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.

CARE: Protocol of a randomised trial evaluating the feasibility of preoperative intentional weight loss to support postoperative recovery in patients with excess weight and colorectal cancer.

AIM: Excess weight increases the risk of morbidity following colorectal cancer surgery. Weight loss may improve morbidity, but it is uncertain whether patients can follow an intensive weight loss intervention while waiting for surgery and there are concerns about muscle mass loss. The aim of this trial is to assess the feasibility of intentional weight loss in this setting and determine progression to a definitive trial. METHODS: CARE is a prospectively registered, multicentre, feasibility, parallel, randomised controlled trial with embedded evaluation and optimisation of the recruitment process. Participants with excess weight awaiting curative colorectal resection for cancer are randomised 1:1 to care as usual or a low-energy nutritionally-replete total diet replacement programme with weekly remote behavioural support by a dietitian. Progression criteria will be based on the recruitment, engagement, adherence, and retention rates. Data will be collected on the 30-day postoperative morbidity, the typical primary outcome of prehabilitation trials. Secondary outcomes will include, among others, length of hospital stay, health-related quality of life, and body composition. Qualitative interviews will be used to understand patients' experiences of and attitudes towards trial participation and intervention engagement and adherence. CONCLUSION: CARE will evaluate the feasibility of intensive intentional weight loss as prehabilitation before colorectal cancer surgery. The results will determine the planning of a definitive trial.

Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery, including reshaping the hip, or with physiotherapist-led conservative care. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care. METHODS: UK FASHIoN is a pragmatic, multicentre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial, done at 23 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. We enrolled patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome who presented at these hospitals. Eligible patients were at least 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology but no osteoarthritis, and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy. Patients with bilateral femoroacetabular impingement syndrome were eligible; only the most symptomatic hip was randomly assigned to treatment and followed-up. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive hip arthroscopy or personalised hip therapy (an individualised, supervised, and progressive physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre and was done by research staff at each hospital, using a central telephone randomisation service. Patients and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but researchers who collected the outcome assessments and analysed the results were masked. The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, as measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed in all eligible participants who were allocated to treatment (the intention-to-treat population). This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN64081839, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between July 20, 2012, and July 15, 2016, we identified 648 eligible patients and recruited 348 participants: 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% (319 of 348 participants). At 12 months after randomisation, mean iHOT-33 scores had improved from 39·2 (SD 20·9) to 58·8 (27·2) for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35·6 (18·2) to 49·7 (25·5) in the personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in iHOT-33 scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline iHOT-33 score, and centre, was 6·8 (95% CI 1·7-12·0) in favour of hip arthroscopy (p=0·0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6·1 points). There were 147 patient-reported adverse events (in 100 [72%] of 138 patients) in the hip arthroscopy group) versus 102 events (in 88 [60%] of 146 patients) in the personalised hip therapy group, with muscle soreness being the most common of these (58 [42%] vs 69 [47%]). There were seven serious adverse events reported by participating hospitals. Five (83%) of six serious adverse events in the hip arthroscopy group were related to treatment, and the one in the personalised hip therapy group was not. There were no treatment-related deaths, but one patient in the hip arthroscopy group developed a hip joint infection after surgery. INTERPRETATION: Hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy both improved hip-related quality of life for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Hip arthroscopy led to a greater improvement than did personalised hip therapy, and this difference was clinically significant. Further follow-up will reveal whether the clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy are maintained and whether it is cost effective in the long term. FUNDING: The Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute of Health Research.

How outcome prediction could affect patient decision making in knee replacements: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is approximately a 17 % dissatisfaction rate with knee replacements. Calls for tools that can pre-operatively identify patients at risk of being dissatisfied have been widespread. However, it is not known how to present such information to patients, how it would affect their decision making process, and at what part of the pathway such a tool should be used. METHODS: Using focus groups involving 12 participants and in-depth interviews with 10 participants, we examined how individual predictions of outcome could affect patients' decision making by providing fictitious predictions to patients at different stages of treatment. A thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Our results demonstrate several interesting findings. Firstly, patients who have received information from friends and family are unwilling to adjust their expectation of outcome down (i.e. to a worse outcome), but highly willing to adjust it up (to a better outcome). This is an example of the optimism bias, and suggests that the effect on expectation of a poor outcome prediction would be blunted. Secondly, patients generally wanted a "bottom line" outcome, rather than lots of detail. Thirdly, patients who were earlier in their treatment for osteoarthritis were more likely to find the information useful, and it was more likely to affect their decision, than patients later in their treatment pathway. CONCLUSION: This research suggest that an outcome prediction tool would have most effect targeted towards people at the start of their treatment pathway, with a "bottom line" prediction of outcome. However, any effect on expectation and decision making of a poor outcome prediction is likely to be blunted by the optimism bias. These findings merit replication in a larger sample size.

