Conveying Equipoise during Recruitment for Clinical Trials: Qualitative Synthesis of Clinicians' Practices across Six Randomised Controlled Trials

Interventions that challenge established and accepted clinical practice: lessons learnt from a process evaluation of the STOP-APE trial

Background

Developing and implementing interventions that change clinical practice can be challenging and complex. Such interventions can be particularly difficult when attempting to change established behaviours and practices. While extensive literature on implementation of interventions that focus on changing clinical practice exists, understanding of the difficulties involved in implementing interventions that go against accepted clinical practice is limited.

Objectives

To describe the challenges involved in delivering a complex intervention that goes against established clinical practice, using a clinical trial assessing the balance of benefits and risks of withholding anticoagulation for subsegmental pulmonary embolism as an example.

Design and methods

This study draws from a process evaluation conducted as part of a clinical trial. The evaluation utilised semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians during the trial's internal pilot phase to investigate the acceptability of withholding anticoagulant medication and participants' experiences within the trial. The data were analysed using the framework method.

Setting and participants

Eight patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism (six females and two males) and three acute care clinicians (two males and one female) from five trial sites were interviewed.

Results

Our findings indicated that factors such as clinician equipoise, discomfort with certain patient characteristics, and effective patient communication are closely connected and significantly impact both the process of changing clinical practice and the conduct of the trial. Clinicians faced difficulties in approaching eligible patients for trial participation, especially when a diagnosis and treatment plan had already been provided by another clinician. The tension between maintaining clinical equipoise and addressing the needs of unwell patients further complicated decisions, particularly when withholding anticoagulation in those with severe symptoms or multiple comorbidities. Communication about the risks and benefits of non-medication strategies for pulmonary embolism was also challenging, with concerns about undermining patient trust. Patients, on the other hand, expressed considerable anxiety about not receiving anticoagulants, with their perspectives on study participation and treatment heavily influenced by their prior health experiences and ongoing medical conditions. The active involvement of clinicians in the consent process had a positive effect on patients' perceptions and experiences, with many feeling reassured in knowing they could contact clinical staff if needed.

Limitations

Small sample size of patients and clinicians across limited study sites; single method of data collection.

Conclusions

Our results highlight the multifaceted challenges when attempting to conduct studies that challenge accepted practices and norms. These complexities are deeply intertwined, influencing both clinical decision-making and patient recruitment for those studies.

Future work

Future research should focus on developing strategies to help clinicians maintain equipoise and communicate the risks and benefits of interventions, while also deepening the understanding of patients' experiences and perceptions to enhance recruitment strategies.

Ethical approval

Wales REC 6, Reference: 20/WA/0256, approved 30 September 2020.

Funding

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128073.

Opportunities and challenges to delivering a trial for depressive symptoms in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from the Alpha-Stim-D randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely regarded as the most powerful research design for evidence-based practice. However, recruiting to RCTs can be challenging resulting in heightened costs and delays in research completion and implementation. Enabling successful recruitment is crucial in mental health research. Despite the increase in the use of remote recruitment strategies and digital health interventions, there is limited evidence on methods to improve recruitment to remotely delivered mental health trials. The paper outlines practical examples and recommendations on how to successfully recruit participants to remotely delivered mental health trials.

METHODS

The Alpha Stim-D Trial was a multi-centre double-blind randomised controlled trial, for people aged 16 years upwards, addressing depressive symptoms in primary care. Despite a 6-month delay in beginning recruitment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial met the recruitment target within the timeframe and achieved high retention rates. Several strategies were implemented to improve recruitment; some of these were adapted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This included adapting the original in-person recruitment strategies. Subsequently, systematic recruitment using postal invitations from criteria-specific search of the sites' electronic health records was added to opportunistic recruitment to increase referrals in response to sub-target recruitment whilst also reducing the burden on referring sites. Throughout the recruitment process, the research team collaborated with key stakeholders, such as primary care clinicians and the project's Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPI/E) representatives, who gave advice on recruitment strategies. Furthermore, the study researchers played a key role in communicating with participants and building rapport from study introduction to data collection.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that trial processes can influence recruitment; therefore, consideration and a regular review of the recruitment figures and strategies is important. Recruitment of participants can be maximised by utilising remote approaches, which reduce the burden and amount of time required by referring sites and allow the research team to reach more participants whilst providing participants and researchers with more flexibility. Effectively communicating and working collaboratively with key stakeholders throughout the trial process, as well as building rapport with participants, may also improve recruitment rates.

Patient and parent perspectives on being invited to join a trial of night-time only versus full-time bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis : a qualitative study

Aims

The Bracing Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (BASIS) study is a randomized controlled non-inferiority pragmatic trial of 'full-time bracing' (FTB) compared to 'night-time bracing' (NTB) for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). We anticipated that recruiting patients to BASIS would be challenging, as it is a paediatric trial comparing two markedly different bracing pathways. No previous studies have compared the experiences of AIS patients treated with FTB to those treated with NTB. This qualitative study was embedded in BASIS to explore families' perspectives of BASIS, to inform trial communication, and to identify strategies to support patients treated in a brace.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents (n = 26) and young people (n = 21) who had been invited to participate in BASIS at ten of the 22 UK paediatric spine services in hospitals recruiting to BASIS. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically.

Results

Families viewed their interactions with BASIS recruiters positively, but were often confused about core aspects of BASIS, such as the aims, expectations of bracing, and the process of randomization. Participants typically expressed a preference for NTB, but recruiters may have framed NTB more favourably. Patients and parents reported challenges wearing a brace, such as physical discomfort, feelings of self-consciousness, difficulty participating in physical activities, and strain on financial resources to support brace use. Patients in FTB reported more pronounced challenges. While families valued health professional support, they felt there was a lack of social, emotional, and school support, and relied on online resources, as well private counselling services to address this need.

Conclusion

The findings informed the development of resources and strategies, including guidance for schools and the recommendations in this paper, to support patients to wear NTB and FTB as prescribed. The results indicated opportunities for recruiters to enhance trial communication in ways that could improve informed consent and recruitment to BASIS, and inform future trials of bracing.

Implementing Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression and Anxiety in Adults: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Scientific implementation findings relevant to the implementation of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) for depression and anxiety in adults remain sparse and scattered across different sources of published information. Identifying evidence-based factors that influence the implementation of iCBT is key to successfully using iCBT in real-world clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review evaluated the following: (1) aspects that research articles postulate as important for the implementation of iCBT and (2) aspects relevant to the day-to-day running of iCBT services. A mixed methods systematic review using a convergent synthesis design was conducted to bring together evidence across this sparse literature consisting of divergent scientific article types to investigate the implementation of iCBT for depression and anxiety in adults.

METHODS

We searched the PsycINFO, PsycArticles, MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, and Embase databases for any published peer-reviewed scientific articles that report on the implementation of iCBT for depression or anxiety disorders in adults. A total of 40 articles spanning the case study, commentary, meta-analysis, mixed methods study, pilot randomized controlled trial, randomized controlled trial, qualitative study, quantitative study, review, and systematic review article types were identified as eligible for this mixed methods review. Data were analyzed qualitatively using the descriptive-interpretive approach.

RESULTS

The first domain highlighted the impact of therapist and patient attitudes when implementing iCBT, the superiority of guided iCBT over unguided iCBT, its noninferiority to equivalent face-to-face treatments, and its utility outside of the original target of mild-to-moderate depression and anxiety. In total, 3 subdomains were identified under the second domain: (1) the management of iCBT in the workplace, detailing the importance of managing the iCBT service, related staff, and their motivations for using it; (2) the practice of iCBT in the workplace, describing the therapeutic aspects of iCBT provision, such as the provision of support, the background of supporters, and screening procedures; and (3) contextual considerations, detailing the impact of governmental legislation on therapy conducted over the internet, the lack of an iCBT workforce as a limiting factor, and the cost estimates associated with iCBT provision.

CONCLUSIONS

Broadly, the findings describe several aspects that should be taken into account when researchers or practitioners implement iCBT as part of their work. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution, as the articles reviewed spanned many article types, and few of the included studies were directly focused on evaluating the implementation of iCBT. While findings provide insight into important factors to consider during iCBT implementation, these findings and their limitations highlight the need for more implementation-specific research in this area.

The role of healthcare professionals' communication in trial participation decisions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment consultations and patient interviews across three RCTs

BACKGROUND

Although the challenges of recruiting to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are well documented, few studies have focused on the impact that the communication between recruiters and patients has on patients' participation decisions. Recruiters are thought to influence patient decision-making, but the mechanisms by which this occurs are unclear. The aim of this research was to investigate how patients interpret and use the information conveyed to them by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in trial participation decisions.

METHODS

Three pragmatic UK-based multicentre RCTs were purposively sampled to provide contrasting clinical specialities. Data collection was integrated into each RCT, including audio-recordings of patient recruitment consultations and interviews with patients. Where possible, consultation audio-recordings were linked to interviews to explore how information communicated by recruiters was interpreted and used by patients during their decision-making. Data were analysed thematically, using the constant comparison approach.

RESULTS

Twenty audio-recorded recruitment consultations were obtained across the 3 RCTs, combined with 42 interviews with patients who had consented to or declined RCT participation. Consultation and interview data were 'linked' for 17 individual patients. Throughout the patient's clinical pathway, HCPs (both those involved in the RCT and not) influenced patients' perceptions of treatment need and benefit by indicating that they preferred a particular treatment option for the patient as an individual. Whilst patients valued and were influenced by information conveyed by HCPs, they also drew on support from other sources and ultimately framed RCT participation decisions as their own. Patients' willingness to be randomised hinged on perceptions of whether they stood to benefit from a particular treatment and the availability of those treatments outside of the trial.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the need for training and support for healthcare professionals involved throughout the clinical pathway of patients eligible for RCTs, as all healthcare professionals who interact with patients have the potential to influence their perceptions of treatments being compared in the trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OPTIMA ISRCTN42400492. Prospectively registered on 26 June 2012. Prepare for Kidney Care ISRCTN17133653. Prospectively registered on 31 May 2017. MARS 2 ISRCTN44351742. Retrospectively registered on 5 September 2018.

