Technology for fast-tracking high-risk head and neck cancer referrals: Co-designing with patients.

BACKGROUND: Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) is the eighth most prevalent global cancer. Timely recognition of symptoms is crucial for reducing mortality rates. The EVolution of a patiEnt-REported symptom-based risk stratification sySTem to redesign the suspected Head and Neck cancer referral pathway (EVEREST-HN) study aims to develop and evaluate a risk stratification tool using patient reported symptoms, which will be populated remotely in the community before the patient is seen by the clinician to hasten HNC diagnosis. EVEREST-HN will design a patient SYmptom iNput Clinical (SYNC) system to gather patient symptom data and calculate a risk score to aid clinicians in identifying high-risk cases. This identification potentially allows for high-risk patients to be seen sooner, thereby improving patient outcomes. METHODS: Three workshop sessions were conducted involving a total of 17 unique participants, with several contributing to multiple sessions: nine in the co-design session, six in the validation session, and nine in the evaluation session. The co-design session employed online collaboration with patients' representatives. Thematic analysis was used to identify requirements and concerns informing the development of a low-fidelity prototype. The validation session assessed whether the prototype aligned with patient expectations. In the evaluation session, participants interacted with an online prototype and provided further feedback. RESULTS: During the co-design workshop, participants emphasized the need for a concise and clear SYNC system questionnaire for reporting suspected HNC symptoms. Concerns were raised about questionnaire length, language clarity, and the inclusion of probing questions. Participants suggested concise questions using lay language, incorporating visual aids for topics like alcohol and tobacco use, and making the sexual activity question optional. Recommendations included diverse language options, hard copies for non-English speakers, and phone call options for those uncomfortable with screen-based technology. The validation workshop confirmed that the prototype reflected participants' ideas. Feedback highlighted the need for call-back features to help those not confident with technology and the need to present symptom questions first before social background questions. Feedback from the evaluation demonstrated a commitment to efficiency, and continuous improvement. CONCLUSION: This study aims to develop the SYNC system to enhance efficiency of suspected HNC referrals. The workshops highlighted the importance of end-user inclusiveness in the system development life cycle, with collaboration with stakeholders and repeated feedback, providing crucial insights for ensuring the SYNC system effectively addresses the needs and concerns of patients in the context of HNC diagnosis.

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

BACKGROUND: The number of surgical trials is increasing but such trials can be complex to deliver and pose specific challenges. A multi-centre, Phase III, RCT comparing Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of Cervical Brachialgia (FORVAD Trial) was unable to recruit to target. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during trial closedown to understand the experiences of healthcare professionals who participated in the FORVAD Trial, with the aim of informing future research in this area. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 healthcare professionals who had participated in the FORVAD Trial. Interviews explored participants' experiences of the FORVAD trial. A rapid qualitative analysis was conducted, informed by Normalisation Process Theory. RESULTS: Four main themes were generated in the data analysis: (1) individual vs. community equipoise; (2) trial set-up and delivery; (3) identifying and approaching patients; and (4) timing of randomisation. The objectives of the FORVAD trial made sense to participants and they supported the idea that there was clinical or collective equipoise regarding the two FORVAD interventions; however, many surgeons had treatment preferences and lacked individual equipoise. The site which had most recruitment success had adopted a more structured process for identification and recruitment of patients, whereas other sites that adopted more "ad hoc" screening strategies struggled to identify patients. Randomisation on the day of surgery caused both medico-legal and practical concerns at some sites. CONCLUSIONS: Organisation and implementation of a surgical trial in neurosurgery is complex and presents many challenges. Sites often reported low recruitment and discussed the logistical issues of conducting a complex surgical RCT. Future trials in neurosurgery may need to offer more flexibility and time during set-up to maximise opportunities for larger recruitment numbers. Rapid qualitative analysis informed by Normalisation Process Theory was able to quickly identify key issues with trial implementation so rapid qualitative analysis may be a useful approach for teams conducting qualitative research in trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN reference: 10,133,661. Registered 23rd November 2018.

