1
|
Xie CX, De Simoni A, Eldridge S, Pinnock H, Relton C. Development of a conceptual framework for defining trial efficiency. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0304187. [PMID: 38781167 PMCID: PMC11115328 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304187] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2023] [Accepted: 05/07/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Globally, there is a growing focus on efficient trials, yet numerous interpretations have emerged, suggesting a significant heterogeneity in understanding "efficiency" within the trial context. Therefore in this study, we aimed to dissect the multifaceted nature of trial efficiency by establishing a comprehensive conceptual framework for its definition. OBJECTIVES To collate diverse perspectives regarding trial efficiency and to achieve consensus on a conceptual framework for defining trial efficiency. METHODS From July 2022 to July 2023, we undertook a literature review to identify various terms that have been used to define trial efficiency. We then conducted a modified e-Delphi study, comprising an exploratory open round and a subsequent scoring round to refine and validate the identified items. We recruited a wide range of experts in the global trial community including trialists, funders, sponsors, journal editors and members of the public. Consensus was defined as items rated "without disagreement", measured by the inter-percentile range adjusted for symmetry through the UCLA/RAND approach. RESULTS Seventy-eight studies were identified from a literature review, from which we extracted nine terms related to trial efficiency. We then used review findings as exemplars in the Delphi open round. Forty-nine international experts were recruited to the e-Delphi panel. Open round responses resulted in the refinement of the initial nine terms, which were consequently included in the scoring round. We obtained consensus on all nine items: 1) four constructs that collectively define trial efficiency containing scientific efficiency, operational efficiency, statistical efficiency and economic efficiency; and 2) five essential building blocks for efficient trial comprising trial design, trial process, infrastructure, superstructure, and stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS This is the first attempt to dissect the concept of trial efficiency into theoretical constructs. Having an agreed definition will allow better trial implementation and facilitate effective communication and decision-making across stakeholders. We also identified essential building blocks that are the cornerstones of an efficient trial. In this pursuit of understanding, we are not only unravelling the complexities of trial efficiency but also laying the groundwork for evaluating the efficiency of an individual trial or a trial system in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charis Xuan Xie
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, United Kingdom
| | - Anna De Simoni
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, United Kingdom
| | - Sandra Eldridge
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, United Kingdom
| | - Hilary Pinnock
- Usher Institute, Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
| | - Clare Relton
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tanner L, Kenny R, Still M, Ling J, Pearson F, Thompson K, Bhardwaj-Gosling R. NHS Health Check programme: a rapid review update. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e052832. [PMID: 35172998 PMCID: PMC8852663 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052832] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2021] [Accepted: 11/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To update a rapid review published in 2017, which evaluated the NHS Health Check programme. METHODS An enlarged body of evidence was used to readdress six research objectives from a rapid review published in 2017, relating to the uptake, patient experiences and effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme. Data sources included MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Global Health, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov and the ISRCTN registry, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, The Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, OpenGrey and hand searching article reference lists. These searches identified records from between January 1996 and December 2019. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal using the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme checklists were performed in duplicate. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations was implemented. Data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS 697 studies were identified, and 29 new studies included in the review update. The number of published studies on the uptake, patient experiences and effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme has increased by 43% since the rapid review published in 2017. However, findings from the original review remain largely unchanged. NHS Health Checks led to an overall increase in the detection of raised risk factors and morbidities including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, raised blood pressure, cholesterol and chronic kidney disease. Individuals most likely to attend the NHS Health Check programme included women, persons aged ≥60 years and those from more socioeconomically advantaged backgrounds. Opportunistic invitations increased uptake among men, younger persons and those with a higher deprivation level. CONCLUSIONS Although results are inconsistent between studies, the NHS Health Check programme is associated with increased detection of heightened cardiovascular disease risk factors and diagnoses. Uptake varied between population subgroups. Opportunistic invitations may increase uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Tanner
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Rpw Kenny
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - M Still
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - J Ling
- Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK
| | - F Pearson
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | | - R Bhardwaj-Gosling
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lemanska A, Byford RC, Cruickshank C, Dearnaley DP, Ferreira F, Griffin C, Hall E, Hinton W, de Lusignan S, Sherlock J, Faithfull S. Linkage of the CHHiP randomised controlled trial with primary care data: a study investigating ways of supplementing cancer trials and improving evidence-based practice. BMC Med Res Methodol 2020; 20:198. [PMID: 32711460 PMCID: PMC7382082 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-01078-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2020] [Accepted: 07/08/2020] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based practice. However, RCTs can have limitations. For example, translation of findings into practice can be limited by design features, such as inclusion criteria, not accurately reflecting clinical populations. In addition, it is expensive to recruit and follow-up participants in RCTs. Linkage with routinely collected data could offer a cost-effective way to enhance the conduct and generalisability of RCTs. The aim of this study is to investigate how primary care data can support RCTs. METHODS Secondary analysis following linkage of two datasets: 1) multicentre CHHiP radiotherapy trial (ISRCTN97182923) and 2) primary care database from the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre. Comorbidities and medications recorded in CHHiP at baseline, and radiotherapy-related toxicity recorded in CHHiP over time were compared with primary care records. The association of comorbidities and medications with toxicity was analysed with mixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS Primary care records were extracted for 106 out of 2811 CHHiP participants recruited from sites in England (median age 70, range 44 to 82). Complementary information included longitudinal body mass index, blood pressure and cholesterol, as well as baseline smoking and alcohol usage but was limited by the considerable missing data. In the linked sample, 9 (8%) participants were recorded in CHHiP as having a history of diabetes and 38 (36%) hypertension, whereas primary care records indicated incidence prior to trial entry of 11 (10%) and 40 (38%) respectively. Concomitant medications were not collected in CHHiP but available in primary care records. This indicated that 44 (41.5%) men took aspirin, 65 (61.3%) statins, 14 (13.2%) metformin and 46 (43.4%) phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors at some point before or after trial entry. CONCLUSIONS We provide a set of recommendations on linkage and supplementation of trials. Data recorded in primary care are a rich resource and linkage could provide near real-time information to supplement trials and an efficient and cost-effective mechanism for long-term follow-up. In addition, standardised primary care data extracts could form part of RCT recruitment and conduct. However, this is at present limited by the variable quality and fragmentation of primary care data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Agnieszka Lemanska