Ethical Considerations and Equipoise in Cancer Surgery

The changing landscape of cancer surgery requires ongoing consideration of ethical issues to ensure patient-centered care and fair access to treatments. With technological advancements and the global expansion of surgical interventions, healthcare professionals must navigate complex ethical dilemmas related to patient autonomy, informed consent, and the impact of new technologies on the physician-patient relationship. Additionally, ethical principles and decision-making in oncology, especially in the context of genetic predisposition to breast cancer, highlight the importance of integrating patient knowledge, preferences, and alignment between goals and treatments. As global surgery continues to grow, addressing ethical considerations becomes crucial to reduce disparities in access to surgical interventions and uphold ethical duties in patient care. Furthermore, the rise of digital applications in healthcare, such as digital surgery, requires heightened awareness of the unique ethical issues in this domain. The ethical implications of using artificial intelligence (AI) in robotic surgical training have drawn attention to the challenges of protecting patient and surgeon data, as well as the ethical boundaries that innovation may encounter. These discussions collectively emphasize the complex ethical issues associated with surgical innovation and underscore the importance of upholding ethical standards in the pursuit of progress in the field. In this study, we thoroughly analyzed previous scholarly works on ethical considerations and equipoise in the field of oncological surgery. Our main focus was on the use of AI in this specific context.

Rapid qualitative analysis of recruitment obstacles in the FORVAD (Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy surgery versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy surgery in the treatment of cervical brachialgia) randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The number of surgical trials is increasing but such trials can be complex to deliver and pose specific challenges. A multi-centre, Phase III, RCT comparing Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of Cervical Brachialgia (FORVAD Trial) was unable to recruit to target. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during trial closedown to understand the experiences of healthcare professionals who participated in the FORVAD Trial, with the aim of informing future research in this area.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 healthcare professionals who had participated in the FORVAD Trial. Interviews explored participants' experiences of the FORVAD trial. A rapid qualitative analysis was conducted, informed by Normalisation Process Theory.

RESULTS

Four main themes were generated in the data analysis: (1) individual vs. community equipoise; (2) trial set-up and delivery; (3) identifying and approaching patients; and (4) timing of randomisation. The objectives of the FORVAD trial made sense to participants and they supported the idea that there was clinical or collective equipoise regarding the two FORVAD interventions; however, many surgeons had treatment preferences and lacked individual equipoise. The site which had most recruitment success had adopted a more structured process for identification and recruitment of patients, whereas other sites that adopted more "ad hoc" screening strategies struggled to identify patients. Randomisation on the day of surgery caused both medico-legal and practical concerns at some sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Organisation and implementation of a surgical trial in neurosurgery is complex and presents many challenges. Sites often reported low recruitment and discussed the logistical issues of conducting a complex surgical RCT. Future trials in neurosurgery may need to offer more flexibility and time during set-up to maximise opportunities for larger recruitment numbers. Rapid qualitative analysis informed by Normalisation Process Theory was able to quickly identify key issues with trial implementation so rapid qualitative analysis may be a useful approach for teams conducting qualitative research in trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN reference: 10,133,661. Registered 23rd November 2018.

Participants' perspectives of being recruited into a randomised trial of a weight loss intervention before colorectal cancer surgery: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

The period between cancer diagnosis and surgery presents an opportunity for trials to assess the feasibility of behaviour change interventions. However, this can be a worrying time for patients and may hinder recruitment. We describe the perspectives of patients with excess weight awaiting colorectal cancer surgery about their recruitment into a randomised trial of a prehabilitation weight loss intervention.

METHODS

We interviewed the first 26 participants from the 8 recruitment sites across England in the 'CARE' feasibility trial. Participants were randomised into either usual care (n = 13) or a low-energy nutritionally-replete total diet replacement programme with weekly remote behavioural support by a dietitian (n = 13). The semi-structured interviews occurred shortly after recruitment and the questions focused on participants' recollections of being recruited into the trial. We analysed data rapidly and then used a mind-mapping technique to develop descriptive themes. Themes were agreed by all co-authors, including a person with lived-experience of colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

Participants had a mean body mass index (± SD) of 38 kg/m2 (± 6), age of 50 years (± 12), and 42% were female. People who participated in the trial were motivated by the offer of structured weight loss support that could potentially help them improve their surgical outcomes. However, participants also had concerns around the potential unpalatability of the intervention diet and side effects. Positive attitudes of clinicians towards the trial facilitated recruitment but participants were disappointed when they were randomised to usual care due to clinical teams' overemphasis on the benefits of losing weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients were motivated to take part by the prospect of improved surgical outcomes. However, the strong preference to be allocated to the intervention suggests that balanced communication of equipoise is crucial to minimise disappointment from randomisation to usual care and differential dropout from the trial.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN39207707, Registration date 13/03/2023.

Consultations about randomised controlled trials are shorter and less in-depth for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients compared to socioeconomically advantaged patients: qualitative analysis across three trials

BACKGROUND

Patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are underserved in randomised controlled trials, yet they experience a much greater burden of disease compared with patients from socioeconomically advantaged areas. It is crucial to make trials more inclusive to ensure that treatments and interventions are safe and effective in real-world contexts. Improving how information about trials is verbally communicated is an unexplored strategy to make trials more inclusive. This study examined how trials are communicated verbally, comparing consultations involving patients from the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas.

METHODS

Secondary qualitative analysis of 55 trial consultation transcripts from 41 patients, sampled from 3 qualitative studies embedded in their respective UK multi-site, cancer-related randomised controlled trials. Patients living in the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, defined using English Indices of Multiple Deprivation decile scores, were purposively sampled. Analysis was largely thematic and drew on the constant comparison method.

RESULTS

Recruiters communicated clinical uncertainty in a similar way for patients living in different socioeconomic areas. Consultations with disadvantaged patients were, on average, half the duration of those with advantaged patients, and tended to involve recruiters providing less in-depth explanations of trial concepts, used phrasing that softened trial arm risks, and described trial processes (e.g. randomisation) using informal or metaphorical phrasing. Disadvantaged and advantaged patients differed in the concerns they expressed; disadvantaged patients voiced fewer concerns and asked fewer questions but were also less likely to be invited to do so by recruiters.

CONCLUSION

Interactions about trials unfolded in different ways between patients living in different socioeconomic areas, likely due to both patient- and recruiter-related factors. We present considerations for recruiters when discussing trials with patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, aimed at enhancing trial communication. Future research should examine disadvantaged patients' and recruiters' experiences of verbal trial communication to inform guidance that addresses the needs and preferences of underserved groups.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conservative management for adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones: the C-GALL RCT

Background

Gallstone disease is a common gastrointestinal disorder in industrialised societies. The prevalence of gallstones in the adult population is estimated to be approximately 10-15%, and around 80% remain asymptomatic. At present, cholecystectomy is the default option for people with symptomatic gallstone disease.

Objectives

To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of observation/conservative management compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for preventing recurrent symptoms and complications in adults presenting with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones in secondary care.

Design

Parallel group, multicentre patient randomised superiority pragmatic trial with up to 24 months follow-up and embedded qualitative research. Within-trial cost-utility and 10-year Markov model analyses. Development of a core outcome set for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease.

Setting

Secondary care elective settings.

Participants

Adults with symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease referred to a secondary care setting were considered for inclusion.

Interventions

Participants were randomised 1: 1 at clinic to receive either laparoscopic cholecystectomy or observation/conservative management.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was quality of life measured by area under the curve over 18 months using the Short Form-36 bodily pain domain. Secondary outcomes included the Otago gallstones' condition-specific questionnaire, Short Form-36 domains (excluding bodily pain), area under the curve over 24 months for Short Form-36 bodily pain domain, persistent symptoms, complications and need for further treatment. No outcomes were blinded to allocation.

Results

Between August 2016 and November 2019, 434 participants were randomised (217 in each group) from 20 United Kingdom centres. By 24 months, 64 (29.5%) in the observation/conservative management group and 153 (70.5%) in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group had received surgery, median time to surgery of 9.0 months (interquartile range, 5.6-15.0) and 4.7 months (interquartile range 2.6-7.9), respectively. At 18 months, the mean Short Form-36 norm-based bodily pain score was 49.4 (standard deviation 11.7) in the observation/conservative management group and 50.4 (standard deviation 11.6) in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. The mean area under the curve over 18 months was 46.8 for both groups with no difference: mean difference -0.0, 95% confidence interval (-1.7 to 1.7); p-value 0.996; n = 203 observation/conservative, n = 205 cholecystectomy. There was no evidence of differences in quality of life, complications or need for further treatment at up to 24 months follow-up. Condition-specific quality of life at 24 months favoured cholecystectomy: mean difference 9.0, 95% confidence interval (4.1 to 14.0), p < 0.001 with a similar pattern for the persistent symptoms score. Within-trial cost-utility analysis found observation/conservative management over 24 months was less costly than cholecystectomy (mean difference -£1033). A non-significant quality-adjusted life-year difference of -0.019 favouring cholecystectomy resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £55,235. The Markov model continued to favour observation/conservative management, but some scenarios reversed the findings due to uncertainties in longer-term quality of life. The core outcome set included 11 critically important outcomes from both patients and healthcare professionals.

Conclusions

The results suggested that in the short term (up to 24 months) observation/conservative management may be a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources in selected patients, but subsequent surgeries in the randomised groups and differences in quality of life beyond 24 months could reverse this finding. Future research should focus on longer-term follow-up data and identification of the cohort of patients that should be routinely offered surgery.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN55215960.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/192/71) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Strategies to address recruitment to a randomised trial of surgical and non-surgical treatment for cancer: results from a complex recruitment intervention within the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery 2 (MARS 2) study

OBJECTIVES

Recruiting to randomised trials is often challenging particularly when the intervention arms are markedly different. The Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery 2 randomised controlled trial (RCT) compared standard chemotherapy with or without (extended) pleurectomy decortication surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Anticipating recruitment difficulties, a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention was embedded in the main trial phase to unearth and address barriers. The trial achieved recruitment to target with a 4-month COVID-19 pandemic-related extension. This paper presents the key recruitment challenges, and the strategies delivered to optimise recruitment and informed consent.