Acceptability of Four Intervention Components Supporting Medication Adherence in Women with Breast Cancer: a Process Evaluation of a Fractional Factorial Pilot Optimization Trial.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) reduces mortality in early-stage breast cancer, but adherence is low. We developed a multicomponent intervention to support AET adherence comprising: text messages, information leaflet, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and side-effect website. Guided by the multiphase optimization strategy, the intervention components were tested in the ROSETA pilot optimization trial. Our mixed-methods process evaluation investigated component acceptability. The pilot optimization trial used a 24-1 fractional factorial design. Fifty-two women prescribed AET were randomized to one of eight experimental conditions, containing unique component combinations. An acceptability questionnaire was administered 4 months post-randomization, and semi-structured interviews with 20 participants further explored acceptability. Assessments were guided by four constructs of the theoretical framework of acceptability: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, and coherence. Quantitative and qualitative findings were triangulated to identify agreements/disagreements. There were high overall acceptability scores (median = 14-15/20, range = 11-20). There was agreement between the qualitative and quantitative findings when triangulated. Most participants "liked" or "strongly liked" all components and reported they required low effort to engage in. Between 50% (leaflet) and 65% (SMS) "agreed" or "strongly agreed," it was clear how each component would help adherence. Perceived effectiveness was mixed, with 35.0% (text messages) to 55.6% (ACT) of participants "agreeing" or "strongly agreeing" that each component would improve their adherence. Interview data provided suggestions for improvements. The four components were acceptable to women with breast cancer and will be refined. Mixed-methods and triangulation were useful methodological approaches and could be applied in other optimization trial process evaluations.

Nomenclature of the symptoms of head and neck cancer: a systematic scoping review.

Introduction: Evolution of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system to redesign the suspected head and neck cancer (HNC) referral pathway (EVEREST-HN) will use a broad and open approach to the nomenclature and symptomatology. It aims to capture and utilise the patient reported symptoms in a modern way to identify patients' clinical problems more effectively and risk stratify the patient. Method: The review followed the PRISMA checklist for scoping reviews. A search strategy was carried out using Medline, Embase and Web of Science between January 1st 2012 and October 31st 2023. All titles, abstracts and full paper were screened for eligibility, papers were assessed for inclusion using predetermined criteria. Data was extracted pertaining to the aims, type of study, cancer type, numbers of patients included and symptoms, presenting complaints or signs and symptoms. Results: There were 9,331 publications identified in the searches, following title screening 350 abstracts were reviewed for inclusion and 120 were considered for eligibility for the review. 48 publications met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. Data from almost 11,000 HNC patients was included. Twenty-one of the publications were from the UK, most were retrospective examination of patient records. Data was extracted and charted according to the anatomical area of the head and neck where the symptoms are subjectively and objectively found, and presented according to lay terms for symptoms, clinical terms for symptoms and the language of objective clinical findings. Discussion: Symptoms of HNC are common presenting complaints, interpreting these along with clinical history, examination and risk factors will inform a clinician's decision to refer as suspected cancer. UK Head and Neck specialists believe a different way of triaging the referrals is needed to assess the clinical risk of an undiagnosed HNC. EVEREST-HN aims to achieve this using the patient history of their symptoms. This review has highlighted issues in terms of what is considered a symptom, a presenting complaint and a clinical finding or sign.

