Behavioural optimisation to address trial conduct challenges: case study in the UK-REBOA trial

The UK resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in trauma patients with life-threatening torso haemorrhage: the (UK-REBOA) multicentre RCT

Background

The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis.

Objective

To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department.

Design

Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone.

Setting

United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres.

Participants

Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta.

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta.

Main outcome measures

Primary: Mortality at 90 days. Secondary: Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Health economic: Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon.

Data sources

Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data).

Results

Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%).

Limitations

The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates.

Conclusions

This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful.

Future work

The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Successful and sustained implementation of a behaviour-change informed strategy for emergency nurses: a multicentre implementation evaluation

BACKGROUND

Implementing evidence that changes practice in emergency departments (EDs) is notoriously difficult due to well-established barriers including high levels of uncertainty arising from undifferentiated nature of ED patients, resource shortages, workload unpredictability, high staff turnover, and a constantly changing environment. We developed and implemented a behaviour-change informed strategy to mitigate these barriers for a clinical trial to implement the evidence-based emergency nursing framework HIRAID® (History including Infection risk, Red flags, Assessment, Interventions, Diagnostics, communication, and reassessment) to reduce clinical variation, and increase safety and quality of emergency nursing care.

AIM

To evaluate the behaviour-change-informed HIRAID® implementation strategy on reach, effectiveness, adoption, quality (dose, fidelity) and maintenance (sustainability).

METHODS

An effectiveness-implementation hybrid design including a step-wedge cluster randomised control trial (SW-cRCT) was used to implement HIRAID® with 1300 + emergency nurses across 29 Australian rural, regional, and metropolitan EDs. Evaluation of our behaviour-change informed strategy was informed by the RE-AIM Scoring Instrument and measured using data from (i) a post HIRAID® implementation emergency nurse survey, (ii) HIRAID® Instructor surveys, and (iii) twelve-week and 6-month documentation audits. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics to determine the level of each component of RE-AIM achieved. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis and used to understand the 'how' and 'why' of quantitative results.

RESULTS

HIRAID® was implemented in all 29 EDs, with 145 nurses undertaking instructor training and 1123 (82%) completing all four components of provider training at 12 weeks post-implementation. Modifications to the behaviour-change informed strategy were minimal. The strategy was largely used as intended with 100% dose and very high fidelity. We achieved extremely high individual sustainability (95% use of HIRAID® documentation templates) at 6 months and 100% setting sustainability at 3 years.

CONCLUSION

The behaviour-change informed strategy for the emergency nursing framework HIRAID® in rural, regional, and metropolitan Australia was highly successful with extremely high reach and adoption, dose, fidelity, individual and setting sustainability across substantially variable clinical contexts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ANZCTR, ACTRN12621001456842 . Registered 25 October 2021.

Using the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify barriers and targeted strategies to improve adherence in randomised clinical trials: The example of MEL-SELF trial of patient-led surveillance for melanoma

BACKGROUND

Adherence to self-management interventions is critical in both clinical settings and trials to ensure maximal effectiveness. This study reports how the Behaviour Change Wheel may be used to assess barriers to self-management behaviours and develop strategies to maximise adherence in a trial setting (the MEL-SELF trial of patient-led melanoma surveillance).

METHODS

The Behaviour Change Wheel was applied by (i) using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COMB) model informed by empirical and review data to identify adherence barriers, (ii) mapping identified barriers to corresponding intervention functions, and (iii) identifying appropriate behaviour change techniques and developing potential solutions using the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects and safety, Equity) criteria.

RESULTS

The target adherence behaviour was defined as conducting a thorough skin self-examination and submitting images for teledermatology review. Key barriers identified included: non-engaged skin check partners, inadequate planning, time constraints, low self-efficacy, and technological difficulties. Participants' motivation was positively influenced by perceived health benefits and negatively impacted by emotional states such as anxiety and depression. We identified the following feasible interventions to support adherence: education, training, environmental restructuring, enablement, persuasion, and incentivisation. Proposed solutions included action planning, calendar scheduling, alternative dermatoscopes, optimised communication, educational resources in various formats to boost self-efficacy and motivation and optimised reminders (which will be evaluated in a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)).

