Lumbar spine fusion surgery versus best conservative care for patients with severe, persistent low back pain.

Aims: People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians' views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial). Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials. Results: There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%). Conclusion: This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK.

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.

The OdonAssist inflatable device for assisted vaginal birth-the ASSIST II study (United Kingdom).

BACKGROUND: Decreasing rates of assisted vaginal birth have been paralleled with increasing rates of cesarean deliveries over the last 40 years. The OdonAssist is a novel device for assisted vaginal birth. Iterative changes to clinical parameters, device design, and technique have been made to improve device efficacy and usability. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the OdonAssist device were sufficient to justify conducting a future randomized controlled trial. STUDY DESIGN: An open-label nonrandomized study of 104 participants having a clinically indicated assisted vaginal birth using the OdonAssist was undertaken at Southmead Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom. Data were also collected from participants who consented to participate in the study but for whom trained OdonAssist operators were not available, providing a nested cohort. The primary clinical outcome was the proportion of births successfully expedited with the OdonAssist. Secondary outcomes included clinical, patient-reported, operator-reported, device and health care utilization. Neonatal outcome data were reviewed at day 28, and maternal outcomes were investigated up to day 90. Given that the number of successful OdonAssist births was ≥61 out of 104, the hypothesis of a poor rate of 50% was rejected in favor of a good rate of ≥65%. RESULTS: Between August 2019 and June 2021, 941 (64%) of the 1471 approached, eligible participants consented to participate. Of these, 104 received the OdonAssist intervention. Birth was assisted in all cephalic vertex fetal positions, at all stations ≥1 cm below the ischial spines (with or without regional analgesia). The OdonAssist was effective in 69 of the 104 (66%) cases, consistent with the hypothesis of a good efficacy rate. There were no serious device-related maternal or neonatal adverse reactions, and there were no serious adverse device effects. Only 4% of neonatal soft tissue bruising in the successful OdonAssist group was considered device-related, as opposed to 20% and 23% in the unsuccessful OdonAssist group and the nested cohort, respectively. Participants reported high birth perception scores. All practitioners found the device use to be straightforward. CONCLUSION: Recruitment to an interventional study of a new device for assisted vaginal birth is feasible; 64% of eligible participants were willing to participate. The success rate of the OdonAssist was comparable to that of the Kiwi OmniCup when introduced in the same unit in 2002, meeting the threshold for a randomized controlled trial to compare the OdonAssist with current standard practice. There were no disadvantages of study participation in terms of maternal and neonatal outcomes. There were potential advantages of using the OdonAssist, particularly reduced neonatal soft tissue injury. The same application technique is used for all fetal positions, with all operators deeming the device straightforward to use. This study provides important data to inform future study design.

Exploring the experiences and perceptions of patients awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery: An integrated qualitative study within the POWER pilot and feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: As waiting times for orthopaedic surgery increase, there have been calls to move from 'waiting lists' to 'preparation lists', to better prepare patients for surgery. In this context, a pilot randomised controlled trial (POWER) was conducted, comparing physiotherapist-led exercise to waiting-list control (usual care), for patients awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery. This qualitative study was integrated within the pilot trial. OBJECTIVES: Explore the experiences of adults awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery in the NHS. Explore the acceptability of the physiotherapist-led exercise intervention. Explore the barriers and enablers to recruitment, retention, and adherence. DESIGN: Integrated qualitative study with semi-structured telephone interviews. METHODS: Adults awaiting rotator cuff repair, consenting to participate in the trial were eligible. Sampling was purposive regarding age, gender, randomised allocation, and hospital site. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: 20 participants were recruited (age range 49-81 years; 12 male, 10 randomised to physiotherapist-led exercise). Many participants were unable to recall their experiences of trial processes; nonetheless, three themes were identified from the data: experience of shoulder pain and pathway to treatment; communication and decision-making in the context of rotator cuff repair surgery; and experiences of the POWER physiotherapist-led exercise intervention and processes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients experience significant burden due to shoulder pain. Their journey to surgery can be long, confusing, and associated with perceived abandonment. In a future trial, the intervention should offer opportunity for shared decision-making, optional exit from the surgical pathway, and an individualised exercise programme.

Physiotherapist-led exercise versus usual care (waiting-list) control for patients awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery: A pilot randomised controlled trial (POWER).

