A qualitative investigation of reasoning behind decisions to decline participation in a research intervention: A study-within-a-trial

A Cognitive Occupation-Based programme for people with MS: acceptability, feasibility, and experiences of people with multiple sclerosis

PURPOSE

COB-MS is an eight-session, Cognitive Occupation-Based programme for people with both MS and cognitive difficulty - designed to enhance cognition and daily functioning, through a combination of goal-setting, cognitive strategy engagement, group activities, home-practice activities and one-on-one sessions. This research aims to investigate the acceptability of COB-MS from the perspective of people living with MS, as well as the occupational therapists who facilitated the programme.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two content analyses were conducted on interview data from (n = 11) COB-MS participants and (n = 8) COB-MS facilitators. Thematic analysis was also conducted on the participant interview data.

RESULTS

Through a, primary, content analysis, participants reported that the COB-MS provided both a positive experience and quality resources. Qualitative improvement and utilisation of their learning beyond completion of the intervention were also identified. Four themes were identified via, secondary, thematic analysis: (1) Group interaction within COB-MS was vital; (2) Online COB-MS had positive and negative effects on participation; (3) COB-MS as a provider of clarity; and (4) Using learned strategies after the completion of COB-MS. Recommendations for future administration are provided.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest COB-MS acceptability, as well as appropriateness and feasibility, indicative of progression to a definitive trial in future research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: ISRCTN11462710. Registered on 9 September 2019.

Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme

Background

Randomised controlled trials ('trials') are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted.

Objectives

PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial.

Design

A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously.

Setting

Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible.

Participants

Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom.

Interventions

Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial.

Main outcome measures

Number of host trials funded.

Results

Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials.

Limitations

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed (n = 2) or prematurely terminated (n = 3).

Conclusions

PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial.

Future work

Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice.

Study registration

All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Sleep patterns and psychosocial health of parents of preterm and full-born infants: a prospective, comparative, longitudinal feasibility study

Background

The early birth and hospitalization of a preterm infant in neonatal intensive care unit can produce several emotional and behavioural responses including sleep problems for parents. Few studies have explored sleep and its associations with health and HRQoL over time in this vulnerable parent population. This purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a prospective, comparative, longitudinal study of the sleep patterns and psychosocial health of preterm and full-born infants’ parents during the first postpartum year.

Methods

A prospective, comparative, longitudinal feasibility study was conducted. Parents of preterm infants were compared to parents of full-born infants to identify if there were differences in outcomes between the groups. The parents were instructed to wear actigraphs and complete sleep diaries for two consecutive weeks, and responded to a digital questionnaire covering stress, insomnia, fatigue, depression, social support, self-efficacy, and health-related quality of life. Survey data were collected at infant ages of 2, 6, and 12 months, actigraphy and sleep diary data were collected at infant age of 2 months only. Descriptive analysis was used to describe recruitment and attrition rates. Differences between completers and dropouts were analysed with a chi-square test (categorical data) and Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon test for two independent samples (continuous variables).

Results

Between June 2019 and March 2020, 25 parents of a preterm infant and 78 parents of a full-born infant were recruited from four neonatal intensive care units and two maternity wards, respectively, in four Norwegian hospitals. Feasibility was predefined as recruiting ≥ 75 parents each of preterm and full-born infants. The target for the full-born group was reached. However, the preterm group recruitment was challenging. Actigraphs, sleep diaries, and questionnaires were evaluated as feasible for use in a future study. Attrition rates were high in both groups at 6 and 12 months. No parent-related characteristics were associated with participation at 6 months. At 12 months, dropouts had a statistically significantly lower age in the full-born group (both parents) and higher age and body mass index in the preterm group (fathers).

Conclusions

A longitudinal study is feasible; however, procedural changes, including using active methods and contacting participants, are necessary to increase the recruitment of preterm infants’ parents.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-022-04862-1.