Personalised Hip Therapy: development of a non-operative protocol to treat femoroacetabular impingement syndrome in the FASHIoN randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome is increasingly recognised as a cause of hip pain. As part of the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of arthroscopic surgery for FAI syndrome, we developed a protocol for non-operative care and evaluated its feasibility. METHODS: In phase one, we developed a protocol for non-operative care for FAI in the UK National Health Service (NHS), through a process of systematic review and consensus gathering. In phase two, the protocol was tested in an internal pilot RCT for protocol adherence and adverse events. RESULTS: The final protocol, called Personalised Hip Therapy (PHT), consists of four core components led by physiotherapists: detailed patient assessment, education and advice, help with pain relief and an exercise-based programme that is individualised, supervised and progressed over time. PHT is delivered over 12-26 weeks in 6-10 physiotherapist-patient contacts, supplemented by a home exercise programme. In the pilot RCT, 42 patients were recruited and 21 randomised to PHT. Review of treatment case report forms, completed by physiotherapists, showed that 13 patients (62%) received treatment that had closely followed the PHT protocol. 13 patients reported some muscle soreness at 6 weeks, but there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: PHT provides a structure for the non-operative care of FAI and offers guidance to clinicians and researchers in an evolving area with limited evidence. PHT was deliverable within the National Health Service, is safe, and now forms the comparator to arthroscopic surgery in the UK FASHIoN trial (ISRCTN64081839). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 09754699.

Retaining the general practitioner workforce in England: what matters to GPs? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The general practice (GP) workforce in England is in crisis, reflected in increasing rates of early retirement and intentions to reduce hours of working. This study aimed to investigate underlying factors and how these might be mitigated. METHODS: GPs in central England were invited to participate in an on-line survey exploring career plans and views and experiences of work-related pressures. Quantitative data were analysed using logistic regression analysis and principal components analysis. Qualitative data were analysed using a thematic framework approach. RESULTS: Of 1,192 GPs who participated, 978 (82.0 %) stated that they intend to leave general practice, take a career break and/or reduce clinical hours of work within the next five years. This included 488 (41.9 %) who intend to leave practice, and almost a quarter (279; 23.2 %) intending to take a career break. Only 67 (5.6 %) planned to increase their hours of clinical work. For participants planning to leave practice, the issues that most influenced intentions were volume and intensity of workload, time spent on "unimportant tasks", introduction of seven-day working and lack of job satisfaction. Four hundred fifty five participants responded to open questions (39128 words in total). The main themes were the cumulative impact of work-related pressures, the changing and growing nature of the workload, and the consequent stress. Reducing workload intensity, workload volume, administrative activities, with increased time for patient care, no out-of-hour commitments, more flexible working conditions and greater clinical autonomy were identified as the most important requirements to address the workforce crisis. In addition, incentive payments, increased pay and protected time for education and training were also rated as important. CONCLUSIONS: New models of professionalism and organisational arrangements may be needed to address the issues described here. Without urgent action, the GP workforce crisis in England seems set to worsen.

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.

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.