CONCLUSION

The Behaviour Change Wheel may be used to improve adherence in clinical trials by identifying barriers to self-management behaviours and guiding development of targeted strategies.

Using behavioral science to increase core outcome set use in trials

OBJECTIVES

Core outcome sets (COS) are agreed sets of outcomes for use in clinical trials, which can increase standardization and reduce heterogeneity of outcomes in research. Using a COS, or not, is a behavior that can potentially be increased using behavioral strategies. The aim of this study was to identify behavioral intervention components to potentially increase use of COS in trials.

METHODS

This project was informed by the Behavior Change Wheel framework. Two reviewers extracted barriers and facilitators to COS use from four recently published studies examining COS use in trials. Barriers and facilitators were coded to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model, which forms part of the Behavior Change Wheel. COM-B findings were mapped to intervention functions by two reviewers, and then mapped to behavior change techniques (BCTs). Full-team Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness/Cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side effects/Safety, Equity ratings were used to reach consensus on intervention functions and BCTs. BCTs were operationalized using examples of tangible potential applications and were categorized based on similarity.

RESULTS

Barriers and facilitators were identified for all capability, opportunity and motivation aspects of the COM-B model. Five intervention functions (education, training, enablement, persuasion, and modeling) and 15 BCTs were identified. Thirty-six BCT examples were developed, including providing information on benefits of COS for health research, and information choosing COS. BCT examples are categorized by approaches related to "workshops," "guidance," "audio/visual resources," and "other resources."

CONCLUSION

Study findings represent diverse ways to potentially increase COS use in trials. Future work is needed to examine effects of these behavioral intervention components on COS use. If effective, increased use of COS can improve outcome reporting and minimize outcome heterogeneity and research waste.

Challenges and opportunities for conducting pre-hospital trauma trials: a behavioural investigation

BACKGROUND

Trials in pre-hospital trauma care are relatively uncommon. There are logistical and methodological challenges related to designing and delivering trials in this setting. Previous studies have assessed challenges reported in individual trials rather than across the pre-hospital trial landscape to identify over-arching factors. The aim of this study was to investigate the challenges and opportunities related to the set-up, design and conduct of pre-hospital trauma trials from across the pre-hospital trial landscape and a specific pre-hospital trauma feasibility study.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with two cohorts of participants: research personnel who had experience of pre-hospital trials, either through direct involvement in conduct or through strategic oversight of national initiatives (n = 7), and clinical staff (n = 16) involved in recruitment to a pre-hospital trauma feasibility study. Thematic analyses were used to assess the barriers and enablers of conducting pre-hospital trauma trials. Two frameworks (The Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour and the Theoretical Domains Framework) were used to guide analyses.

RESULTS

The barriers and enablers reported were relevant to several TDF domains and COM-B components. Across both cohorts, challenges associated with opportunities were reported and included the lack of research experience amongst pre-hospital staff, team dynamics within a rotating shift schedule, and the involvement of external organisations with diverse institutional priorities and infrastructures (e.g. Air Ambulances). The infrequency of eligible cases was also reported to affect the trial design, set-up, and conduct. Other barriers reported related to clinical equipoise amongst staff and institutional pressures, which affected motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has highlighted that pre-hospital trials face many context-specific but also generic challenges. Pre-hospital trauma trial teams could consider the findings to develop targeted, behaviourally focused, solutions to the challenges identified in order to enhance the set-up and conduct of trials in this setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04145271. Trial registration date: October 30, 2019. Note that this paper does not report results from a specific trial but does include participants who were involved in the conduct of a registered pre-hospital feasibility study.