DESIGN

A multifaceted, flexible, mixed-method approach to investigate recruitment obstacles drawing on data from staff/patient interviews, audio recorded study recruitment consultations and screening logs. Key findings were translated into strategies targeting identified issues. Data collection, analysis, feedback and strategy implementation continued cyclically throughout the recruitment period.

SETTING

Secondary thoracic cancer care.

RESULTS

Respiratory physicians, oncologists, surgeons and nursing specialists supported the trial, but recruitment challenges were evident. The study had to fit within a framework of a thoracic cancer service considered overstretched where patients encountered multiple healthcare professionals and treatment views, all of which challenged recruitment. Clinician treatment biases, shaped in part by the wider clinical and research context alongside experience, adversely impacted several aspects of the recruitment process by restricting referrals for study consideration, impacting eligibility decisions, affecting the neutrality in which the study and treatment was presented and shaping patient treatment expectations and preferences. Individual and group recruiter feedback and training raised awareness of key equipoise issues, offered support and shared good practice to safeguard informed consent and optimise recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

With bespoke support to overcome identified issues, recruitment to a challenging RCT of surgery versus no surgery in a thoracic cancer setting with a complex recruitment pathway and multiple health professional involvement is possible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN ISRCTN44351742, Clinical Trials.gov NCT02040272.

Addressing barriers and identifying facilitators to support informed consent and recruitment in the Cavernous malformations A Randomised Effectiveness (CARE) pilot phase trial: insights from the integrated QuinteT recruitment intervention (QRI)

Background

It was anticipated that recruitment to the Cavernous malformations: A Randomised Effectiveness (CARE) pilot randomised trial would be challenging. The trial compared medical management and surgery (neurosurgical resection or stereotactic radiosurgery) with medical management alone, for people with symptomatic cerebral cavernous malformation (ISRCTN41647111). Previous trials comparing surgical and medical management for intracranial vascular malformations failed to recruit to target. A QuinteT Recruitment Intervention was integrated during trial accrual, September 2021-April 2023 inclusive, to improve informed consent and recruitment.

Methods

The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention combined iterative collection and analysis of quantitative data (28 trial site screening logs recording numbers/proportions screened, eligible, approached and randomised) and qualitative data (79 audio-recorded recruitment discussions, 19 interviews with healthcare professionals, 11 interviews with patients, 2 investigator workshops, and observations of study meetings, all subject to thematic, content or conversation analysis). We triangulated quantitative and qualitative data to identify barriers and facilitators to recruitment and how and why these arose. Working with the chief investigators and trial management group, we addressed barriers and facilitators with corresponding actions to improve informed consent and recruitment.

Findings

Barriers identified included how usual care practices made equipoise challenging, multi-disciplinary teams sometimes overrode recruiter equipoise and logistical issues rendered symptomatic cavernoma diagnosis and assessment for stereotactic radiosurgery challenging. Facilitators identified included the preparedness of some neurosurgeons' to offer surgery to people otherwise offered medical management alone, multi-disciplinary team equipoise, and effective information provision presenting participation as a solution to equipoise regarding management. Actions, before and during recruitment, to improve inclusivity of site screening, approach and effectiveness of information provision resulted in 72 participants recruited following a 5-month extension, exceeding the target of 60 participants.

Interpretation

QuinteT Recruitment Intervention insights revealed barriers and facilitators, enabling identification of remedial actions. Recruitment to a definitive trial would benefit from further training/support to encourage clinicians to be comfortable approaching patients to whom medical management is usually offered, and broadening the pool of neurosurgeons and multi-disciplinary team members prepared to offer surgery, particularly stereotactic radiosurgery.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Fluidity of Equipoise in a Multi-Centred Pilot RCT: Influences on Clinician Decision-Making in Offering Trial Entry

OBJECTIVES

The embedded Qualitative Process Evaluation (QPE) within the CSTICH- Pilot RCT explored facilitators and barriers to recruitment within the Pilot. This study reports a secondary analysis of the overarching theme of Fluidity of Equipoise and the influences on individual and community clinical equipoise around the use of Emergency Cervical Cerclage (ECC).

STUDY DESIGN

RCT recruitment assumes clinical equipoise and is defined as genuine uncertainty about an intervention. The ability of trial recruiters to convey this equipoise is also key to participant recruitment and fully informed consent. This exploratory qualitative process evaluation used semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in trial recruitment. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using codebook thematic analysis.

RESULTS

23 HCPs were interviewed. Clinical equipoise around the use of ECC was variable and influenced by a multitude of factors including: (1) obstetric history; (2) gestation; (3) standard site practice, and (4) HCPs previous experiences of ECC. We have interpreted this variability as 'fluidity of equipoise'.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical equipoise around complex pregnancy related conditions was fluid and influenced by the complexities of obstetric histories and gestation at presentation. Equipoise of HCPs involved in trial recruitment should be considered carefully as it can impact the nuances of recruitment, particularly in more challenging trials such as CSTICH-2. Study-specific documents and training can be used to increase staff and patient awareness of uncertainty in the evidence base for interventions under investigation. Further research is needed around the potential consequences of equipoise fluidity.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of individualised (early) patient-directed rehabilitation versus standard rehabilitation after surgical repair of the rotator cuff of the shoulder: protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial with integrated Quintet Recruitment Intervention (RaCeR 2)

INTRODUCTION

Despite the high number of operations and surgical advancement, rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair has not progressed for over 20 years. The traditional cautious approach might be contributing to suboptimal outcomes. Our aim is to assess whether individualised (early) patient-directed rehabilitation results in less shoulder pain and disability at 12 weeks after surgical repair of full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff compared with current standard (delayed) rehabilitation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair (RaCeR 2) study is a pragmatic multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot phase. It has a parallel group design with 1:1 allocation ratio, full health economic evaluation and quintet recruitment intervention. Adults awaiting arthroscopic surgical repair of a full-thickness tear are eligible to participate. On completion of surgery, 638 participants will be randomised. The intervention (individualised early patient-directed rehabilitation) includes advice to the patient to remove their sling as soon as they feel able, gradually begin using their arm as they feel able and a specific exercise programme. Sling removal and movement is progressed by the patient over time according to agreed goals and within their own pain and tolerance. The comparator (standard rehabilitation) includes advice to the patient to wear the sling for at least 4 weeks and only to remove while eating, washing, dressing or performing specific exercises. Progression is according to specific timeframes rather than as the patient feels able. The primary outcome measure is the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index total score at 12-week postrandomisation. The trial timeline is 56 months in total, from September 2022.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11499185.

Effectiveness of septoplasty compared to medical management in adults with obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum: the NAIROS RCT

Background

The indications for septoplasty are practice-based, rather than evidence-based. In addition, internationally accepted guidelines for the management of nasal obstruction associated with nasal septal deviation are lacking.

Objective

The objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, compared with medical management, in the management of nasal obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum.

Design

This was a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, with defined medical management; it incorporated a mixed-methods process evaluation and an economic evaluation.

Setting

The trial was set in 17 NHS secondary care hospitals in the UK.

Participants

A total of 378 eligible participants aged > 18 years were recruited.

Interventions

Participants were randomised on a 1: 1 basis and stratified by baseline severity and gender to either (1) septoplasty, with or without turbinate surgery (n = 188) or (2) medical management with intranasal steroid spray and saline spray (n = 190).

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score at 6 months (patient-reported outcome). The secondary outcomes were as follows: patient-reported outcomes - Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation score at 6 and 12 months, Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items subscales at 12 months, Double Ordinal Airway Subjective Scale at 6 and 12 months, the Short Form questionnaire-36 items and costs; objective measurements - peak nasal inspiratory flow and rhinospirometry. The number of adverse events experienced was also recorded. A within-trial economic evaluation from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective estimated the incremental cost per (1) improvement (of ≥ 9 points) in Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score, (2) adverse event avoided and (3) quality-adjusted life-year gained at 12 months. An economic model estimated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 24 and 36 months. A mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken to understand/address recruitment issues and examine the acceptability of trial processes and treatment arms.

Results

At the 6-month time point, 307 participants provided primary outcome data (septoplasty, n = 152; medical management, n = 155). An intention-to-treat analysis revealed a greater and more sustained improvement in the primary outcome measure in the surgical arm. The 6-month mean Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores were -20.0 points lower (better) for participants randomised to septoplasty than for those randomised to medical management [the score for the septoplasty arm was 19.9 and the score for the medical management arm was 39.5 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -16.4; p < 0.0001)]. This was confirmed by sensitivity analyses and through the analysis of secondary outcomes. Outcomes were statistically significantly related to baseline severity, but not to gender or turbinate reduction. In the surgical and medical management arms, 132 and 95 adverse events occurred, respectively; 14 serious adverse events occurred in the surgical arm and nine in the medical management arm. On average, septoplasty was more costly and more effective in improving Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores and quality-adjusted life-years than medical management, but incurred a larger number of adverse events. Septoplasty had a 15% probability of being considered cost-effective at 12 months at a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life-year. This probability increased to 99% and 100% at 24 and 36 months, respectively.

Limitations

COVID-19 had an impact on participant-facing data collection from March 2020.

Conclusions

Septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, is more effective than medical management with a nasal steroid and saline spray. Baseline severity predicts the degree of improvement in symptoms. Septoplasty has a low probability of cost-effectiveness at 12 months, but may be considered cost-effective at 24 months. Future work should focus on developing a septoplasty patient decision aid.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN16168569 and EudraCT 2017-000893-12.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/226/07) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT

Background

Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking.

Objective

The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome.

Design

This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals.

Setting

National Health Service trusts.

Participants

Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks.

Interventions

Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation.

Results

The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0-62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0-44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy.

Conclusions

The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Surgeon's steering behaviour towards patients to participate in a cluster randomised trial on active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Few studies have been conducted into how physicians use steering behaviour that may persuade patients to choose for a particular treatment, let alone to participate in a randomised trial. The aim of this study is to assess if and how surgeons use steering behaviour in their information provision to patients in their choice to participate in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial investigating an organ sparing treatment in (curable) oesophageal cancer (SANO trial).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A qualitative study was performed. Thematic content analysis was applied to audiotaped and transcribed consultations of twenty patients with eight different oncological surgeons in three Dutch hospitals. Patients could choose to participate in a clinical trial in which an experimental treatment of 'active surveillance' (AS) was offered. Patients who did not want to participate underwent standard treatment: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy.