BACKGROUND: Once a decision to undergo rotator cuff repair surgery is made, patients are placed on the waiting list. It can take weeks or months to receive surgery. There has been a call to move from waiting lists to 'preparation' lists to better prepare patients for surgery and to ensure it remains an appropriate treatment option for them. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility, as measured by recruitment rates, treatment fidelity and follow-up rates, of a future multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of undertaking a physiotherapist-led exercise programme while waiting for surgery versus usual care (waiting-list control). DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-centre pilot randomised controlled trial with feasibility objectives in six NHS hospitals in England. METHOD: Adults (n = 76) awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery were recruited and randomly allocated to a programme of physiotherapist-led exercise (n = 38) or usual care control (n = 38). RESULTS: Of 302 eligible patients, 76 (25%) were randomised. Of 38 participants randomised to physiotherapist-led exercise, 28 (74%) received the exercise programme as intended. 51/76 (67%) Shoulder Pain and Disability Index questionnaires were returned at 6-months. Of 76 participants, 32 had not received surgery after 6-months (42%). Of those 32, 20 were allocated to physiotherapist-led exercise; 12 to usual care control. CONCLUSIONS: A future multi-centre randomised controlled trial is feasible but would require planning for variable recruitment rates between sites, measures to improve treatment fidelity and opportunity for surgical exit, and optimisation of follow-up. A fully powered, randomised controlled trial is now needed to robustly inform clinical decision-making.

Duroplasty for injured cervical spinal cord with uncontrolled swelling: protocol of the DISCUS randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical traumatic spinal cord injury is a devastating condition. Current management (bony decompression) may be inadequate as after acute severe TSCI, the swollen spinal cord may become compressed against the surrounding tough membrane, the dura. DISCUS will test the hypothesis that, after acute, severe traumatic cervical spinal cord injury, the addition of dural decompression to bony decompression improves muscle strength in the limbs at 6 months, compared with bony decompression alone. METHODS: This is a prospective, phase III, multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial. We aim to recruit 222 adults with acute, severe, traumatic cervical spinal cord injury with an American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade A, B, or C who will be randomized 1:1 to undergo bony decompression alone or bony decompression with duroplasty. Patients and outcome assessors are blinded to study arm. The primary outcome is change in the motor score at 6 months vs. admission; secondary outcomes assess function (grasp, walking, urinary + anal sphincters), quality of life, complications, need for further surgery, and mortality, at 6 months and 12 months from randomization. A subgroup of at least 50 patients (25/arm) also has observational monitoring from the injury site using a pressure probe (intraspinal pressure, spinal cord perfusion pressure) and/or microdialysis catheter (cord metabolism: tissue glucose, lactate, pyruvate, lactate to pyruvate ratio, glutamate, glycerol; cord inflammation: tissue chemokines/cytokines). Patients are recruited from the UK and internationally, with UK recruitment supported by an integrated QuinteT recruitment intervention to optimize recruitment and informed consent processes. Estimated study duration is 72 months (6 months set-up, 48 months recruitment, 12 months to complete follow-up, 6 months data analysis and reporting results). DISCUSSION: We anticipate that the addition of duroplasty to standard of care will improve muscle strength; this has benefits for patients and carers, as well as substantial gains for health services and society including economic implications. If the addition of duroplasty to standard treatment is beneficial, it is anticipated that duroplasty will become standard of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRAS: 292031 (England, Wales, Northern Ireland) - Registration date: 24 May 2021, 296518 (Scotland), ISRCTN: 25573423 (Registration date: 2 June 2021); ClinicalTrials.gov number : NCT04936620 (Registration date: 21 June 2021); NIHR CRN 48627 (Registration date: 24 May 2021).

Feasibility of comparing medical management and surgery (with neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) with medical management alone in people with symptomatic brain cavernoma - protocol for the Cavernomas: A Randomised Effectiveness (CARE) pilot trial.

INTRODUCTION: The top research priority for cavernoma, identified by a James Lind Alliance Priority setting partnership was 'Does treatment (with neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) or no treatment improve outcome for people diagnosed with a cavernoma?' This pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to determine the feasibility of answering this question in a main phase RCT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a pilot phase, parallel group, pragmatic RCT involving approximately 60 children or adults with mental capacity, resident in the UK or Ireland, with an unresected symptomatic brain cavernoma. Participants will be randomised by web-based randomisation 1:1 to treatment with medical management and with surgery (neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) versus medical management alone, stratified by prerandomisation preference for type of surgery. In addition to 13 feasibility outcomes, the primary clinical outcome is symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage or new persistent/progressive focal neurological deficit measured at 6 monthly intervals. An integrated QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) evaluates screening logs, audio recordings of recruitment discussions, and interviews with recruiters and patients/parents/carers to identify and address barriers to participation. A Patient Advisory Group has codesigned the study and will oversee its progress. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber-Leeds East Research Ethics Committee (21/YH/0046). We will submit manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals, describing the findings of the QRI and the Cavernomas: A Randomised Evaluation (CARE) pilot trial. We will present at national specialty meetings. We will disseminate a plain English summary of the findings of the CARE pilot trial to participants and public audiences with input from, and acknowledgement of, the Patient Advisory Group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN41647111.

