A statistical framework for quantifying clinical equipoise for individual cases during randomized controlled surgical trials

Learning Experience Design of Project PHoENIX: Addressing the Lack of Autistic Representation in Extended Reality Design and Development

This paper presents Project PHoENIX, which stands for Participatory, Human-centered, Equitable, Neurodiverse, Inclusive, eXtended reality. The project aims to co-produce research with autistic users to create a virtual reality (VR) environment that is highly usable, accessible, and sensitive to the needs and preferences of these individuals. Project PHoENIX utilizes participatory design within a learning experience design (LXD) frame to locate autistic people, their caregivers, and providers centrally in the processes of immersive technology design and development, as well as research design and execution. An overarching literature review on VR and autism and issues of limited design precedent of VR environments with autistic participants is provided, as well as details on the Project PHoENIX design framework, project description, and project design outcomes. Details are provided on how the online VR environment was co-designed and co-developed through collaborative research with autistic stakeholders while being sensitive to their needs and preferences. Research findings and implications are discussed regarding the design process, constraints, principles, and insights. The paper concludes by discussing lessons learned and how this project can provide much-needed design precedent for advancing the field towards a more inclusive, human-centered, and neurodiverse VR research and development paradigms.

Equipoise across the patient population: optimising recruitment to a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This paper proposes a novel perspective on the value of qualitative research for improving trial design and optimising recruitment. We report findings from a qualitative study set within the OPEN trial, a surgical randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing two interventions for recurrent bulbar urethral stricture, a common cause of urinary problems in men.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with men meeting trial eligibility criteria (n = 19) to explore reasons for accepting or declining participation and with operating urologists (n = 15) to explore trial acceptability.

RESULTS

Patients expressed various preferences and understood these in the context of relative severity and tolerability of their symptoms. Accounts suggest a common trajectory of worsening symptoms with a particular window within which either treatment arm would be considered acceptable. Interviews with clinician recruiters found that uncertainty varied between general and specialist sites, which reflect clinicians' relative exposure to different proportions of the patient population.

CONCLUSION

Recruitment post referral, at specialist sites, was challenging due to patient (and clinician) expectations. Trial design, particularly where there are fixed points for recruitment along the care pathway, can enable or constrain the possibilities for effective accrual depending on how it aligns with the optimum point of patient equipoise. Qualitative recruitment investigations, often focussed on information provision and patient engagement, may also look to better understand the target patient population in order to optimise the point at which patients are approached.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN98009168 . Registered on 29 November 2012.