RESULTS

Surgeons used various techniques to steer patients towards one of the two options, mostly towards AS. The presentation of pros and cons of treatment options was imbalanced: positive framing of AS was used to steer patients towards the choice for AS, and negative framing of AS to make the choice for surgery more attractive. Further, steering language, i.e. suggestive language, was used, and surgeons seemed to use the timing of the introduction of the different treatment options, to put more focus on one of the treatment options.

CONCLUSION

Awareness of steering behaviour can help to guide physicians in more objectively informing patients on participation in future clinical trials.

What Are Patients Told About Innovative Surgical Procedures? A Qualitative Synthesis of 7 Case Studies in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how information about innovative surgical procedures is communicated to patients.

BACKGROUND

Despite the national and international guidance that patients should be informed whether a procedure is innovative and has uncertain outcomes, little is known about current practice.

METHODS

This qualitative study followed 7 "case studies" of surgical innovation in hospitals across the United Kingdom. Preoperative interviews were conducted with clinician innovators (n=9), preoperative real-time consultations between clinicians and patients were audio-recorded (n=37). Patients were interviewed postoperatively (n=30). Data were synthesized using thematic analytical methods.

RESULTS

Interviews with clinicians demonstrated strong intentions to inform patients about the innovative nature of the procedure in a neutral manner, although tensions between fully informing patients and not distressing them were raised. In the consultations, only a minority of clinicians actually made explicit statements about, (1) the procedure being innovative, (2) their limited clinical experience with it, (3) the paucity of evidence, and (4) uncertainty/unknown outcomes. Discussions about risks were generalized and often did not relate to the innovative component. Instead, all clinicians optimistically presented potential benefits and many disclosed their own positive beliefs. Postoperative patient interviews revealed that many believed that the procedure was more established than it was and were unaware of the unknown risks.

CONCLUSIONS

There were contradictions between clinicians' intentions to inform patients about the uncertain outcomes of innovative and their actual discussions with patients. There is a need for communication interventions and training to support clinicians to provide transparent data and shared decision-making for innovative procedures.

The NightLife study - the clinical and cost-effectiveness of thrice-weekly, extended, in-centre nocturnal haemodialysis versus daytime haemodialysis using a mixed methods approach: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In-centre nocturnal haemodialysis (INHD) offers extended-hours haemodialysis, 6 to 8 h thrice-weekly overnight, with the support of dialysis specialist nurses. There is increasing observational data demonstrating potential benefits of INHD on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is a lack of randomised controlled trial (RCT) data to confirm these benefits and assess safety.

METHODS

The NightLife study is a pragmatic, two-arm, multicentre RCT comparing the impact of 6 months INHD to conventional haemodialysis (thrice-weekly daytime in-centre haemodialysis, 3.5-5 h per session). The primary outcome is the total score from the Kidney Disease Quality of Life tool at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include sleep and cognitive function, measures of safety, adherence to dialysis and impact on clinical parameters. There is an embedded Process Evaluation to assess implementation, health economic modelling and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention to understand factors that influence recruitment and retention. Adults (≥ 18 years old) who have been established on haemodialysis for > 3 months are eligible to participate.

DISCUSSION

There are 68,000 adults in the UK that need kidney replacement therapy (KRT), with in-centre haemodialysis the treatment modality for over a third of cases. HRQoL is an independent predictor of hospitalisation and mortality in individuals on maintenance dialysis. Haemodialysis is associated with poor HRQoL in comparison to the general population. INHD has the potential to improve HRQoL. Vigorous RCT evidence of effectiveness is lacking. The NightLife study is an essential step in the understanding of dialysis therapies and will guide patient-centred decisions regarding KRT in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration number: ISRCTN87042063. Registered: 14/07/2020.

Is equipoise a useful concept to justify randomised controlled trials in the cultural context of Pakistan? A survey of clinicians in relation to a trial of talking therapy for young people who self-harm

BACKGROUND

Clinical equipoise, also defined as the uncertainty principle, is considered essential when recruiting subjects to a clinical trial. However, equipoise is threatened when clinicians are influenced by their own preferences. Little research has investigated equipoise in the context of trial recruitment.

METHODS

This cross-sectional survey sought clinicians' views (operationalised as 11 statements relating to treatments offered in a trial of a psychological intervention for young people) about equipoise and individual treatment preferences in the context of moral justification for recruiting young people at risk of self-harm or suicide to a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the Youth Culturally Adapted Manual Assisted Psychological Intervention (Y-CMAP) in Pakistan. We compared the views of clinicians involved in Y-CMAP RCT recruitment to those of a sample of clinicians not involved in trial recruitment but treating similar patients, comparing their sociodemographic characteristics and the proportions of those in each group agreeing with each statement.

RESULTS

There was a response rate of 96% (75/78). Findings showed that, during trial recruitment and before the RCT results were known, the majority of all responding clinicians (73.3%) considered Y-CMAP to be an effective treatment for young people at risk of self-harm or suicide. Although there was an acknowledgement of individual preferences for the intervention, there was near consensus (90%) on the need to conduct an RCT for reaching an evidence-based decision. However, there were no significant differences in the proportion of recruiting clinicians reporting a treatment preference for Y-CMAP than non-recruiting clinicians (31 (88.6%) versus 36 (90%), p = 0.566). A significantly higher proportion of non-recruiting clinicians (87.5%) as compared to (48.5%) in the trial (p = 0.000) stated that there may be other treatments that may be equally good for the patients, seemingly undermining a preference for the intervention. Those reporting a treatment preference also acknowledged that there was nothing on which this preference was based, however confident they felt about them, thus accepting clinical equipoise as ethical justification for conducting the RCT. There was a significant group difference in views that treatment overall is better as a result of young patients' participation in the Y-CMAP trial (p = 0.015) (i.e. more clinicians not involved in the trial agreed with this statement). Similarly, more clinicians not involved in the trial agreed on the perceived availability of other treatment options that were good for young people at risk of self-harm (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The paper highlights that clinicians in Pakistan accept the notion of clinical equipoise as an ethical justification for patient participation in RCTs. The need for conducting RCTs to generate evidence base and to reduce bias was considered important by the clinical community.

Autopsy of a failed trial part 1: A qualitative investigation of clinician's views on and experiences of the implementation of the DAISIES trial in UK-based intensive eating disorder services

OBJECTIVE

The DAISIES trial, comparing inpatient and stepped-care day patient treatment for adults with severe anorexia nervosa was prematurely terminated in March 2022 due to poor recruitment. This qualitative study seeks to understand the difficulties faced during the trial by investigating stakeholders' views on and experiences of its implementation.

METHOD

Semi-structured interview and focus group transcripts, and trial management and oversight group meeting minutes from May 2020-June 2022 were analysed using thematic analysis. Participants were 47 clinicians and co-investigators involved with the DAISIES trial. The Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework was applied to the interpretive themes to classify barriers and facilitators to implementation.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: incompatible participation interests; changing standard practice; concerns around clinical management; systemic capacity and capability issues; and Covid-19 disrupting implementation. Applying the NASSS framework indicated the greatest implementation challenges to arise with the adopters (e.g. patients, clinicians), the organisational systems (e.g. service capacity), and the wider socio-political context (e.g. Covid-19 closing services).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings emphasise the top-down impact of systemic-level research implementation challenges. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic accentuated pre-existing organisational barriers to trial implementation within intensive eating disorder services, further limiting the capacity for research.

Clinical reasoning in pragmatic trial randomization: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic trials, because they study widely used treatments in settings of routine practice, require intensive participation from clinicians who determine whether patients can be enrolled. Clinicians are often conflicted between their therapeutic obligation to patients and their willingness to enroll them in trials in which treatments are randomly determined and thus potentially suboptimal. Refusal to enroll eligible patients can hinder trial completion and damage generalizability. In order to help evaluate and mitigate clinician refusal, this qualitative study examined how clinicians reason about whether to randomize eligible patients.

METHODS

We performed interviews with 29 anesthesiologists who participated in REGAIN, a multicenter pragmatic randomized trial comparing spinal and general anesthesia in hip fracture. Interviews included a chart-stimulated section in which physicians described their reasoning pertaining to specific eligible patients as well as a general semi-structured section about their views on clinical research. Guided by a constructivist grounded theory approach, we analyzed data via coding, synthesized thematic patterns using focused coding, and developed an explanation using abduction.

RESULTS

Anesthesiologists perceived their main clinical function as preventing peri- and intraoperative complications. In some cases, they used prototype-based reasoning to determine whether patients with contraindications should be randomized; in others, they used probabilistic reasoning. These modes of reasoning involved different types of uncertainty. In contrast, anesthesiologists expressed confidence about anesthetic options when they accepted patients for randomization. Anesthesiologists saw themselves as having a fiduciary responsibility to patients and thus did not hesitate to communicate their inclinations, even when this complicated trial recruitment. Nevertheless, they voiced strong support for clinical research, stating that their involvement was mainly hindered by production pressure and workflow disruptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that prominent ways of assessing clinician decisions about trial randomization are based on questionable assumptions about clinical reasoning. Close examination of routine clinical practice, attuned to the features of clinical reasoning we reveal here, will help both in evaluating clinicians' enrollment determinations in specific trials and in anticipating and responding to them.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Regional Versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence After Hip Fracture (REGAIN).

CLINICALTRIALS

gov NCT02507505. Prospectively registered on July 24, 2015.

'It's just a finger isn't it…': patients' perspectives of recovery following finger fractures and participation in surgical trials - a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

To (1) generate detailed, person-centred data about the experience of finger injury and treatment and (2) understand the patients' perspectives of research involvement with a view to informing better designed future studies in hand injury.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews and framework analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

19 participants who were part of the Cohort study of Patients' Outcomes for Finger Fractures and Joint Injuries study in a single secondary care centre in the UK.