Sertraline for anxiety in adults with a diagnosis of autism (STRATA): study protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are commonly prescribed to manage anxiety in adults with an autism diagnosis. However, their effectiveness and adverse effect profile in the autistic population are not well known. This trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SSRI sertraline in reducing symptoms of anxiety and improving quality of life in adults with a diagnosis of autism compared with placebo and to quantify any adverse effects. METHODS: STRATA is a two-parallel group, multi-centre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial with allocation at the level of the individual. It will be delivered through recruiting sites with autism services in 4 regional centres in the United Kingdom (UK) and 1 in Australia. Adults with an autism diagnosis and a Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) score ≥ 10 at screening will be randomised 1:1 to either 25 mg sertraline or placebo, with subsequent flexible dose titration up to 200 mg. The primary outcome is GAD-7 scores at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, proportionate change in GAD-7 scores including 50% reduction, social anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, panic attacks, repetitive behaviours, meltdowns, depressive symptoms, composite depression and anxiety, functioning and disability and quality of life. Carer burden will be assessed in a linked carer sub-study. Outcome data will be collected using online/paper methods via video call, face-to-face or telephone according to participant preference at 16, 24 and 52 weeks post-randomisation, with brief safety checks and data collection at 1-2, 4, 8, 12 and 36 weeks. An economic evaluation to study the cost-effectiveness of sertraline vs placebo and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment and informed consent are embedded within the trial. Qualitative interviews at various times during the study will explore experiences of participating and taking the trial medication. DISCUSSION: Results from this study should help autistic adults and their clinicians make evidence-based decisions on the use of sertraline for managing anxiety in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15984604 . Registered on 08 February 2021. EudraCT 2019-004312-66. ANZCTR ACTRN12621000801819. Registered on 07 April 2021.

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.

Autistic adults' views on the design and processes within randomised controlled trials: The APRiCoT study.

LAY ABSTRACT: Large randomised controlled trials are used to test healthcare treatments. Yet there are no large randomised controlled trials on effective treatments for common mental health issues affecting autistic adults. The purpose of this study was to learn what autistic adults think about randomised controlled trials in preparation for a randomised controlled trial testing a medication for anxiety. This means we wanted to know their opinions about the way randomised controlled trials are done, such as how people are chosen to be in the study and how the study is carried out. We did this by talking to 49 autistic adults individually and asking them questions. We found that most of the people we talked to were okay with the way randomised controlled trials are done. They thought it was fair and they liked that it was based on evidence. However, some autistic people might find it hard to take part in randomised controlled trials. Some people did not like the uncertainty of not knowing what treatment they would receive in a randomised controlled trial. Others felt too vulnerable and may have had bad experiences with healthcare in the past. We found that it is important to involve autistic people early on and at every stage when designing a clinical trial. Care about how clear and precise the study communication is will build trust and improve access to research. Our study indicates that it is possible to conduct large randomised controlled trials with and for autistic people. This can ultimately contribute to the improvement of healthcare outcomes for this population.

Lockdown Experiences and Views on Future Research Participation of Autistic Adults in the UK During the First 6 Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in large-scale public health restrictions and lockdowns across many countries. There is an increasing literature on the varied impact of such lockdowns in autistic adults. However, there is very little research on how the pandemic and related public health measures may impact the willingness of autistic people in engaging and taking part in research. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore autistic adults' experiences of the COVID-19 lockdown and how the pandemic may affect future research participation. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 31 autistic adults between March and July 2020. Transcripts were analyzed thematically within a critical realism framework. Results: Participants identified positive aspects of lockdown such as enjoying the lack of social pressures and using their well-developed skills for dealing with uncertainty. Autistic people also shared challenges of adjusting to lockdown, for example, rapid change in daily routines. While hopeful about the freedom gained from easing restrictions, participants were concerned about the inconsistent communication and application of rules during the transition out of lockdown. This may have exacerbated already rising mental health issues among autistic people. The participants viewed research participation and engagement with increased relevance during the pandemic and welcomed efforts to conduct research using online methods of communication. Conclusion: The COVID-19 lockdown had a varied effect in the lives and routines of autistic people. However, health care providers and researchers need to be mindful of rising mental health issues in the aftermath of the pandemic, especially for people who were already vulnerable. The response to the pandemic may have offered opportunities for innovation in research processes enabling more autistic people to engage with research and making studies more inclusive.

