Automated recruitment and randomisation for an efficient randomised controlled trial in primary care

Development of a conceptual framework for defining trial efficiency

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.

NHS Health Check programme: a rapid review update

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.

Linkage of the CHHiP randomised controlled trial with primary care data: a study investigating ways of supplementing cancer trials and improving evidence-based practice

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.

Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a systematic map

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.

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

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.