RESULTS

The results of this study showed that although finger injuries are frequently seen as minor by patients and healthcare professionals, their effects on peoples' lives are possibly greater than first anticipated. The relative importance of hand functioning means that the experience of treatment and recovery varies and is shaped by an individual's age, job, lifestyle and hobbies. These factors will also inform an individual's perspective on and willingness to participate in, hand research. Interviewees showed reluctance to accept randomisation in surgical trials. Interviewees would be more likely to participate in a study testing two variants of the same treatment modality (eg, surgery vs surgery), rather than two different modalities, (eg, surgery vs splint). The Patient-Reported Outcome Measure questionnaires that were used in this study were seen as less relevant by these patients. Pain, hand function and cosmetic appearance were considered important, meaningful outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with finger injuries need more support from healthcare professionals as they may experience more problems than first anticipated. Good communication by clinicians and empathy can help patients engage with the treatment pathway. Perceptions of an 'insignificant' injury and/or need for quick functional recovery will influence recruitment to future hand research (both positively and negatively). Accessible information about the functional and clinical consequences of a hand injury will be important in enabling participants to make fully informed decisions about participation.

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: further development and evaluation of the participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is an accepted ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet there is no standardised method of assessing patient understanding for informed consent. The participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure was developed for application to recruitment discussions to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding. Preliminary evaluation of the PIC indicated the need to improve inter-rater and intra-rater reliability ratings and conduct further psychometric evaluation. This paper describes the assessment, revision and evaluation of the PIC within the context of OPTiMISE, a pragmatic primary care-based trial.

METHODS

This study used multiple methods across two phases. In phase one, one researcher applied the existing PIC measure to 18 audio-recorded recruitment discussions from the OPTiMISE study and made detailed observational notes about any uncertainties in application. Appointments were sampled to be maximally diverse for patient gender, study centre, recruiter and before and after an intervention to optimise information provision. Application uncertainties were reviewed by the study team, revisions made and a coding manual developed and agreed. In phase two, the coding manual was used to develop tailored guidelines for applying the PIC to appointments within the OPTiMISE trial. Two researchers then assessed 27 further appointments, purposively sampled as above, to evaluate inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, content validity and feasibility.

RESULTS

Application of the PIC to 18 audio-recorded OPTiMISE recruitment discussions resulted in harmonisation of the scales rating recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding, minor amendments to clarify wording and the development of detailed generic coding guidelines for applying the measure within any trial. Application of the revised measure using these guidelines to 27 further recruitment discussions showed good feasibility (time to complete), content validity (completion rate) and reliability (inter- and intra-rater) of the measure.

CONCLUSION

The PIC provides a means to evaluate the content of information provided by recruiters, patient participation in recruitment discussions and, to some extent, evidence of patient understanding. Future work will use the measure to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding both across and within trials.

"What I wanted to do was build myself back up and prepare": qualitative findings from the PERCEPT trial of prehabilitation during autologous stem cell transplantation in myeloma

BACKGROUND

The addition of qualitative methodology to randomised controlled trials evaluating complex interventions allows better understanding of contextualised factors and their potential influence on trial delivery and outcomes, as well as opportunities for feedback on trial participation to improve future trial protocols. This study explored the experiences of participation in cancer rehabilitation research during active cancer treatment. Participants were people living with haematological cancer myeloma, undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) recruited to the PERCEPT myeloma pilot trial.

METHODS

A qualitative semi-structured interview study, embedded within a pilot randomised controlled trial of a physiotherapist-led exercise intervention delivered before, during and after ASCT among people living with myeloma. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Interviews from 16 trial participants (n = 8 intervention group; n = 8 control group; mean age 61 years, 56% male) were analysed. Four main themes were identified: (1) "It's not just beneficial for me, it's for people after me as well"; (2) Disparities in experience of recovery - expectations, feeling prepared and support; (3) "What I wanted to do was build myself back up and prepare"; (4) Active ingredients - participants' experience of the trial intervention. Participants reported both altruistic and perceived personal gain as motivators for enrolling in the trial. Disappointment caused by allocation to control arm may have led to participants seeking exercise elsewhere, indicating possible contamination of control condition. Disparities in experience of recovery from transplant were evident with intervention participants reporting greater trajectory of recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this embedded qualitative study highlight numerous considerations required when designing pilot and efficacy trials of complex interventions. The addition of qualitative investigation offers greater understanding of motivations for participation, intervention mechanisms at play as well as effects of participation that may impact interpretation of quantitative outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Qualitative findings from a prospectively registered pilot trial (ISRCTN15875290), registered 13/02/2019.

What do we talk about when we talk about "equipoise"? Stakeholder interviews assessing the use of equipoise in clinical research ethics

INTRODUCTION

Equipoise, generally defined as uncertainty about the relative effects of the treatments being compared in a trial, is frequently referenced as an ethical standard for the conduct of randomized clinical trials. However, it seems to be defined in several different ways and may be used differently by different individuals. We explored how clinical researchers, chairs of research ethics boards, and philosophers of science define and reason with this term.

METHODS

We completed semi-structured interviews about clinical trial ethics with 15 clinical researchers, 15 research ethics board chairs, and 15 philosophers of science/bioethicists. Each participant was asked a standardized set of 10 questions, 4 of which were specifically about equipoise. All interviews were conducted telephonically and transcribed. Responses were grouped and analysed via a modified grounded theory method.

RESULTS

Forty-three respondents defined equipoise in 7 logically distinct ways, and 2 respondents could not explicitly define it. The most common definition, offered by 14 respondents (31%), defined "equipoise" as a disagreement at the level of a community of physicians. There was significant variability in definitions offered between and within groups. When asked how they would "operationalize" equipoise - i.e. check or test for its presence - respondents provided 7 alternatives, the most common being in relation to a literature review (15/45, 33%). The vast majority of respondents (35/45, 78%) felt the concept was helpful, though many acknowledged that the lack of a clear definition or operationalization was problematic.

CONCLUSION

There is significant variation in definitions of equipoise offered by respondents, suggesting that parties within groups and between groups may be referring to different concepts when they reference "equipoise". This non-uniformity may impact fairness and transparency and opens the door to potential ethical problems in the evaluation of clinical trials - for instance, a patient may understand equipoise very differently than the researchers enrolling her in a trial, which could cause her agreement to participate to be based upon false premises.

Qualitative data sharing practices in clinical trials in the UK and Ireland: towards the production of good practice guidance

Background: Data sharing enables researchers to conduct novel research with previously collected datasets, thus maximising scientific findings and cost effectiveness, and reducing research waste. The value of sharing, even de-identified, quantitative data from clinical trials is well recognised with a moderated access approach recommended. While substantial challenges to sharing quantitative data remain, there are additional challenges for sharing qualitative data in trials. Incorporating the necessary information about how qualitative data will be shared into already complex trial recruitment and consent processes proves challenging. The aim of this study was to explore whether and how trial teams share qualitative data collected as part of the design, conduct, analysis, or delivery of clinical trials. Methods: Phase 1 involved semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews and focus groups with key trial stakeholder groups including trial managers and clinical trialists (n=3), qualitative researchers in trials (n=9), members of research funding bodies (n=2) and trial participants (n=1). Data were analysed using thematic analysis. In Phase 2, we conducted a content analysis of 16 participant information leaflets (PIL) and consent forms (CF) for trials that collected qualitative data. Results: Three key themes were identified from our Phase 1 findings: ' Understanding and experiences of the potential benefits of sharing qualitative data from trials', 'Concerns about qualitative data sharing', and ' Future guidance and funding'. In phase 2, the PILs and CFs received revealed that the benefits of data sharing for participants were only explained in two of the study documents. Conclusions: The value of sharing qualitative data was acknowledged, but there are many uncertainties as to how, when, and where to share this data. In addition, there were ethical concerns in relation to the consent process required for qualitative data sharing in trials. This study provides insight into the existing practice of qualitative data sharing in trials.

Impact of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus open lobectomy for lung cancer on recovery assessed using self-reported physical function: VIOLET RCT

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Surgery remains the main method of managing early-stage disease. Minimal-access video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery results in less tissue trauma than open surgery; however, it is not known if it improves patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy with open surgery for the treatment of lung cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicentre, superiority, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinding of participants (until hospital discharge) and outcome assessors conducted in nine NHS hospitals. Adults referred for lung resection for known or suspected lung cancer, with disease suitable for both surgeries, were eligible. Participants were followed up for 1 year.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy or open surgery. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery used one to four keyhole incisions without rib spreading. Open surgery used a single incision with rib spreading, with or without rib resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported physical function (using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30) at 5 weeks. Secondary outcomes included upstaging to pathologic node stage 2 disease, time from surgery to hospital discharge, pain in the first 2 days, prolonged pain requiring analgesia at > 5 weeks, adverse health events, uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall and disease-free survival, quality of life (Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, Quality of Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 and EQ-5D) at 2 and 5 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

A total of 503 patients were randomised between July 2015 and February 2019 (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 256). One participant withdrew before surgery. The mean age of patients was 69 years; 249 (49.5%) patients were men and 242 (48.1%) did not have a confirmed diagnosis. Lobectomy was performed in 453 of 502 (90.2%) participants and complete resection was achieved in 429 of 439 (97.7%) participants. Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 physical function was better in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group at 5 weeks (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 255; mean difference 4.65, 95% confidence interval 1.69 to 7.61; p = 0.0089). Upstaging from clinical node stage 0 to pathologic node stage 1 and from clinical node stage 0 or 1 to pathologic node stage 2 was similar (p ≥ 0.50). Pain scores were similar on day 1, but lower in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group on day 2 (mean difference -0.54, 95% confidence interval -0.99 to -0.09; p = 0.018). Analgesic consumption was 10% lower (95% CI -20% to 1%) and the median hospital stay was less (4 vs. 5 days, hazard ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.09, 1.65; p = 0.006) in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. Prolonged pain was also less (relative risk 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.94; p = 0.003). Time to uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall survival and progression-free survival were similar (p ≥ 0.28). Fewer participants in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group experienced complications before and after discharge from hospital (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.84; p < 0.001 and relative risk 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.00; p = 0.053, respectively). Quality of life to 1 year was better across several domains in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. The probability that video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year is 1.