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

BACKGROUND: Patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are underserved in randomised controlled trials, yet they experience a much greater burden of disease compared with patients from socioeconomically advantaged areas. It is crucial to make trials more inclusive to ensure that treatments and interventions are safe and effective in real-world contexts. Improving how information about trials is verbally communicated is an unexplored strategy to make trials more inclusive. This study examined how trials are communicated verbally, comparing consultations involving patients from the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. METHODS: Secondary qualitative analysis of 55 trial consultation transcripts from 41 patients, sampled from 3 qualitative studies embedded in their respective UK multi-site, cancer-related randomised controlled trials. Patients living in the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, defined using English Indices of Multiple Deprivation decile scores, were purposively sampled. Analysis was largely thematic and drew on the constant comparison method. RESULTS: Recruiters communicated clinical uncertainty in a similar way for patients living in different socioeconomic areas. Consultations with disadvantaged patients were, on average, half the duration of those with advantaged patients, and tended to involve recruiters providing less in-depth explanations of trial concepts, used phrasing that softened trial arm risks, and described trial processes (e.g. randomisation) using informal or metaphorical phrasing. Disadvantaged and advantaged patients differed in the concerns they expressed; disadvantaged patients voiced fewer concerns and asked fewer questions but were also less likely to be invited to do so by recruiters. CONCLUSION: Interactions about trials unfolded in different ways between patients living in different socioeconomic areas, likely due to both patient- and recruiter-related factors. We present considerations for recruiters when discussing trials with patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, aimed at enhancing trial communication. Future research should examine disadvantaged patients' and recruiters' experiences of verbal trial communication to inform guidance that addresses the needs and preferences of underserved groups.

Qualitative study exploring the design of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system for suspected head and neck cancer referrals: protocol for work packages 1 and 2 within the EVEREST-HN programme.

INTRODUCTION: Between 2009/2010 and 2019/2020, England witnessed an increase in suspected head and neck cancer (sHNC) referrals from 140 to 404 patients per 100 000 population. 1 in 10 patients are not seen within the 2-week target, contributing to patient anxiety. We will develop a pathway for sHNC referrals, based on the Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator. The evolution of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system to redesign the sHNC referral pathway (EVEREST-HN) Programme comprises six work packages (WPs). This protocol describes WP1 and WP2. WP1 will obtain an understanding of language to optimise the SYmptom iNput Clinical (SYNC) system patient-reported symptom questionnaire for sHNC referrals and outline requirements for the SYNC system. WP2 will codesign key elements of the SYNC system, including the SYNC Questionnaire, and accompanying behaviour change materials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: WP1 will be conducted at three acute National Health Service (NHS) trusts with variation in service delivery models and ensuring a broad mixture of social, economic and cultural backgrounds of participants. Up to 150 patients with sHNC (n=50 per site) and 15 clinicians (n=5 per site) will be recruited. WP1 will use qualitative methods including interviews, observation and recordings of consultations. Rapid qualitative analysis and inductive thematic analysis will be used to analyse the data. WP2 will recruit lay patient representatives to participate in online focus groups (n=8 per focus group), think-aloud technique and experience-based codesign and will be analysed using qualitative and quantitative approaches. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The committee for clinical research at The Royal Marsden, a research ethics committee and the Health Research Authority approved this protocol. All participants will give informed consent. Ethical issues of working with patients on an urgent cancer diagnostic pathway have been considered. Findings will be disseminated via journal publications, conference presentations and public engagement activities.