Exploring parents' attitudes towards a multicentre cohort study of children with burns injuries: A qualitative interview study

Background

Burn injuries affect more than 60,000 children every year in the UK, with many experiencing scarring as a result. Scarring can be highly variable, and research is required to explore the factors that may influence variability, as well as the psychosocial impact of these injuries on children and their caregivers. A multicentre burns cohort study is being planned to investigate genetic determinants of scarring and long-term psychosocial outcomes. Public involvement (PI) is an essential element of the design and feasibility stages of this planning. As part of this work, this study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of parents’ attitudes towards participation in burns research, specifically a longitudinal cohort study of children with small burns (<10% total body surface area [TBSA]).

Methods

In total, 16 parents of children with burns took part in semi-structured interviews regarding their experiences of taking part in research and their attitudes towards the potential future cohort study. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis.

Results

Four themes were identified: ‘Acknowledging trauma’; ‘Aligning research with experience’; ‘Research as a reciprocal relationship’; and ‘Contributing to change’.

Discussion

These four themes represent factors that parents suggested were important for acceptability, relevance, recruitment and retention of participants into a longitudinal multicentre cohort study of children with a burn injury and their caregivers.

Conclusion

The findings of this study will be incorporated into the design of such a study, as well as having wide reaching relevance for research in the field of paediatric burn injuries.

Lay Summary

Background to this subject

More than 60,000 children experience a burn injury every year in the UK and many of these injuries lead to scarring. We know that the extent of this scarring can vary, and we know that some children and their parents/caregivers manage well but others struggle with the challenges they face after having a burn. Researchers would like to carry out research on these topics, including asking participants to take part in research over several years to find out how genetics might influence scarring, as well as their psychological experiences over this time. Before they conduct this study, it is very important that researchers understand parents' attitudes towards this kind of research. The current study aimed to find out parents' opinions and ask what issues were important to them when taking part in burns research.

Details of how the work was conducted

Parents of children who had experienced a scald (a type of burn injury) were asked to take part in a research interview. In total, 16 parents took part in this study. We recorded these interviews and analysed them, looking for patterns and shared experiences in participants' interviews.

What we did and did not learn from this study

We found four themes in the interview data: ‘Acknowledging trauma', ‘Aligning research with experience', ‘Research as a reciprocal relationship', and ‘Contributing to change'. Overall, these themes suggest that parents were mostly supportive of a ‘burns cohort study’, but they have also highlighted some important considerations for this research and other future burns research studies.

Exploring the impact of ineligibility on individuals expressing interest in a trial aimed at improving daily functioning regarding perceptions of self, research and likelihood of future participation

Background

Eligibility guidelines in research trials are necessary to minimise confounds and reduce bias in the interpretation of potential treatment effects. There is limited extant research investigating how being deemed ineligible for such trials might impact patients’ perceptions of themselves and of research. Better understanding of the impact of patient ineligibility could enhance design and implementation of future research studies.

Methods

Eight semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted to explore the impact of ineligibility on self-perceptions; perceptions regarding the nature of research; and the likelihood of expressing interest in future research. Data were collected and analysed thematically through inductive, interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA).

Results

Five themes emerged regarding the experience of being deemed ineligible: (1) Being deemed ineligible is emotion and reaction evoking; (2) ‘Doing your bit’: Helping others and increasing the value of research; (3) Communication of ineligibility; (4) Appreciation for those who express interest; and (5) Subsequent perceptions and attitudes towards research.

Conclusions

The results suggest that being deemed ineligible can elicit negative emotional outcomes but is not likely to change perceptions of or attitudes towards research, possibly due to a desire to help similar others. Ineligibility can impact future participation in some cases, thus reducing the recruitment pool for subsequent research studies. Recommendations are provided to help minimise this risk. Advising of ineligibility in a personal way is recommended: with enhanced clarity regarding the reasoning behind the decision; providing opportunities to ask questions; and ensuring that appreciation for the patient’s time and interest are communicated.