LIMITATIONS

Ethnic minorities were under-represented compared with the UK population (< 5%), but the cohort reflected the lung cancer population.

CONCLUSIONS

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy was associated with less pain, fewer complications and better quality of life without any compromise to oncologic outcome. Use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is highly likely to be cost-effective for the NHS.

FUTURE WORK

Evaluation of the efficacy of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery with robotic assistance, which is being offered in many hospitals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN13472721.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Understanding the perspectives of recruiters is key to improving randomised controlled trial enrolment: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Background

Recruiting patients to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often reported to be challenging, and the evidence base for effective interventions that could be used by staff (recruiters) undertaking recruitment is lacking. Although the experiences and perspectives of recruiters have been widely reported, an evidence synthesis is required in order to inform the development of future interventions. This paper aims to address this by systematically searching and synthesising the evidence on recruiters’ perspectives and experiences of recruiting patients into RCTs. 

Methods

A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) following Thomas and Harden’s approach to thematic synthesis was conducted. The Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ORRCA and Web of Science electronic databases were searched. Studies were sampled to ensure that the focus of the research was aligned with the phenomena of interest of the QES, their methodological relevance to the QES question, and to include variation across the clinical areas of the studies. The GRADE CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in the review findings.

Results

In total, 9316 studies were identified for screening, which resulted in 128 eligible papers. The application of the QES sampling strategy resulted in 30 papers being included in the final analysis. Five overlapping themes were identified which highlighted the complex manner in which recruiters experience RCT recruitment: (1) recruiting to RCTs in a clinical environment, (2) enthusiasm for the RCT, (3) making judgements about whether to approach a patient, (4) communication challenges, (5) interplay between recruiter and professional roles.

Conclusions

This QES identified factors which contribute to the complexities that recruiters can face in day-to-day clinical settings, and the influence recruiters and non-recruiting healthcare professionals have on opportunities afforded to patients for RCT participation. It has reinforced the importance of considering the clinical setting in its entirety when planning future RCTs and indicated the need to better normalise and support research if it is to become part of day-to-day practice.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42020141297 (registered 11/02/2020).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06818-4.

Rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair: A survey exploring clinical equipoise among surgical members of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society

BACKGROUND

We investigated clinical equipoise across surgical members of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society (BESS) in relation to rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair.

METHOD

An online survey explored clinical equipoise regarding early patient-directed versus standard rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair to inform the design of a national randomised controlled trial (RCT). It described different clinical scenarios relating to patient age, tear size, location and whether other patient-related and intra-operative factors would influence equipoise.

RESULTS

76 surgeons completed the survey. 81% agreed/ strongly agreed that early mobilisation might benefit recovery; 57% were neutral/ disagreed that this approach risks re-tear. 87% agreed/ strongly agreed that there is clinical uncertainty about the effectiveness of different approaches to rehabilitation. As age of the patient and tear size increased, the proportion of respondents who would agree to recruit and accept the outcome of randomisation reduced, and this was compounded if subscapularis was torn. Other factors that influenced equipoise were diabetes and non-secure repair.

CONCLUSION

Surgical members of BESS recognise uncertainty about the effectiveness of different approaches to rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair. We identified a range of factors that influence clinical equipoise that will be considered in the design of a new RCT.

Proper understanding of recurrent stress urinary incontinence treatment in women (PURSUIT): a randomised controlled trial of endoscopic and surgical treatment

BACKGROUND

Women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) experience urine leakage with physical activity. Currently, the interventional treatments for SUI are surgical, or endoscopic bulking injection(s). However, these procedures are not always successful, and symptoms can persist or come back after treatment, categorised as recurrent SUI. There are longstanding symptoms and distress associated with a failed primary treatment, and currently, there is no consensus on how best to treat women with recurrent, or persistent, SUI.

METHODS

A two-arm trial, set in at least 20 National Health Service (NHS) urology and urogynaecology referral units in the UK, randomising 250 adult women with recurrent or persistent SUI 1:1 to receive either an endoscopic intervention (endoscopic bulking injections) or a standard NHS surgical intervention, currently colposuspension, autologous fascial sling or artificial urinary sphincter. The aim of the trial is to determine whether surgical treatment is superior to endoscopic bulking injections in terms of symptom severity at 1 year after randomisation. This primary outcome will be measured using the patient-reported International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Urinary Incontinence - Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF). Secondary outcomes include assessment of longer-term clinical impact, improvement of symptoms, safety, operative assessments, sexual function, cost-effectiveness and an evaluation of patients' and clinicians' views and experiences of the interventions.

DISCUSSION

There is a lack of high-quality, randomised, scientific evidence for which treatment is best for women presenting with recurrent SUI. The PURSUIT study will benefit healthcare professionals and patients and provide robust evidence to guide further treatment and improve symptoms and quality of life for women with this condition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) registry ISRCTN12201059. Registered on 09 January 2020.

Success rate of acquiring informed consent and barriers to participation in a randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for non-curative stage IV colon cancer in Japan (JCOG1107)

BACKGROUND

Successful achievement of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is dependent on the acquisition of informed consent (IC) from patients. The aim of this study was to prospectively calculate the proportion of participation in a surgical RCT and to identify the reasons for failed acquisition of IC.

METHODS

A 50-insitution RCT was conducted to evaluate oncological outcomes of open and laparoscopic surgery for stage IV colon cancer (JCOG1107: UMIN-CTR 000000105). The success rate of obtaining IC was evaluated in eight periods between January 2013 and January 2021. In addition, reasons for failed acquisition of IC were identified from questionnaires.

RESULTS

In total, 391 patients were informed of their eligibility for the trial, and 168 (42%) were randomly assigned to either the laparoscopic surgery group (n = 84) or open surgery group (n = 84). The success rate of IC acquisition ranged from 33 to 58% in three periods. The most common reasons for failed IC acquisition were the patients' preference for one approach of surgery based on recommendations from referring doctors and family members, and anxiety/unhappiness about randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

The success rate of acquiring IC from patients for an RCT of laparoscopic versus open surgery for stage IV colon cancer was lower than the expected rate planned in the protocol. To obtain the planned rate, investigators should make efforts to inform patients and their families about the medical contributions a surgical RCT can make and recognize that the period in equipoise may be limited.

Patient and health practitioner views and experiences of a cancer trial before and during COVID-19: qualitative study

Background

Understanding patient and health practitioner perspectives on clinical trials can inform opportunities to enhance trial conduct and design, and therefore patient experience. Patients with haematological cancers have faced additional risk and uncertainty during the pandemic but it is unclear how they and practitioners have experienced cancer trials during this period. In the context of a haemato-oncology trial (PETReA), we compared patient and practitioner views and experiences of PETReA before and during COVID-19.

Methods

Qualitative study embedded within PETReA. Semi-structured interviews (N=41) with patients and practitioners from 16 NHS sites before (n=17) and during the first wave of COVID-19 (n=24). Analysis drew on the framework approach.

Results

Practitioners acknowledged the need for the trial to continue during the pandemic but their treatment preferences altered, becoming more pronounced for patients who had a favourable response to induction treatment, while staying unchanged for patients with a less favourable response. Practitioners commented that COVID-19 meant the evidence base for the trial arms was lacking or mixed, but that it likely increased the risks of maintenance treatment for patients with a favourable response to induction treatment. While only one participant interviewed withdrew from PETReA during the pandemic, others said they would consider withdrawing if information that they were at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 became available. During COVID-19, patients described less frequent contact with the trial team, which left some feeling less clear about their trial pathway. However, several described having in-depth, collaborative discussions with practitioners about the risks and benefits of randomisation in the context of COVID-19. Patients valued these discussions and were reassured by the emphasis practitioners placed on patients being free to withdraw if circumstances changed, and this helped patients feel comfortable about continuing in PETReA.

Conclusions

The findings point to ways trial communication can support patients to feel comfortable about continuing in a trial during uncertain times, including adopting a more in-depth, collaborative exploration of the risks and benefits of trial arms with patients and emphasising voluntariness. The results are relevant to trialists recruiting patients who are clinically extremely vulnerable or are at increased risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes despite being vaccinated.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06453-z.

Development of a new adapted QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI-Two) for rapid application to RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls—to identify previously hidden barriers and improve recruitment

Background

Many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) struggle to recruit, despite valiant efforts. The QRI (QuinteT Recruitment Intervention) uses innovative research methods to optimise recruitment by revealing previously hidden barriers related to the perceptions and experiences of recruiters and patients, and targeting remedial actions. It was designed to be integrated with RCTs anticipating difficulties at the outset. A new version of the intervention (QRI-Two) was developed for RCTs already underway with enrolment shortfalls.

Methods

QRIs in 12 RCTs with enrolment shortfalls during 2007–2017 were reviewed to document which of the research methods used could be rapidly applied to successfully identify recruitment barriers. These methods were then included in the new streamlined QRI-Two intervention which was applied in 20 RCTs in the USA and Europe during 2018–2019. The feasibility of the QRI-Two was investigated, recruitment barriers and proposed remedial actions were documented, and the QRI-Two protocol was finalised.

Results

The review of QRIs from 2007 to 2017 showed that previously unrecognised recruitment barriers could be identified but data collection for the full QRI required time and resources usually unavailable to ongoing RCTs. The streamlined QRI-Two focussed on analysis of screening/accrual data and RCT documents (protocol, patient-information), with discussion of newly diagnosed barriers and potential remedial actions in a workshop with the RCT team. Four RCTs confirmed the feasibility of the rapid application of the QRI-Two. When the QRI-Two was applied to 14 RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls, an array of previously unknown/underestimated recruitment barriers related to issues such as equipoise, intervention preferences, or study presentation was identified, with new insights into losses of eligible patients along the recruitment pathway. The QRI-Two workshop enabled discussion of the newly diagnosed barriers and potential remedial actions to improve recruitment in collaboration with the RCT team. As expected, the QRI-Two performed less well in six RCTs at the start-up stage before commencing enrolment.

Conclusions

The QRI-Two can be applied rapidly, diagnose previously unrecognised recruitment barriers, and suggest remedial actions in RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls, providing opportunities for RCT teams to develop targeted actions to improve recruitment. The effectiveness of the QRI-Two in improving recruitment requires further evaluation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06187-y.