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

Background: The indications for septoplasty are practice-based, rather than evidence-based. In addition, internationally accepted guidelines for the management of nasal obstruction associated with nasal septal deviation are lacking. Objective: The objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, compared with medical management, in the management of nasal obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum. Design: This was a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, with defined medical management; it incorporated a mixed-methods process evaluation and an economic evaluation. Setting: The trial was set in 17 NHS secondary care hospitals in the UK. Participants: A total of 378 eligible participants aged > 18 years were recruited. Interventions: Participants were randomised on a 1: 1 basis and stratified by baseline severity and gender to either (1) septoplasty, with or without turbinate surgery (n = 188) or (2) medical management with intranasal steroid spray and saline spray (n = 190). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score at 6 months (patient-reported outcome). The secondary outcomes were as follows: patient-reported outcomes - Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation score at 6 and 12 months, Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items subscales at 12 months, Double Ordinal Airway Subjective Scale at 6 and 12 months, the Short Form questionnaire-36 items and costs; objective measurements - peak nasal inspiratory flow and rhinospirometry. The number of adverse events experienced was also recorded. A within-trial economic evaluation from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective estimated the incremental cost per (1) improvement (of ≥ 9 points) in Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score, (2) adverse event avoided and (3) quality-adjusted life-year gained at 12 months. An economic model estimated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 24 and 36 months. A mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken to understand/address recruitment issues and examine the acceptability of trial processes and treatment arms. Results: At the 6-month time point, 307 participants provided primary outcome data (septoplasty, n = 152; medical management, n = 155). An intention-to-treat analysis revealed a greater and more sustained improvement in the primary outcome measure in the surgical arm. The 6-month mean Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores were -20.0 points lower (better) for participants randomised to septoplasty than for those randomised to medical management [the score for the septoplasty arm was 19.9 and the score for the medical management arm was 39.5 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -16.4; p < 0.0001)]. This was confirmed by sensitivity analyses and through the analysis of secondary outcomes. Outcomes were statistically significantly related to baseline severity, but not to gender or turbinate reduction. In the surgical and medical management arms, 132 and 95 adverse events occurred, respectively; 14 serious adverse events occurred in the surgical arm and nine in the medical management arm. On average, septoplasty was more costly and more effective in improving Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores and quality-adjusted life-years than medical management, but incurred a larger number of adverse events. Septoplasty had a 15% probability of being considered cost-effective at 12 months at a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life-year. This probability increased to 99% and 100% at 24 and 36 months, respectively. Limitations: COVID-19 had an impact on participant-facing data collection from March 2020. Conclusions: Septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, is more effective than medical management with a nasal steroid and saline spray. Baseline severity predicts the degree of improvement in symptoms. Septoplasty has a low probability of cost-effectiveness at 12 months, but may be considered cost-effective at 24 months. Future work should focus on developing a septoplasty patient decision aid. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16168569 and EudraCT 2017-000893-12. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/226/07) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Septoplasty is an operation to straighten the septum, which is the partition wall between the nostrils inside the nose. Septoplasty can be used as a treatment for people who have a bent septum and symptoms of a blocked nose, such as difficulty sleeping and exercising. Medical management (a saltwater spray to clear the nose followed by a nose steroid spray) is an alternative treatment to septoplasty. The Nasal AIRway Obstruction Study (NAIROS) aimed to find out whether septoplasty or medical management is a better treatment for people with a bent septum and symptoms of a blocked nose. We recruited 378 patients with at least moderately severe nose symptoms from 17 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales to take part in the NAIROS. Participants were randomly put into one of two groups: septoplasty or medical management. Participants' nose symptoms were measured both when they joined the study and after 6 months, using a questionnaire called the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items. This questionnaire was chosen because patients reported that it included symptoms that were important to them. Other studies have shown that a 9-point change in the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score is significant. After 6 months, on average, people in the septoplasty group improved by 25 points, whereas people in the medical management group improved by 5 points. We saw improvement after septoplasty among patients with moderate symptoms, and among those with severe symptoms. Most patients who we spoke to after a septoplasty were happy with their treatment, but some would have liked more information about what to expect after their nose surgery. In the short term, septoplasty is more costly than medical management. However, over the longer term, taking into account all the costs and benefits of treatment, suggests that septoplasty would be considered good value for money for the NHS.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of PCF versus ACD in the treatment of cervical brachialgia (FORVAD trial).

BACKGROUND: Cervical radiculopathy occurs when a nerve root is compressed in the spine, if symptoms fail to resolve after 6 weeks surgery may be indicated. Anterior Cervical Discectomy (ACD) is the commonest procedure, Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF) is an alternative that avoids the risk of damage to anterior neck structures. This prospective, Phase III, UK multicentre, open, individually randomised controlled trial was performed to determine whether PCF is superior to ACD in terms of improving clinical outcome as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI) 52 weeks post-surgery. METHOD: Following consent to participate and collection of baseline data, subjects with cervical brachialgia were randomised to ACD or PCF in a 1:1 ratio on the day of surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed on day 1 and patient reported outcomes on day 1 and weeks 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 post-operation. A total of 252 participants were planned to be randomised. Statistical analysis was limited to descriptive statistics. Health economic outcomes were also described. RESULTS: The trial was closed early (n = 23). Compared to baseline, the median (interquartile range (IQR)) NDI score at 52 weeks reduced from 44.0 (36.0, 62.0) to 25.3 (20.0, 42.0) in the PCF group and increased from 35.6 (34.0, 44.0) to 45.0 (20.0, 57.0) in the ACD group. ACD may be associated with more swallowing, voice and other complications and was more expensive; neck and arm pain scores were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was closed early, therefore no definitive conclusions on clinical or cost-effectiveness could be made.

