A pilot cluster randomised trial of the medicines and alcohol consultation (MAC): an intervention to discuss alcohol use in community pharmacy medicine review services

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.

'Really putting a different slant on my use of a glass of wine': patient perspectives on integrating alcohol into Structured Medication Reviews in general practice

Background

Alcohol is often overlooked in primary care even though it has wide-ranging impacts. The Structured Medication Review (SMR) in England is a new 'holistic' service designed to tackle problematic polypharmacy, delivered by clinical pharmacists in a general practice setting. Implementation has been protracted owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explores early patient experiences of the SMR and views on the acceptability of integrating clinical attention to alcohol as another drug linked to their conditions and medicines, rather than as a standalone 'healthy living' or 'lifestyle' question.

Method

Semi-structured interviews with a sample of 10 patients who drank alcohol twice or more each week, recruited to the study by five clinical pharmacists during routine SMR delivery.

Results

SMRs received were remote, brief, and paid scant attention to alcohol. Interviewees were interested in the possibility of receiving integrated attention to alcohol within a SMR that was similar to the service specification. They saw alcohol inclusion as congruent with the aims of a holistic medicines review linked to their medical history. For some, considering alcohol as a drug impacting on their medications and the conditions for which they were prescribed, introduced a new frame for thinking about their own drinking.

Conclusions

Including alcohol in SMRs and changing the framing of alcohol away from a brief check with little meaningful scope for discussion, toward being fully integrated within the consultation, was welcomed as a concept by participants in this study. This was not their current medication review experience.

Consultation skills development in general practice: findings from a qualitative study of newly recruited and more experienced clinical pharmacists during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

The new structured medication review (SMR) service was introduced into the National Health Service in England during the COVID-19 pandemic, following a major expansion of clinical pharmacists within new formations known as primary care networks (PCNs). The aim of the SMR is to tackle problematic polypharmacy through comprehensive, personalised medication reviews involving shared decision-making. Investigation of clinical pharmacists' perceptions of training needs and skills acquisition issues for person-centred consultation practice will help better understand their readiness for these new roles.

DESIGN

A longitudinal interview and observational study in general practice.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A longitudinal study of 10 newly recruited clinical pharmacists interviewed three times, plus a single interview with 10 pharmacists recruited earlier and already established in general practice, across 20 newly forming PCNs in England. Observation of a compulsory 2-day history taking and consultation skills workshop.

ANALYSIS

A modified framework method supported a constructionist thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Remote working during the pandemic limited opportunities for patient-facing contact. Pharmacists new to their role in general practice were predominantly concerned with improving clinical knowledge and competence. Most said they already practiced person-centred care, using this terminology to describe transactional medicines-focused practice. Pharmacists rarely received direct feedback on consultation practice to calibrate perceptions of their own competence in person-centred communication, including shared decision-making skills. Training thus provided knowledge delivery with limited opportunities for actual skills acquisition. Pharmacists had difficulty translating abstract consultation principles into specific consultation practices.

CONCLUSION

SMRs were introduced when the dedicated workforce was largely new and being trained. Addressing problematic polypharmacy requires structural and organisational interventions to enhance the communication skills of clinical pharmacists (and other health professionals), and their use in practice. The development of person-centred consultation skills requires much more substantial support than has so far been provided for clinical pharmacists.

Using qualitative process evaluation in the development of a complex intervention to advance person-centred practice by pharmacists: The Medicines and Alcohol Consultation (MAC)

In order to effectively evaluate complex interventions, there have been calls for the further integration of qualitative methods. Qualitative process studies of brief alcohol interventions and medicines reviews are notably lacking. This article provides a grounded example through the presentation of findings from an embedded qualitative process evaluation of a multi-site, pilot cluster RCT of a new intervention: the Medicines and Alcohol Consultation (MAC). MAC is designed to increase the capacity of community pharmacists (CPs) to conduct person-centred medicines reviews in which the subject of alcohol consumption is raised in connection with medications and associated health conditions. Participant-focused qualitative studies (interviews, observations, recorded consultations) sought to understand how CPs engaged with and implemented MAC in context. This article documents effects of the intervention on developing person-centred consultation practice and highlights how qualitative process studies can be used formatively to develop middle range programme theory and to optimise intervention design for testing in a definitive RCT.