A qualitative study exploring clinicians' views on clinical trials in thumb carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis

AIMS

Osteoarthritis (OA) affecting the thumb carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) is a common painful condition. In this study, we aimed to explore clinicians' approach to management with a particular focus on the role of specific interventions that will inform the design of future clinical trials.

METHODS

We interviewed a purposive sample of 24 clinicians, consisting of 12 surgeons and 12 therapists (four occupational therapists and eight physiotherapists) who managed patients with CMCJ OA. This is a qualitative study using semi-structured, online interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 14 themes were developed, six of which were developed relating to the clinical management of CMCJ OA: 1) A flexible 'ladder' approach starting with conservative treatment first; 2) The malleable role of steroid injection; 3) Surgery as an invasive and risky last resort; 4) A shared and collaborative approach; 5) Treating the whole person; and 6) Severity of life impact influences treatment. The remaining eight themes were developed relating to clinical trial barriers and facilitators: 1) We need to embrace uncertainty; 2) You are not losing out by taking part; 3) It is difficult to be neutral about certain treatments; 4) Difficult to recruit to 'no treatment' ; 5) Difficult to recruit to a trial comparing no surgery to surgery; 6) Patients are keen to participate in research; 7) Burden on staff and participants; and 8) A enthusiasm for a variety of potential trial arms.

CONCLUSION

Our findings contribute to a better understanding of how clinicians manage thumb CMCJ OA in their practice settings. Our study also provides useful insights informing the design of randomized clinical trials involving steroid injections and surgery in people with thumb CMCJ OA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(4):321-331.

Approaches for Discussing Clinical Trials with Pediatric Oncology Patients and Their Families

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This manuscript aims to describe evidence-based best practices to guide clinicians in communicating with pediatric patients and their families about clinical trial enrollment.

RECENT FINDINGS

The standard paradigm for discussing clinical trial enrollment with pediatric oncology patients and their families inconsistently enables or facilitates true informed consent. Evidence exists to suggest that adopting a shared decision-making approach may improve patient and family understanding. When navigating communication about clinical trials, clinicians should integrate the following evidence-based communication approaches: (1) extend dialogue about clinical trial enrollment across multiple conversations, allowing families space and time to process information independently; (2) use core communication skills such as avoiding jargon, checking for understanding, and responding to emotion. Clinicians should consider factors at the individual, team, organizational, community, and policy levels that may impact clinical trial communication with pediatric cancer patients and their families. This article reviews learnable skills that clinicians can master to optimize communication about clinical trial enrollment with pediatric cancer patients and their families.

Review of the recruitment process for a large investigator-initiated trial in early Parkinson’s disease

Introduction

Organizing and executing a large clinical trial is a complex process, and often recruitment targets are not met. We describe the organization of the Levodopa in the Early Parkinson’s disease (LEAP) trial and the results of an external assessment of the recruitment process.

Methods

Several strategies were used to ensure that recruitment for the trial was effective and efficient. We analyzed the patterns in referrals, inclusions, and non-inclusions to investigate whether there were bottlenecks in the referral and inclusion process. For the external assessment of the recruitment process, the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI-Two) was used retrospectively, focusing on finding possible issues impeding recruitment that are less easily recognized.

Results

Recruitment took 57 months, which was 27 months longer than initially expected. 6.8% of the estimated eligible patients in the Netherlands were included. The number of referrals differed widely between participating centers and regions in the Netherlands, with the region of the principal study center having the most referrals. Reasons of exclusion varied across regions, as in some regions more patients already started, wanted to start, or did not want to start with Parkinson medication compared to other regions.

Discussion

Executing a large, investigator-initiated clinical trial on a limited budget still remains possible by focusing on minimizing administrative and organizational procedures. Our study suggests that centers with closer institutional ties to a principal study center tend to have a higher referral rate. The review of the LEAP trial recruitment strategies and data using the QRI-Two suggested that the variations in referrals and reasons of non-inclusion could indicate the presence of issues related to clinical equipoise, patient eligibility, or study presentation. Integrating a recruitment intervention could have explored issues with study presentation and equipoise that might have increased recruitment efficiency.

Trial registration

ISRCTN ISRCTN30518857. The registration was initiated on 02/08/2011 and finalized on 25/08/2011. Recruitment started on 17/08/2011, after the initiation of public registration.

Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure following mastectomy. IBBR techniques are evolving rapidly, with mesh-assisted subpectoral reconstruction becoming the standard of care and more recently, prepectoral techniques being introduced. These muscle-sparing techniques may reduce postoperative pain, avoid implant animation and improve cosmetic outcomes and have been widely adopted into practice. Although small observational studies have failed to demonstrate any differences in the clinical or patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction, high-quality comparative evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness is lacking. A well-designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare the techniques, but breast reconstruction RCTs are challenging. We, therefore, aim to undertake an external pilot RCT (Best-BRA) with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a trial comparing prepectoral and subpectoral techniques.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Best-BRA is a pragmatic, two-arm, external pilot RCT with an embedded QRI and economic scoping for resource use. Women who require a mastectomy for either breast cancer or risk reduction, elect to have an IBBR and are considered suitable for both prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction will be recruited and randomised 1:1 between the techniques.The QRI will be implemented in two phases: phase 1, in which sources of recruitment difficulties are rapidly investigated to inform the delivery in phase 2 of tailored interventions to optimise recruitment of patients.Primary outcomes will be (1) recruitment of patients, (2) adherence to trial allocation and (3) outcome completion rates. Outcomes will be reviewed at 12 months to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Wales REC 6 (20/WA/0338). Findings will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10081873.

Recruiters' perspectives and experiences of trial recruitment processes: a qualitative evidence synthesis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Recruitment to randomised trials (RCTs) is often challenging. Reviews of interventions to improve recruitment have highlighted a paucity of effective interventions aimed at recruiters and the need for further research in this area. Understanding the perspectives and experiences of those involved in RCT recruitment can help to identify barriers and facilitators to recruitment, and subsequently inform future interventions to support recruitment. This protocol describes methods for a proposed qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) of recruiters' perspectives and experiences relating to RCT recruitment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The proposed review will synthesise studies reporting clinical and non-clinical recruiters' perspectives and experiences of recruiting to RCTs. The following databases will be searched: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ORRCA and Web of Science. A thematic synthesis approach to analysing the data will be used. An assessment of methodological limitations of each study will be performed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Assessing the confidence in the review findings will be evaluated using the GRADE Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) tool.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The proposed QES will not require ethical approval as it includes only published literature. The results of the synthesis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and publicised using social media. The results will be considered alongside other work addressing factors affecting recruitment in order to inform future development and refinement of recruitment interventions.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020141297.

The challenge of equipoise in trials with a surgical and non-surgical comparison: a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials in surgery can be a challenge to design and conduct, especially when including a non-surgical comparison. As few as half of initiated surgical trials reach their recruitment target, and failure to recruit is cited as the most frequent reason for premature closure of surgical RCTs. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to identify and synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring the challenges in the design and conduct of trials directly comparing surgical and non-surgical interventions.

METHODS

A qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography was conducted. Six electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Central, Cinahl, Embase and PsycInfo) were searched up to the end of February 2018. Studies that explored patients' and health care professionals' experiences regarding participating in RCTs with a surgical and non-surgical comparison were included. The GRADE-CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in review findings.

RESULTS

In total, 3697 abstracts and 49 full texts were screened and 26 published studies reporting experiences of patients and healthcare professionals were included. The focus of the studies (24/26) was primarily related to the challenge of recruitment. Two studies explored reasons for non-compliance to treatment allocation following randomisation. Five themes related to the challenges to these types of trials were identified: (1) radical choice between treatments; (2) patients' discomfort with randomisation: I want the best treatment for me as an individual; (3) challenge of equipoise: patients' a priori preferences for treatment; (4) challenge of equipoise: clinicians' a priori preferences for treatment and (5) imbalanced presentation of interventions.

CONCLUSION

The marked dichotomy between the surgical and non-surgical interventions was highlighted in this review as making recruitment to these types of trials particularly challenging. This review identified factors that increase our understanding of why patients and clinicians may find equipoise more challenging in these types of trials compared to other trial comparisons. Trialists may wish to consider exploring the balance of potential factors influencing patient and clinician preferences towards treatments before they start recruitment, to enable issues specific to a particular trial to be identified and addressed. This may enable trial teams to make more efficient considered design choices and benefit the delivery of such trials.

Experiences of trial participants and site staff of participating in and running a large randomised trial within fertility (the endometrial scratch trial): a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

To explore the experiences of endometrial scratch (ES) trial participants and site staff of trial recruitment and participation, in order to improve the experience of participants in future trials.

DESIGN

Qualitative study of a subset of participants in the ES randomised controlled trial and a subset of trial site staff.

SETTING

A purposeful sample of 9 of the 16 UK Fertility Units that participated in the trial.

PARTICIPANTS

A purposeful sample of 27 trial participants and 7 site staff.

RESULTS

Participants were largely happy with the recruitment practices, however, some were overwhelmed with the amount of information received. Interviewees had positive preconceptions regarding the possible effect of the ES on the outcome of their in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle, which often originated from their own internet research and seemed to be exacerbated by how site staff described the intervention. Some participants appeared to not understand that receiving the ES could potentially reduce their chances of a successful IVF outcome. Those randomised to the control arm discussed feeling discontent; site staff developed mechanisms of dealing with this.

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of equipoise in both study participants and the recruiting site staff led to trial participants having positive preconceptions of the potential impact of the ES on their upcoming IVF cycle. Trial participants may not have understood the potential harms of participating in a randomised trial. The trial information sheet did not clearly state this; further research should assess how such information should be presented to potential participants, to proportionately present the level of risk, but to not unduly discourage participation. The amount of information fertility patients require about a research study should also be investigated, in order to avoid participants feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information they receive prior to starting IVF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN23800982.