Why is this an important issue?: We did not know how the pandemic and the strict restrictions that followed would affect autistic people's well-being and mental health.Also, there was a worry that the pandemic would affect the number of volunteers taking part in research that matters the most to autistic people. Thus, it was important to understand any implications for the way we conduct research with the autistic community after the pandemic. What was the purpose of this study?: We explored the experiences of autistic people living through the first 6 months of the COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom. We were particularly interested in autistic people's views on how the pandemic may affect them taking part in research. What did the researchers do?: We co-produced this interview study to answer our research questions. We carried out in-depth interviews with 31 autistic people. We looked for patterns or themes in what the participants said. What were the results of the study?: Autistic people we interviewed reported being able to enjoy a quieter pace of life. They felt less anxious early in the lockdown. But they also faced great challenges adjusting to changes in their daily routines. Inconsistent public health communication caused worry during the transition out of lockdown. Unnecessary stress might have led to worsening of mental health issues in some people. Our participants held positive views on taking part in and engage with research, despite the pandemic. We identified opportunities that could make research more inclusive for autistic people, for example, online methods for taking consent and taking part in research remotely. What do these findings add to what was already known?: Our study adds to the evidence of the varied responses of autistic people to the pandemic and the public health measures that it led to. One important strength of our work is our focus on the impact of the pandemic on research and implications of future research. We learnt that autistic people welcome and value the use of online technology to reach study participants. Wider use of remote technology can make research more inclusive and participatory. What are potential weaknesses in the study?: Many of our participants were already had experience participating in research. Also most had relatively high education levels. We did not include autistic people with intellectual disabilities. We did not collect information on ethnicity. Our sample is likely to have little ethnic diversity. How will these findings help autistic adults now or in the future?: We describe the experiences of autistic people in the face of unprecedented circumstances. We found the need for clear public health communication to avoid unnecessary stress. The pandemic has provided the opportunity for a wider use of remote methods of research, even in areas where this was not done in the past (e.g., clinical trials). Our study found that such approaches would make research more inclusive.

Non-COVID-19 UK clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic: impact, challenges and possible solutions.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the operationalisation of non-COVID-19 clinical trials globally, particularly site and participant recruitment and trial success/stoppage. Trials which anticipate recruitment challenges may embed methods such as the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to help identify and understand the sources of challenges. Such interventions can help shed light on pandemic-related challenges. This paper reports our experience of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on conducting clinical trials with an embedded QRI, highlighting how the QRI aided in identifying challenges and potential solutions, particularly related to the site set-up and participant recruitment. MAIN BODY: We report on 13 UK clinical trials which included a QRI. Information is from QRI data and researchers' experience and reflections. In most trials, recruitment was lower than even the lowest anticipated rates. The flexibility of the QRI facilitated rapid data collection to understand and document, and in some instances respond to, operational challenges. Challenges were mostly logistical, pandemic-related and beyond the control of the site or central trial teams. Specifically: disrupted and variable site opening timelines -often due to local research and development (R&D) delays- shortages of staff to recruit patients; fewer eligible patients or limited access to patients; and intervention-related factors. Almost all trials were affected by pandemic-related staffing issues including redeployment, prioritisation of COVID-19 care and research, and COVID-19-related staff illness and absence. Trials of elective procedures were particularly impacted by the pandemic, which caused changes to care/recruitment pathways, deprioritisation of services, reduced clinical and surgical capacity and longer waiting lists. Attempted solutions included extra engagement with staff and R&D departments, trial protocol changes (primarily moving online) and seeking additional resourcing. CONCLUSION: We have highlighted wide-ranging, extensive and consistent pandemic-related challenges faced by UK clinical trials, which the QRI helped to identify and, in some cases, address. Many challenges were insurmountable at individual trials or trials unit level. This overview highlights the need to streamline trial regulatory processes, address staffing crises, improve recognition of NHS research staff and for clearer, more nuanced central guidance on the prioritisation of studies and how to deal with the backlog. Pre-emptively embedding qualitative work and stakeholder consultation into trials with anticipated difficulties, moving some processes online, and flexible trial protocols may improve the resilience of trials in the current challenging context.

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.

