Synthesizing existing evidence to design future trials: survey of methodologists from European institutions

Barriers and facilitators to training delivery and subsequent implementation of a localised child and adolescent mental health initiative: a qualitative content analysis

BACKGROUND

Ensuring that children and young people (CYP) can obtain mental health support from a broad variety of sources is of upmost importance. This is especially true given the increasing prevalence of mental health difficulties in this population, and the associated challenges with receiving support from specialised healthcare services. Equipping professionals, from a wide range of sectors, with the skills needed to provide this support is a vital starting point. This study explored the experiences of professionals who had participated in CYP mental health training modules that related directly to the local implementation of the THRIVE Framework for System Change in Greater Manchester, UK (GM i-THRIVE) to establish the perceived barriers and facilitators behind the implementation of this training programme.

METHODS

Directed qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interview data from nine CYP-facing professionals was conducted. Both the interview schedule and initial deductive coding strategy were developed using the findings of a systematic literature review by the authors, that was conducted to explore wider CYP mental health training experiences. This methodology was used to establish the presence or absence of these findings within GM i-THRIVE, before generating tailored recommendations for their training programme.

RESULTS

When the interview data were coded and analysed, a strong level of thematic similarity with the authors' review was found. However, we deduced that the emergence of additional themes might reflect the contextual uniqueness of GM i-THRIVE, that is likely to be further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. Six recommendations were made for further improvement. These included the facilitation of unstructured peer interaction during training, and ensuring that jargon and key words are fully clarified.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological limitations, guidance for usage, and potential applications of the study's findings are explored. Whilst the findings were largely akin to those of the review, subtle yet important differences were found. These are likely to reflect the nuances of the training programme discussed, however, we tentatively suggest that our findings are transferable to similar training interventions. This study provides a valuable example of how qualitative evidence syntheses can be used to aid study design and analysis: an underused approach.

Using information from network meta-analyses to optimize the power and sample allocation of a subsequent trial with a new treatment

BACKGROUND

A critical step in trial design is determining the sample size and sample allocation to ensure the proposed study has sufficient power to test the hypothesis of interest: superiority, equivalence, or non-inferiority. When data are available from prior trials and leveraged with the new trial to answer the scientific questions, the value of society's investment in prior research is increased. When prior information is available, the trial design including the sample size and allocation should be adapted accordingly, yet the current approach to trial design does not utilize such information. Ensuring we maximize the value of prior research is essential as there are always constraints on resources, either physical or financial, and designing a trial with adequate power can be a challenge.

METHODS

We propose an approach to increasing the power of a new trial by incorporating evidence from a network meta-analysis into the new trial design and analysis. We illustrate the methodology through an example network meta-analysis, where the goal is to identify the optimal allocation ratio for the new three-arm trial, which involves the reference treatment, the new treatment, and the negative control. The primary goal of the new trial is to show that the new treatment is non-inferior to the reference treatment. It may also be of interest to know if the new treatment is superior to the negative control. We propose an optimal treatment allocation strategy which is derived from minimizing the standard error of the log odds ratio estimate of the comparison of interest. We conducted a simulation study to assess the proposed methods to design a new trial while borrowing information from the existing network meta-analysis and compare it to even allocation methods.

RESULTS

Using mathematical derivation and simulations, we document that our proposed approach can borrow information from a network meta-analysis to modify the treatment allocation ratio and increase the power of the new trial given a fixed total sample size or to reduce the total sample size needed to reach a desired power.

CONCLUSIONS

When prior evidence about the hypotheses of interest is available, the traditional equal allocation strategy is not the most powerful approach anymore. Our proposed methodology can improve the power of trial design, reduce the cost of trials, and maximize the utility of prior investments in research.

Half a century of research on antipsychotics and schizophrenia: A scientometric study of hotspots, nodes, bursts, and trends

Changes over 50 years of research on antipsychotics in schizophrenia have occurred. A scientometric synthesis of such changes over time and a measure of researchers' networks and scientific productivity is currently lacking. We searched Web of Science Core Collection from inception until November 5, 2021, using the appropriate key. Our primary objective was to conduct systematic mapping with CiteSpace to show how clusters of keywords have evolved over time and obtain clusters' structure and credibility. Our secondary objective was to measure research network performance (countries, institutions, and authors) using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Bibliometrix. We included 32,240 studies published between 1955 and 2021. The co-cited reference network identified 25 clusters with a well-structured network (Q=0.8166) and highly credible clustering (S=0.91). The main trends of research were: 1) antipsychotic efficacy; 2) cognition in schizophrenia; 3) side effects of antipsychotics. Last five years research trends were: 'ultra-resistance schizophrenia' (S=0.925), 'efficacy/dose-response' (S=0.775), 'evidence-synthesis' (S=0.737), 'real-world effectiveness' (S=0.794), 'cannabidiol' (S=0.989), and 'gut microbiome' (S=0.842). These results can inform funding agencies and research groups' future directions.

Barriers and Facilitating Factors for Conducting Systematic Evidence Assessments in Academic Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

A systematic assessment of existing research should justify the conduct and inform the design of new clinical research but is often lacking. There is little research on the barriers to and factors facilitating systematic evidence assessments.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders and international funders regarding conducting systematic evidence assessments in academic clinical trials.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this qualitative study, individual semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted between February and August 2020 with 48 Swiss stakeholder groups (27 primary investigators, 9 funders and sponsors, 6 clinical trial support organizations, and 6 ethics committee members) and between January and March 2021 with 9 international funders of clinical trials from North America and Europe with a reputation for requiring systematic evidence synthesis in applications for academic clinical trials.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders and international funders regarding conducting systematic evidence assessments in academic clinical trials. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 57 participants, 40 (70.2%) were male. Participants universally acknowledged that a comprehensive understanding of the previous evidence is important but reported wide variation regarding how this should be achieved. Participants reported that the conduct of formal systematic reviews was currently not expected before most clinical trials, but most international funders reported expecting a systematic search for the existing evidence. Whereas time and resources were reported by all participants as barriers to conducting systematic reviews, the Swiss research ecosystem was reported not to be as supportive of a systematic approach compared with international settings.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this qualitative study, Swiss stakeholders and international funders generally agreed that new clinical trials should be justified by a systematic evidence assessment but that barriers on individual, organizational, and political levels kept them from implementing it. More explicit requirements from funders appear to be needed to clarify the required level of comprehensiveness in summarizing existing evidence for different types of clinical trials.