- School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH UK
- Data Science, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK
| | - Rachel C. Byford
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Clare Cruickshank
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - David P. Dearnaley
- The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Filipa Ferreira
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Clare Griffin
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Emma Hall
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - William Hinton
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Simon de Lusignan
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC), London, UK
- School of Biosciences and Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| | - Julian Sherlock
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sara Faithfull
- School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Frampton GK, Shepherd J, Pickett K, Griffiths G, Wyatt JC. Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a systematic map. Trials 2020; 21:478. [PMID: 32498690 PMCID: PMC7273688 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-020-04358-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2019] [Accepted: 04/28/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recruiting and retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Digital tools, such as social media, data mining, email or text-messaging, could improve recruitment or retention, but an overview of this research area is lacking. We aimed to systematically map the characteristics of digital recruitment and retention tools for RCTs, and the features of the comparative studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of these tools during the past 10 years. METHODS We searched Medline, Embase, other databases, the Internet, and relevant web sites in July 2018 to identify comparative studies of digital tools for recruiting and/or retaining participants in health RCTs. Two reviewers independently screened references against protocol-specified eligibility criteria. Included studies were coded by one reviewer with 20% checked by a second reviewer, using pre-defined keywords to describe characteristics of the studies, populations and digital tools evaluated. RESULTS We identified 9163 potentially relevant references, of which 104 articles reporting 105 comparative studies were included in the systematic map. The number of published studies on digital tools has doubled in the past decade, but most studies evaluated digital tools for recruitment rather than retention. The key health areas investigated were health promotion, cancers, circulatory system diseases and mental health. Few studies focussed on minority or under-served populations, and most studies were observational. The most frequently-studied digital tools were social media, Internet sites, email and tv/radio for recruitment; and email and text-messaging for retention. One quarter of the studies measured efficiency (cost per recruited or retained participant) but few studies have evaluated people's attitudes towards the use of digital tools. CONCLUSIONS This systematic map highlights a number of evidence gaps and may help stakeholders to identify and prioritise further research needs. In particular, there is a need for rigorous research on the efficiency of the digital tools and their impact on RCT participants and investigators, perhaps as studies-within-a-trial (SWAT) research. There is also a need for research into how digital tools may improve participant retention in RCTs which is currently underrepresented relative to recruitment research. REGISTRATION Not registered; based on a pre-specified protocol, peer-reviewed by the project's Advisory Board.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Geoff K. Frampton
- Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| | - Jonathan Shepherd
- Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| | - Karen Pickett
- Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| | - Gareth Griffiths
- Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton and Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, SO16 6YD UK
| | - Jeremy C. Wyatt
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Seki T, Aki M, Kawashima H, Miki T, Tanaka S, Kawakami K, Furukawa TA. Electronic health record nested pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a reminder system for serum lithium level monitoring in patients with mood disorder: KONOTORI study protocol. Trials 2019; 20:706. [PMID: 31829279 PMCID: PMC6907204 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3847-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2019] [Accepted: 10/25/2019] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The weaknesses of classical explanatory randomized controlled trials (RCTs) include limited generalizability, high cost, and time burden. Pragmatic RCTs nested within electronic health records (EHRs) can be useful to overcome such limitations. Serum lithium monitoring has often been underutilized in real-world practice in Japan. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the EHR-nested reminder system for serum lithium level monitoring in the maintenance of therapeutic lithium concentration and in the improvement of the quality of care for patients on lithium maintenance therapy. Methods The Kyoto Toyooka nested controlled trial of reminders (KONOTORI trial) is an EHR-nested, parallel-group, superiority, stratified, permuted block-randomized controlled trial. Screening, random allocation, reminder output, and outcome collection will be conducted automatically by the EHR-nested trial program. Patients with a mood disorder taking lithium carbonate for maintenance therapy will be randomly allocated to the two-step reminder system for serum lithium monitoring or to usual care. The primary outcome is the achievement of therapeutic serum lithium concentration between 0.4 and 1.0 mEq/L at 18 months after informed consent. Discussion The KONOTORI trial uses EHRs to enable the efficient conduct of a pragmatic trial of the reminder system for lithium monitoring. This may contribute to improved quality of care for patients on lithium maintenance therapy. Trial registration University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000033633. Registered on 3 July 2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tomotsugu Seki
- Department of Pharmacoepidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Morio Aki
- Department of Psychiatry, Toyooka Hospital, Toyooka, Hyogo, Japan
| | - Hirotsugu Kawashima
- Department of Psychiatry, Toyooka Hospital, Toyooka, Hyogo, Japan.,Department of Psychiatry, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Tomotaka Miki
- Department of Psychiatry, Toyooka Hospital, Toyooka, Hyogo, Japan.,Department of Psychiatry, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Shiro Tanaka
- Department of Clinical Biostatistics, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Koji Kawakami
- Department of Pharmacoepidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Toshi A Furukawa
- Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
| |
Collapse
|