Variations in policies for accessing elective musculoskeletal procedures in the English National Health Service: A documentary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of this study was to investigate how commissioning policies for accessing clinical procedures compare in the context of the English National Health Service. Our primary objective was to compare policy wording and categorise any variations identified. Our secondary objective was to explore how any points of variation relate to national guidance. METHODS: This study entailed documentary analysis of commissioning policies that stipulated criteria for accessing eight elective musculoskeletal procedures. For each procedure, we retrieved policies held by regions with higher and lower rates of clinical activity relative to the national average. Policies were subjected to content and thematic analysis, using constant comparison techniques. Matrices and descriptive reports were used to compare themes across policies for each procedure and derive categories of variation that arose across two or more procedures. National guidance relating to each procedure were identified and scrutinised, to explore whether these provided context for explaining the policy variations. RESULTS: Thirty-five policy documents held by 14 geographic regions were included in the analysis. Policies either focused on a single procedure/treatment or covered several procedures/treatments in an all-encompassing document. All policies stipulated criteria that needed to be fulfilled prior to accessing treatment, but there were inconsistences in the evidence cited. Policies varied in recurring ways, with respect to specification of non-surgical treatments and management, requirements around time spent using non-surgical approaches, diagnostic requirements, requirements around symptom severity and disease progression, and use of language, in the form of terms and phrases ('threshold modifiers') which could open up or restrict access to care. National guidance was identified for seven of the procedures, but this guidance did not specify criteria for accessing the procedures in question, making direct comparisons with regional policies difficult. CONCLUSIONS: This, to our knowledge, is the first study to identify recurring ways in which policies for accessing treatment can vary within a single-payer system with universal coverage. The findings raise questions around whether formulation of commissioning policies should receive more central support to promote greater consistency - especially where evidence is uncertain, variable or lacking.

Arthroscopic hip surgery compared with personalised hip therapy in people over 16 years old with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: UK FASHIoN RCT.

BACKGROUND: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery or with physiotherapist-led conservative care. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care. DESIGN: The UK FASHIoN (full trial of arthroscopic surgery for hip impingement compared with non-operative care) trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial that was carried out at 23 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were included if they had femoroacetabular impingement, were aged ≥ 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology (but no osteoarthritis) and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to receive hip arthroscopy followed by postoperative physiotherapy, or personalised hip therapy (i.e. an individualised physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre using a central telephone randomisation service. Outcome assessment and analysis were masked. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between July 2012 and July 2016, 648 eligible patients were identified and 348 participants were recruited. In total, 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 participants were allocated to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% (N = 319; hip arthroscopy, n = 157; personalised hip therapy, n = 162). At 12 months, mean International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) score had improved from 39.2 (standard deviation 20.9) points to 58.8 (standard deviation 27.2) points for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35.6 (standard deviation 18.2) points to 49.7 (standard deviation 25.5) points for participants in personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in International Hip Outcome Tool scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline International Hip Outcome Tool score and centre, was 6.8 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 12.0) points in favour of hip arthroscopy (p = 0.0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6.1 points). Five (83%) of six serious adverse events in the hip arthroscopy group were related to treatment and one serious adverse event in the personalised hip therapy group was not. Thirty-eight (24%) personalised hip therapy patients chose to have hip arthroscopy between 1 and 3 years after randomisation. Nineteen (12%) hip arthroscopy patients had a revision arthroscopy. Eleven (7%) personalised hip therapy patients and three (2%) hip arthroscopy patients had a hip replacement within 3 years. LIMITATIONS: Study participants and treating clinicians were not blinded to the intervention arm. Delays were encountered in participants accessing treatment, particularly surgery. Follow-up lasted for 3 years. CONCLUSION: Hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy both improved hip-related quality of life for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Hip arthroscopy led to a greater improvement in quality of life than personalised hip therapy, and this difference was clinically significant at 12 months. This study does not demonstrate cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy compared with personalised hip therapy within the first 12 months. Further follow-up will reveal whether or not the clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy are maintained and whether or not it is cost-effective in the long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN64081839. 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. 26, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In some people, the ball and the socket of the hip joint develop so that they do not fit together properly. This is called hip impingement, and is an important cause of hip and groin pain in young and middle-aged adults. Treatments include physiotherapy and surgery. Physiotherapy typically involves a programme of 6­10 outpatient consultations that aim to strengthen the muscles around the hip: we called this personalised hip therapy. Surgery can be carried out by a keyhole operation, called a hip arthroscopy, which aims to reshape the hip to prevent impingement. Surgery is normally followed by some physiotherapy. We performed a research study to compare the results of hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy in people with hip impingement. A total of 348 people with painful hip impingement in 23 hospitals in the UK agreed to take part. About half were treated with hip arthroscopy and half with personalised hip therapy. We used questionnaires to ask participants about pain in the hip and their ability to do everyday things at 6 months and 1 year after entering the study. At 2 and 3 years, we asked if patients required any additional treatments. We found that both groups improved, but those treated with hip arthroscopy improved a moderate amount more than those treated with personalised hip therapy. However, these improvements were not cost-effective compared with personalised hip therapy at 1 year. We need to see whether or not this difference continues after several years, but the results, so far, suggest that if a person has painful hip impingement, then hip arthroscopy offers greater improvements than personalised hip therapy.