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.

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.

Women's and midwives' views on the optimum process for informed consent for research in a feasibility study involving an intrapartum intervention: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment to intrapartum research is complex. Women are expected to understand unfamiliar terminology and assess potential harm versus benefit to their baby and themselves, often when an urgent intervention is required. Time pressures of intrapartum interventions are a major challenge for recruitment discussions taking place during labour, with research midwives expected to present, discuss and answer questions whilst maintaining equipoise. However, little is known about these interactions. An integrated qualitative study (IQS) was used to investigate information provision for women invited to participate in the Assist II feasibility study investigating the OdonAssist™-a novel device for use in assisted vaginal birth with an aim to generate a framework of good practice for information provision. METHODS: Transcripts of in-depth interviews with women participants (n = 25), with recruiting midwives (n = 6) and recruitment discussions between midwives and women (n = 21), accepting or declining participation, were coded and interpreted using thematic analysis and content analysis to investigate what was helpful to women and what could be improved. RESULTS: Recruiting women to intrapartum research is complicated by factors that impact on women's understanding and decision-making. Three key themes were derived from the data: (i) a woman-centred recruitment process, (ii) optimising the recruitment discussion and (iii) making a decision for two. CONCLUSION: Despite evidence from the literature that women would like information provision and the research discussion to take place in the antenatal period, intrapartum studies still vary in the recruitment processes they offer women. Particularly concerning is that some women are given information for the first time whilst in labour, when they are known to feel particularly vulnerable, and contextual factors may influence decision-making; therefore, we propose a framework for good practice for information provision for research involving interventions initiated in the intrapartum period as a woman centred, and acceptable model of recruitment, which addresses the concerns of women and midwives and facilitates fair inclusion into intrapartum trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN. This qualitative research was undertaken as part of the ASSIST II Trial (trial registration number: ISRCTN38829082. Prospectively registered on 26/06/2019).

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.

Complex and alternate consent pathways in clinical trials: methodological and ethical challenges encountered by underserved groups and a call to action.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is considered a fundamental requirement for participation in trials, yet obtaining consent is challenging in a number of populations and settings. This may be due to participants having communication or other disabilities, their capacity to consent fluctuates or they lack capacity, or in emergency situations where their medical condition or the urgent nature of the treatment precludes seeking consent from either the participant or a representative. These challenges, and the subsequent complexity of designing and conducting trials where alternative consent pathways are required, contribute to these populations being underserved in research. Recognising and addressing these challenges is essential to support trials involving these populations and ensure that they have an equitable opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, research. Given the complex nature of these challenges, which are encountered by both adults and children, a cross-disciplinary approach is required. DISCUSSION: A UK-wide collaboration, a sub-group of the Trial Conduct Working Group in the MRC-NIHR Trial Methodology Research Partnership, was formed to collectively address these challenges. Members are drawn from disciplines including bioethics, qualitative research, trials methodology, healthcare professions, and social sciences. This commentary draws on our collective expertise to identify key populations where particular methodological and ethical challenges around consent are encountered, articulate the specific issues arising in each population, summarise ongoing and completed research, and identify targets for future research. Key populations include people with communication or other disabilities, people whose capacity to consent fluctuates, adults who lack the capacity to consent, and adults and children in emergency and urgent care settings. Work is ongoing by the sub-group to create a database of resources, to update NIHR guidance, and to develop proposals to address identified research gaps. CONCLUSION: Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, organisations, and countries is essential if the ethical and methodological challenges surrounding trials involving complex and alternate consent pathways are to be addressed. Explicating these challenges, sharing resources, and identifying gaps for future research is an essential first step. We hope that doing so will serve as a call to action for others seeking ways to address the current consent-based exclusion of underserved populations from trials.