Addressing complex pharmacy consultations: methods used to develop a person-centred intervention to highlight alcohol within pharmacist reviews of medications

BACKGROUND

Alcohol is challenging to discuss, and patients may be reluctant to disclose drinking partly because of concern about being judged. This report presents an overview of the development of a medications review intervention co-produced with the pharmacy profession and with patients, which breaks new ground by seeking to give appropriate attention to alcohol within these consultations.

METHODS

This intervention was developed in a series of stages and refined through conceptual discussion, literature review, observational and interview studies, and consultations with advisory groups. In this study we reflect on this process, paying particular attention to the methods used, where lessons may inform innovations in other complex clinical consultations.

RESULTS

Early work with patients and pharmacists infused the entire process with a heightened sense of the complexity of consultations in everyday practice, prompting careful deliberation on the implications for intervention development. This required the research team to be highly responsive to both co-production inputs and data gathered in formally conducted studies, and to be committed to working through the implications for intervention design. The intervention thus evolved significantly over time, with the greatest transformations resulting from patient and pharmacist co-design workshops in the second stage of the process, where pharmacists elaborated on the nature of the need for training in particular. The original research plans provided a helpful structure, and unanticipated issues for investigation emerged throughout the process. This underscored the need to engage dynamically with changing contexts and contents and to avoid rigid adherence to any early prescribed plan.

CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol interventions are complex and require careful developmental research. This can be a messy enterprise, which can nonetheless shed new insights into the challenges involved in optimising interventions, and how to meet them, if embraced with an attitude of openness to learning. We found that exposing our own research plans to scrutiny resulted in changes to the intervention design that gained the confidence of different stakeholders. Our understanding of the methods used, and their consequences, may be bounded by the person-centred nature of this particular intervention.

Optimising retention success: a research team's experience of following-up participants recruited to a pilot trial through community pharmacies in England

Background: The CHAMP-1 ( Community pharmacy: Highlighting Alcohol use in Medication a Ppointments) pilot trial aimed to explore an intervention discussing alcohol during medication consultations with community pharmacists. It presented various challenges regarding patient retention, as participants were recruited by their pharmacist and followed-up remotely by a trained researcher, who they had not met, two months later.  We discuss our actions and experiences of completing follow-up activities.

Methods: Community pharmacists recruited patients aged 18 and over, attending a Medicine Use Review (MUR) or New Medicine Service (NMS) consultation, and drinking alcohol at least twice per week. Pharmacies were randomised to conduct their consultations as usual (control), or to incorporate the Medicines and Alcohol Consultation (MAC) intervention. All participants were followed-up by a researcher after two months to complete data collection via telephone or post. We employed standard follow-up strategies, including a plan to text participants with a reminder in advance of their follow-up.

Results: Forty-seven of 51 participants (92%) completed the two month follow-up. Thirty-eight (81%) responses were provided by telephone and nine (19%) by post. Of the 38 follow-up calls completed by telephone, 17 (45%) participants were reached at first attempt; 16 (42%) at second attempt; and five (13%) at the third attempt. We observed a high percentage of data completion across telephone and postal collection methods.  Participants were willing to discuss potentially sensitive issues, such as alcohol consumption, anxiety, and depression, with a researcher who was external to the pharmacy team. 

Conclusions: The results suggest that patients recruited to a trial by community pharmacists are willing to take part in data collection activities, and remote follow-up can be successfully conducted by researchers. The techniques employed to encourage high levels of retention should be investigated further in a larger study, alongside consideration of optimal strategies to collect data within community pharmacies.

Introducing alcohol as a drug in medicine reviews with pharmacists: Findings from a co-design workshop with patients

INTRODUCTION

Alcohol poses a range of potential problems to people taking medications, but health professionals are usually not comfortable talking about drinking with patients. The Medicines and Alcohol Consultation aims to increase the capacity of pharmacists to conduct person-centred reviews in which alcohol is regarded as another drug to be discussed alongside medications. This paper explores sensitivities in discussing alcohol and views on the legitimacy of the Medicines and Alcohol Consultation intervention concept at a pharmacy-user intervention co-design workshop.