The Prepare for Kidney Care Study: prepare for renal dialysis versus responsive management in advanced chronic kidney disease

Shared decision making in advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) requires unbiased information on survival and person-centred outcomes known to matter to patients: quality of life, symptom burden and support from family and healthcare professionals. To date, when deciding between dialysis and conservative care, patients have had to rely on evidence from small observational studies. Clinicians recognize that like is not being compared with like in these studies, and interpret the results differently. Furthermore, support differs considerably between renal units. What patients choose therefore depends on which renal unit they attend. To address this, a programme of work has been underway in the UK. After reports on survival and symptoms from a small number of renal units, a national, mixed-methods study-the Conservative Kidney Management Assessment of Practice Patterns Study-mapped out conservative care practices and attitudes in the UK. This led to the Prepare for Kidney Care study, a randomized controlled trial comparing preparation for dialysis versus preparation for conservative care. Although powered to detect a positivist 0.345 difference in quality-adjusted life years between the two treatments, this trial also takes a realist approach with a range of person-centred secondary outcomes and embedded qualitative research. To understand generalizability, it is nested in an observational cohort study, which is nested in a CKD registry. Challenges to recruitment and retention have been rapidly identified and addressed using an established embedded mixed methods approach-the QuinteT recruitment intervention. This review considers the background to and progress with recruitment to the trial.

Reamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures (STIFF-F): a mixed methods feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Segmental tibial fractures are fractures in two or more areas of the tibial diaphysis resulting in a separate intercalary segment of the bone. Surgical fixation is recommended for patients with segmental tibial fractures as non-operative treatment outcomes are poor. The most common surgical interventions are intramedullary nailing (IMN) and circular frame external fixation (CFEF), but evidence about which is better is of poor quality. An adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine optimum treatment is required. STIFF-F aimed to assess the feasibility of a multicentre RCT comparing IMN with CFEF for segmental tibial fracture.

METHODS

STIFF-F was a mixed-methods feasibility study comprising a pilot RCT conducted at six UK Major Trauma Centres, qualitative interviews drawing on Phenomenology and an online survey of rehabilitation. The primary outcome was recruitment rate. Patients, 16 years and over, with a segmental tibial fracture (open or closed) deemed suitable for IMN or CFEF were eligible to participate. Randomisation was stratified by site using random permuted blocks of varying sizes. Participant or assessor blinding was not possible. Interviews were undertaken with patients about their experience of injury, treatment, recovery and participation. Staff were interviewed to identify contextual factors affecting trial processes, their experience of recruitment and the treatment pathway. An online survey was developed to understand the rehabilitation context of the treatments.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were screened and three recruited to the pilot RCT. Nineteen staff and four patients participated in interviews, and 11 physiotherapists responded to the survey. This study found the following: (i) segmental tibial fractures were rarer than anticipated, (ii) the complexity of the injury, study setup times and surgeon treatment preferences impeded recruitment, (iii) recovery from a segmental tibial fracture is challenging, and rehabilitation protocols are inconsistent and (iv) despite the difficulty recruiting, staff valued this research question and strived to find a way forward.

CONCLUSION

The proposed multicentre RCT comparing IMN with CFEF is not feasible. This study highlighted the difficulty of recruiting patients to an RCT of a complex rare injury over a short time period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Registry: ISRCTN11229660.

Patch augmentation surgery for rotator cuff repair: the PARCS mixed-methods feasibility study

BACKGROUND

A rotator cuff tear is a common, disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms may include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery, and the use of patch augmentation (on-lay or bridging) to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or tissue and synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or mesh).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the Patch Augmented Rotator Cuff Surgery (PARCS) feasibility study was to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched between April 2006 and August 2018.

METHODS

The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence, a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society's surgical membership, a survey of surgeon triallists, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons and industry representatives) were involved in stages 2-6.

RESULTS

The systematic review comprised 52 studies; only 15 were comparative and, of these, 11 were observational (search conducted in August 2018). These studies were typically small (median number of participants 26, range 5-152 participants). There was some evidence to support the use of patches, although most comparative studies were at a serious risk of bias. Little to no published clinical evidence was available for a number of patches in clinical use. The membership survey of British Elbow and Shoulder surgeons [105 (21%) responses received] identified a variety of patches in use. Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the triallist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted, involving 24 stakeholders. Differing views were held on a number of aspects of trial design, including the appropriate patient population (e.g. patient age) to participate. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential randomised controlled trials were achieved through the Delphi study [29 (67%)] and the consensus meeting that 22 participants attended.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who are not necessarily representative of the views of the relevant stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSION

The need for further clinical studies was clear, particularly given the range and number of different patches available.

FUTURE WORK

Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. These elements are included in the trial designs proposed in this study.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057908.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Maximising recruitment to a randomised controlled trial for chronic rhinosinusitis using qualitative research methods: the MACRO conversation study

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the ‘gold standard’ of medical evidence; however, recruitment can be challenging. The MACRO trial is a NIHR-funded RCT for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) addressing the challenge of comparing surgery, antibiotics and placebo. The embedded MACRO conversation study (MCS) used qualitative research techniques pioneered by the University of Bristol QuinteT team to explore recruitment issues during the pilot phase, to maximise recruitment in the main trial.

Methods

Setting: Five outpatient Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) departments recruiting for the pilot phase of the MACRO trial (ISRCTN Number: 36962030, prospectively registered 17 October 2018). We conducted a thematic analysis of telephone interviews with 18 recruiters and 19 patients and 61 audio-recordings of recruitment conversations. We reviewed screening and recruitment data and mapped patient pathways at participating sites. We presented preliminary findings to individual site teams. Group discussions enabled further exploration of issues, evolving strategies and potential solutions. Findings were reported back to the funder and used together with recruitment data to justify progression to the main trial.

Results

Recruitment in the MACRO pilot trial began slowly but accelerated in time to progress successfully to the main trial. Research nurse involvement was pivotal to successful recruitment. Engaging the wider network of clinical colleagues emerged as an important factor, ensuring the patient pathway through primary and secondary care did not inadvertently affect trial eligibility. The most common reason for patients declining participation was treatment preference. Good patient-clinician relationships engendered trust and supported patient decision-making. Overall, trial involvement appeared clearly presented by recruiters, possibly influenced by pre-trial training. The weakest area of understanding for patients appeared to be trial medications. A clear presentation of medical and surgical treatment options, together with checking patient understanding, had the potential to allay patient concerns.

Conclusion

The MACRO conversation study contributed to the learning process of optimising recruitment by helping to identify and address recruitment issues. Although some issues were trial-specific, others have applicability to many clinical trial situations. Using qualitative research techniques to identify/explore barriers and facilitators to recruitment may be valuable during the pilot phase of many RCTs including those with complex designs.

Protocol for a multi-site pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial: Surgery versus PhysiothErapist-leD exercise for traumatic tears of the rotator cuff (the SPeEDy study)

BACKGROUND

Clinically, a distinction is made between types of rotator cuff tear, traumatic and non-traumatic, and this sub-classification currently informs the treatment pathway. It is currently recommended that patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears are fast tracked for surgical opinion. However, there is uncertainty about the most clinically and cost-effective intervention for patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears and further research is required. SPeEDy will assess the feasibility of a fully powered, multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the hypothesis that, compared to surgical repair (and usual post-operative rehabilitation), a programme of physiotherapist-led exercise is not clinically inferior, but is more cost-effective for patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears.

METHODS

SPeEDy is a two-arm, multi-centre pilot and feasibility RCT with integrated Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI) and further qualitative investigation of patient experience. A total of 76 patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears will be recruited from approximately eight UK NHS hospitals and randomly allocated to either surgical repair and usual post-operative rehabilitation or a programme of physiotherapist-led exercise. The QRI is a mixed-methods approach that includes data collection and analysis of screening logs, audio recordings of recruitment consultations, interviews with patients and clinicians involved in recruitment, and review of study documentation as a basis for developing action plans to address identified difficulties whilst recruitment to the RCT is underway. A further sample of patient participants will be purposively sampled from both intervention groups and interviewed to explore reasons for initial participation, treatment acceptability, reasons for non-completion of treatment, where relevant, and any reasons for treatment crossover.

DISCUSSION

Research to date suggests that there is uncertainty regarding the most clinically and cost-effective interventions for patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears. There is a clear need for a high-quality, fully powered, RCT to better inform clinical practice. Prior to this, we first need to undertake a pilot and feasibility RCT to address current uncertainties about recruitment, retention and number of and reasons for treatment crossover.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04027205 ) - Registered on 19 July 2019. Available via.

Optimising recruitment to the HAND-1 RCT feasibility study: integration of the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI)

Background

Recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be challenging, with most trials not reaching recruitment targets. Randomised feasibility studies can be set up prior to a main trial to identify and overcome recruitment obstacles. This paper reports on an intervention—the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI)—to optimise recruitment within a randomised feasibility study of surgical treatments for patients with Dupuytren’s contracture (the HAND-1 study).

Methods

The QRI was introduced in 2-phases: phase 1 sought to understand the recruitment challenges by interviewing trial staff, scrutinising screening logs and analysing audio-recorded patient consultations; in phase 2 a tailored plan of action consisting of recruiter feedback and training was delivered to address the identified challenges.

Results

Two key recruitment obstacles emerged: (1) issues with the recruitment pathway, in particular methods to identify potentially eligible patients and (2) equipoise of recruiters and patients. These were addressed by liaising with centres to share good practice and refine their pathway and by providing bespoke feedback and training on consent discussions to individual recruiters and centres whilst recruitment was ongoing. The HAND-1 study subsequently achieved its recruitment target.

Conclusions

Transferable lessons learnt from the QRI in the feasibility study will be implemented in the definitive RCT, enabling a “head start” in the tackling of wider issues around screening methods and consent discussions in the set up/early recruitment study phases, with ongoing QRI addressing specific issues with new centres and recruiters. Findings from this study are likely to be relevant to other surgical and similar trials that are anticipated to encounter issues around patient and recruiter equipoise of treatments and variation in recruitment pathways across centres. The study also highlights the value of feasibility studies in fine-tuning design and conduct issues for definitive RCTs. Embedding a QRI in an RCT, at feasibility or main stage, offers an opportunity for a detailed and nuanced understanding of key recruitment challenges and the chance to address them in “real-time” as recruitment proceeds.