Patient-Reported Outcomes 12 Years after Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Long-term patient-reported outcomes are needed to inform treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes of 1643 randomly assigned participants in the ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial were evaluated to assess the functional and quality-of-life impacts of prostatectomy, radiotherapy with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation, and active monitoring. This article focuses on the outcomes of the randomly assigned participants from 7 to 12 years using mixed effects linear and logistic models. RESULTS: Response rates exceeded 80% for most measures. Among the randomized groups over 7 to 12 years, generic quality-of-life scores were similar. Among those in the prostatectomy group, urinary leakage requiring pads occurred in 18 to 24% of patients over 7 to 12 years, compared with 9 to 11% in the active monitoring group and 3 to 8% in the radiotherapy group. In the prostatectomy group, 18% reported erections sufficient for intercourse at 7 years, compared with 30% in the active monitoring and 27% in the radiotherapy groups; all converged to low levels of potency by year 12. Nocturia (voiding at least twice per night) occurred in 34% in the prostatectomy group compared with 48% in the radiotherapy group and 47% in the active monitoring group at 12 years. Fecal leakage affected 12% in the radiotherapy group compared with 6% in the other groups by year 12. The active monitoring group experienced gradual age-related declines in sexual and urinary function, avoiding radical treatment effects unless they changed management. CONCLUSIONS: ProtecT provides robust evidence about continued impacts of treatments in the long term. These data allow patients newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their clinicians to assess the trade-offs between treatment harms and benefits and enable better informed and prudent treatment decisions. (Funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme projects 96/20/06 and 96/20/99; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN20141297; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172.)

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).

Novel device for assisted vaginal birth: using integrated qualitative case study methodology to optimise Odon Device use within a feasibility study in a maternity unit in the Southwest of England.

OBJECTIVE: When novel devices are used 'in human' for the first time, their optimal use is uncertain because clinicians only have experience from preclinical studies. This study aimed to investigate factors that might optimise use of the Odon Device for assisted vaginal birth. DESIGN: We undertook qualitative case studies within the ASSIST Study, a feasibility study of the Odon Device. Each 'case' was defined as one use of the device and included at least one of the following: observation of the attempted assisted birth, and an interview with the obstetrician, midwife or woman. Data collection and thematic analysis ran iteratively and in parallel. SETTING: Tertiary referral National Health Service maternity unit in the Southwest of England. PARTICIPANTS: Women requiring a clinically indicated assisted vaginal birth. INTERVENTION: The Odon Device, an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Determining the optimal device technique, device design and defining clinical parameters for use. RESULTS: Thirty-nine cases involving an attempted Odon-assisted birth were included in this study, of which 19 resulted in a successful birth with the device. Factors that improved use included optimisation of device technique, device design and clinical parameters for use. Technique adaptations included: applying the device during, rather than between, contractions; having a flexible approach to the application angle; and deflating the air cuff sooner than originally proposed. Three design modifications were proposed involving the deflation button and sleeve. Although use of the device was found to be appropriate in all fetal positions, it was considered contraindicated when the fetal station was at the ischial spines. CONCLUSIONS: Case study methodology facilitated the acquisition of rapid insights into device function in clinical practice, providing key insights regarding use, design and key clinical parameters for success. This methodology should be considered whenever innovative devices are introduced into clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10203171.

The high-volume haemodiafiltration vs high-flux haemodialysis registry trial (H4RT): a multi-centre, unblinded, randomised, parallel-group, superiority study to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high-volume haemodiafiltration and high-flux haemodialysis in people with kidney failure on maintenance dialysis using linkage to routine healthcare databases for outcomes.

BACKGROUND: More than a third of the 65,000 people living with kidney failure in the UK attend a dialysis unit 2-5 times a week to have their blood cleaned for 3-5 h. In haemodialysis (HD), toxins are removed by diffusion, which can be enhanced using a high-flux dialyser. This can be augmented with convection, as occurs in haemodiafiltration (HDF), and improved outcomes have been reported in people who are able to achieve high volumes of convection. This study compares the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of high-volume HDF compared with high-flux HD in the treatment of kidney failure. METHODS: This is a UK-based, multi-centre, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Adult patients already receiving HD or HDF will be randomised 1:1 to high-volume HDF (aiming for 21+ L of substitution fluid adjusted for body surface area) or high-flux HD. Exclusion criteria include lack of capacity to consent, life expectancy less than 3 months, on HD/HDF for less than 4 weeks, planned living kidney donor transplant or home dialysis scheduled within 3 months, prior intolerance of HDF and not suitable for high-volume HDF for other clinical reasons. The primary outcome is a composite of non-cancer mortality or hospital admission with a cardiovascular event or infection during follow-up (minimum 32 months, maximum 91 months) determined from routine data. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular- and infection-related morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and environmental impact. Baseline data will be collected by research personnel on-site. Follow-up data will be collected by linkage to routine healthcare databases - Hospital Episode Statistics, Civil Registration, Public Health England and the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) in England, and equivalent databases in Scotland and Wales, as necessary - and centrally administered patient-completed questionnaires. In addition, research personnel on-site will monitor for adverse events and collect data on adherence to the protocol (monthly during recruitment and quarterly during follow-up). DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HD as compared to HDF for adults with kidney failure in-centre HD or HDF. It will inform management for this patient group in the UK and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10997319 . Registered on 10 October 2017.

