability to meet regularly albeit virtually.

CONCLUSIONS

This report describes the methods, benefits, and challenges of adapting in-person co-design methods to a virtual environment to produce a bundled communication intervention for use in the adult intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adapting recommended co-design methods to a virtual environment can provide further opportunities for stakeholder participation in intervention design.

Mixed-method acceptability evaluation of a co-designed bundled intervention to support communication for patients with an advanced airway in the intensive care unit during a pandemic

BACKGROUND

Although bundled communication interventions are recommended to address communication barriers for patients with an advanced airway in the intensive care unit (ICU) such interventions have not been evaluated in pandemic conditions.

AIM

To evaluate the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of a co-designed bundled intervention to support communication with adult patients with an advanced airway in ICU in pandemic conditions.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, convergent mixed method design in a single centre medical-surgical ICU in Toronto, Canada between September 2021-March 2022. After the use of the co-designed bundled communication intervention quantitative data were collected from health care providers using validated acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility measures and analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were collected from providers, patients and families using semi-structured interviews and analysed using content analysis applying the theoretical framework of acceptability. Joint table analysis enabled the integration of the two data sets.

RESULTS

A total of 64 (41.3%) HCPs responded to the survey: 54 (84.4%) rated the intervention acceptable; 55 (85.9%) appropriate; and 49 (76.6%) feasible for use in this context. Qualitative data (23 interviews: 13 healthcare providers, 6 families and 4 patients) and the joint table analysis extended the understanding that intervention acceptability was related to positive affective attitudes and reduced communication frustration. Appropriateness and feasibility were promoted through intervention alignment with values, ability to personalize tools, and ease of access. Recommendations to improve the acceptability included adaptation for immobilized and/or restrained patients, additional education, and integration into existing workflows.

CONCLUSIONS

This mixed method evaluation of a co-designed bundled intervention to support patient communication in the ICU during pandemic conditions demonstrated high rated and described acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility by participants.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

A co-designed communication intervention demonstrating stakeholder acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility can be implemented into clinical practice in pandemic and other infection prevention and control contexts.

The Aftermath of the COVID-19 Crisis in Saudi Arabia: Respiratory Rehabilitation Recommendations by Physical Therapists

Since late 2019, the number of COVID-19 patients has gradually increased in certain regions as consecutive waves of infections hit countries. Whenever this wave hits the corresponding areas, the entire healthcare system must respond quickly to curb the diseases, morbidities, and mortalities in intensive care settings. The healthcare team involved in COVID-19 patients' care must work tirelessly without having breaks. Our understanding of COVID-19 is limited as new challenges emerge with new COVID-19 variants appearing in different world regions. Though medical therapies are finding solutions to deal with the disease, there are few recommendations for respiratory rehabilitation therapies. A group of respiratory rehabilitation care professionals in Saudi Arabia and international experts have agreed with the World Health bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) on the treatment and rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19. Professionals participating in COVID-19 patient treatment, rehabilitation, and recovery formulated respiratory rehabilitation guidelines based on the DELPHI Method, combining scientific research and personal practical experience. As a result, it is envisaged that the number of individuals in the region suffering from respiratory ailments due to post-COVID-19 will decrease. This narrative review and clinical expertise guidelines may give physiotherapists acceptable and standard clinical guideline protocols for treating COVID-19 patients.