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.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a common cause of cancer death worldwide. If the disease is caught early, the part of the lung containing the tumour can be removed in an operation called a lobectomy. The operation can be carried out through a large cut so that the surgeon has a full view of the lung, which is called open surgery, or using several small cuts and a camera, which is called video-assisted thoracoscopic (keyhole) surgery. It is thought that, as keyhole surgery is less invasive, patients recover quicker. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no high-quality research studies that are applicable to UK practice to support this. This study was conducted so that it could be determined, based on high-quality evidence, which operation provides the best treatment and recovery for patients. WHO PARTICIPATED?: Five hundred and three adults referred for lobectomy for known or suspected lung cancer from nine hospitals in the UK. WHAT WAS INVOLVED?: Participants were randomly allocated to either receive keyhole or open surgery. Participants were followed up for 12 months. We collected information on further treatment, hospital visits, safety information and disease progression over this period. Participants were also asked to complete questionnaires about their health and recovery. WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: For patients with early-stage lung cancer who underwent a lobectomy, keyhole surgery led to less pain, less time in hospital and better quality of life than open surgery, without having a detrimental effect on cancer progression or survival. Keyhole surgery was found to be cost-effective and to provide excellent value for money for the NHS.

Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic or Open Lobectomy in Early-Stage Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is limited randomized evidence on the comparative outcomes of early-stage lung cancer resection by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) versus open resection. METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group multicenter randomized trial that recruited participants with known or suspected early-stage lung cancer and randomly assigned them to open or VATS resection of their lesions. The primary outcome was physical function at 5 weeks as a measure of recovery using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core health-related quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better function; the clinical minimally important difference for improvement is 5 points). We followed the patients for an additional 47 weeks for other outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 503 participants were randomly assigned (247 to VATS and 256 to open lobectomy). At 5 weeks, median physical function was 73 in the VATS group and 67 in the open surgery group, with a mean difference of 4.65 points (95% confidence interval, 1.69 to 7.61). Of the participants allocated to VATS, 30.7% had serious adverse events after discharge compared with 37.8% of those allocated to open surgery (risk ratio, 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 1.00]). At 52 weeks, there were no differences in cancer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.74 [0.43 to 1.27]) or overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.67 [0.32 to 1.40]). CONCLUSIONS: VATS lobectomy for lung cancer is associated with a better recovery of physical function in the 5 weeks after random assignment compared with open surgery. Long-term oncologic outcomes will require continued follow-up to assess. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme [reference number 13/04/03]; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN13472721.)

Perceptions and experiences of co-delivery model for self-management training for clinicians working with patients with long-term conditions at three healthcare economies in U.K.

This paper presents a case study evaluation of self-management training courses for clinicians working with patients with COPD and Depression, at three NHS sites in United Kingdom. These courses were part of the Health Foundation's Co-Creating Health Initiative project and were co-delivered by a trained patient and clinician tutors. Interviews with 30 clinician attendees, four clinician tutors and two patient tutors suggested that the course content and delivery style were valued by everyone and clinicians reported a higher use of self-management skills following training. Analyses of the video-recorded consultation sessions of two trained clinicians showed limited use of co-production skills.

Barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial comparing two surgical procedures for ankle arthritis : a qualitative study.

AIMS: A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial. METHODS: We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment. RESULTS: Recruiters faced four common obstacles when recruiting to a surgical orthopaedic trial: patient preferences for an intervention; a complex recruitment pathway; various logistical issues; and conflicting views on equipoise. Clinicians expressed concerns that the trial may not show significant differences in the treatments, validating their equipoise. However, they experienced role conflicts due to their own preference and perceived patient preference for an intervention arm. CONCLUSION: This study provided initial information about barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial. We shared these findings in an all-site investigators' meeting and encouraged researchers to find solutions to identified barriers; this led to the successful completion of recruitment. Complex trials may benefit for using of a mixed-methods approach to mitigate against recruitment failure, and to improve patient participation and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):631-637.