METHODS

A co-design workshop was held with 14 people recruited from UK community pharmacies who regularly drank alcohol and took medications for long-term conditions. This formed one element of a broader, iterative, intervention co-production process. Workshop discussions were audio-recorded and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The basic intervention concept resonated well, though not entirely unproblematically. Participants were interested in receiving information on how medications interact with alcohol and how this might affect their own conditions, with which to make their own informed choices. Linking alcohol use to medicines gave legitimacy to pharmacists to raise alcohol in medicines reviews. Sensitivity in talking about alcohol was linked to vulnerability to negative judgement.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Changing the framing of alcohol in medicines reviews, away from being regarded as a 'lifestyle issue' to being considered a drug directly linked to medicines use, safety and effectiveness, was welcomed by participants in this study.

Process study within a pilot cluster randomised trial in community pharmacy: An exploration of pharmacist readiness for research

INTRODUCTION

Community pharmacies have an increasingly prominent public health function. This includes addressing alcohol, but guidance on delivery of alcohol interventions in this setting is lacking. We have developed an intervention that integrates attention to alcohol within existing community pharmacy medicine review services. This paper examines the experiences of community pharmacists (CPs) in conducting a pilot trial of the intervention, including the acceptability of the trial patient recruitment procedures and the training and support provided by the research team.

METHOD

The pilot trial was conducted in 10 community pharmacies in Yorkshire, England. One CP from each pharmacy was recruited via a multi-stage process to assess motivation, commitment and capacity to participate. Each CP attended a research training day and received on-going research support to conduct the trial. Semi-structured audio-recorded face-to-face interviews (lasting 40-105 min) were conducted with all the CPs at the end of the trial. Data were also available from three direct observations conducted during trial support visits. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The CPs were supportive of research in community pharmacy but had little direct experiences of research themselves. They valued the training and support provided, which had quickly identified areas where CPs were deviating from the study recruitment protocol. In some instances, the boundaries between research and practice became blurred with CPs making changes to their usual routines and interactions with patients to accommodate the research.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial procedures were acceptable to CPs, in part because of the training and support provided. There are also identifiable areas where CPs' readiness for research could be enhanced to facilitate participation in future trials in this setting.

Optimising retention success: a research team's experience of following-up participants recruited to a pilot trial through community pharmacies in England

Background: The CHAMP-1 ( Community pharmacy: Highlighting Alcohol use in Medication a Ppointments) pilot trial aimed to explore an intervention discussing alcohol during medication consultations with community pharmacists. It presented various challenges regarding patient retention, as participants were recruited by their pharmacist and followed-up remotely by a trained researcher, who they had not met, two months later.  We discuss our actions and experiences of completing follow-up activities. Methods: Community pharmacists recruited patients aged 18 and over, attending a Medicine Use Review (MUR) or New Medicine Service (NMS) consultation, and drinking alcohol at least twice per week. Pharmacies were randomised to conduct their consultations as usual (control), or to incorporate the Medicines and Alcohol Consultation (MAC) intervention. All participants were followed-up by a researcher after two months to complete data collection via telephone or post. We employed standard follow-up strategies, including a plan to text participants with a reminder in advance of their follow-up. Results: Forty-seven of 51 participants (92%) completed the two month follow-up. Thirty-eight (81%) responses were provided by telephone and nine (19%) by post. Of the 38 follow-up calls completed by telephone, 17 (45%) participants were reached at first attempt; 16 (42%) at second attempt; and five (13%) at the third attempt. We observed a high percentage of data completion across telephone and postal collection methods.  Participants were willing to discuss potentially sensitive issues, such as alcohol consumption, anxiety, and depression, with a researcher who was external to the pharmacy team.  Conclusions: The results suggest that patients recruited to a trial by community pharmacists are willing to take part in data collection activities, and remote follow-up can be successfully conducted by researchers. The techniques employed to encourage high levels of retention should be investigated further in a larger study, alongside consideration of optimal strategies to collect data within community pharmacies.