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.

Functional and quality of life outcomes of localised prostate cancer treatments (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment [ProtecT] study).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of treatments for localised prostate cancer and inform treatment decision-making. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men aged 50-69 years diagnosed with localised prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen testing and biopsies at nine UK centres in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial were randomised to, or chose one of, three treatments. Of 2565 participants, 1135 men received active monitoring (AM), 750 a radical prostatectomy (RP), 603 external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and 77 low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT, not a randomised treatment). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed annually for 6 years were analysed by initial treatment and censored for subsequent treatments. Mixed effects models were adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. RESULTS: Treatment-received analyses revealed different impacts of treatments over 6 years. Men remaining on AM experienced gradual declines in sexual and urinary function with age (e.g., increases in erectile dysfunction from 35% of men at baseline to 53% at 6 years and nocturia similarly from 20% to 38%). Radical treatment impacts were immediate and continued over 6 years. After RP, 95% of men reported erectile dysfunction persisting for 85% at 6 years, and after EBRT this was reported by 69% and 74%, respectively (P < 0.001 compared with AM). After RP, 36% of men reported urinary leakage requiring at least 1 pad/day, persisting for 20% at 6 years, compared with no change in men receiving EBRT or AM (P < 0.001). Worse bowel function and bother (e.g., bloody stools 6% at 6 years and faecal incontinence 10%) was experienced by men after EBRT than after RP or AM (P < 0.001) with lesser effects after BT. No treatment affected mental or physical QoL. CONCLUSION: Treatment decision-making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6-year functional and QoL outcomes.

Women's experiences of the Odon Device to assist vaginal birth and participation in intrapartum research: a qualitative study in a maternity unit in the Southwest of England.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate women's experiences of having a birth assisted by the Odon Device (an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth) and participation in intrapartum research. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews and observations undertaken in the context of case study work embedded in the ASSIST feasibility study. SETTING: A tertiary referral National Health Service (NHS) maternity unit in the Southwest of England, between 8 October 2018 and 26 January 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Eight women, four operators and 11 midwives participated with eight observations of the assisted vaginal birth, eight interviews with women in the postnatal period, 39 interviews/reflections with operators and 19 interviews with midwives. Women in the case study research were recruited from participants in the main ASSIST Study. INTERVENTION: The Odon Device, an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth. RESULTS: Thirty-nine case studies were undertaken. Triangulation of data sources (participant observation, interviews with women, operators and midwives) enabled the exploration of women's experiences of the Odon Device and recruitment in the intrapartum trial. Experiences were overwhelmingly positive. Women were motivated to take part by a wish for a kinder birth, and because they perceived both the recruitment and research processes (including observation) to be highly acceptable, regardless of whether the Odon-assisted birth was successful or not. CONCLUSIONS: Interviews and observations from multiple stakeholders enabled insight into women's experiences of an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth. Applying these qualitative methods more broadly may illuminate perspectives of key stakeholders in future intrapartum intervention research and beyond. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10203171; ASSIST Study registration; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10203171.

A study protocol of 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 data sets, thus maximising scientific findings and cost effectiveness, and reducing research waste. The value of sharing anonymised data from clinical trials is well recognised with a moderated access approach recommended. While substantial challenges to data sharing remain, there are additional challenges for qualitative data. Qualitative data including videos, interviews, and observations are often more readily identifiable than quantitative data. Existing guidance from UK Economic and Social Research Council applies to sharing qualitative data but does not address the additional challenges related to sharing qualitative data collected within trials, including the need to incorporate the necessary information and consent into already complex recruitment processes, with the additional sensitive nature of health-related data. Methods: Work package 1 will involve separate focus group interviews with members of each stakeholder group: trial managers, clinical trialists, qualitative researchers, members of research funding bodies and trial participants who have been involved in qualitative research. Data will be analysed using thematic analysis and managed within QSR NVivo to enhance transparency. Work package 2 will involve a documentary analysis of current consent procedures for qualitative data collected as part of the conduct of clinical trials. We will include documents such as participant information leaflets and consent forms for the qualitative components in trials. We will extract data such as whether specific clauses for data sharing are included in the consent form. Content analysis will be used to analyse whether and how consent is being obtained for qualitative data sharing. Conclusions: This study will provide insight into the existing practice of sharing of qualitative data in clinical trials and the current issues and opportunities, to help shape future research and development of guidance to encourage maximum learning to be gained from this valuable data.