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

Background: Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking. Objective: The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome. Design: This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals. Setting: National Health Service trusts. Participants: Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks. Interventions: Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation. Results: The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0-62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0-44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy. Conclusions: The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cervical brachialgia is pain that starts in the neck and passes down into the arm. Although most people with cervical brachialgia recover quickly, in some patients pain persists, and in 15% of patients pain is so severe that they are unable to work. In the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial, we investigated two neck surgeries used to treat this problem: posterior cervical foraminotomy (surgery from the back of the neck) and anterior cervical discectomy (surgery from the front of the neck). This trial aimed to find out if one of them is better than the other at relieving pain and more cost-effective for the National Health Service. We assessed patients' quality of life 1 year after their surgery and how their pain changed over the course of the year. We also measured the number of complications patients had in the first 6 weeks after their operation. Recruitment was slow and so the trial was stopped early, after only 23 patients from 11 hospitals had been randomly allocated to the two surgery groups. We had planned to recruit 252 participants to the trial; the number of participants we were able to recruit in practice was too small to enable us to determine which surgery is better at relieving pain. To find out why the trial had struggled to recruit, we asked hospital staff and participants about their experiences. We found that hospital staff sometimes struggled to organise everything needed to randomise patients on the day of surgery. Some staff also found it difficult to randomise patients as they had an opinion on which surgery they thought the patient should receive. The data collected in the trial will still be useful to help design future research. Finding out which surgery is better at relieving pain remains important, and the data we have collected will support answering this question in future.

Clinical effectiveness of septoplasty versus medical management for nasal airways obstruction: multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness of septoplasty. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 17 otolaryngology clinics in the UK's National Health Service. PARTICIPANTS: 378 adults (≥18 years, 67% men) newly referred with symptoms of nasal obstruction associated with septal deviation and at least moderate symptoms of nasal obstruction (score >30 on the Nasal Obstruction and Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive either septoplasty (n=188) or defined medical management (n=190, nasal steroid and saline spray for six months), stratified by baseline symptom severity and sex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was patient reported score on the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) at six months, with 9 points defined as the minimal clinically important difference. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and objective nasal airflow measures. RESULTS: Mean SNOT-22 scores at six months were 19.9 (95% confidence interval 17.0 to 22.7) in the septoplasty arm (n=152, intention-to-treat population) and 39.5 (36.1 to 42.9) in the medical management arm (n=155); an estimated 20.0 points lower (better) for participants randomised to receive septoplasty (95% confidence interval 16.4 to 23.6, P<0.001, adjusted for baseline continuous SNOT-22 score and the stratification variables sex and baseline NOSE severity categories). Greater improvement in SNOT-22 scores was predicted by higher baseline symptom severity scores. Quality of life outcomes and nasal airflow measures (including peak nasal inspiratory flow and absolute inhalational nasal partitioning ratio) improved more in participants in the septoplasty group. Readmission to hospital with bleeding after septoplasty occurred in seven participants (4% of 174 who had septoplasty), and a further 20 participants (12%) required antibiotics for infections. CONCLUSIONS: Septoplasty is a more effective intervention than a defined medical management regimen with a nasal steroid and saline spray in adults with nasal obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN16168569.

Acceptability, fidelity and trial experience of four intervention components to support medication adherence in women with breast cancer: A process evaluation protocol for a pilot fractional factorial trial.

Background: The Refining and Optimising a behavioural intervention to Support Endocrine Therapy Adherence (ROSETA) programme has developed four intervention components aiming to improve medication adherence in women with early-stage breast cancer. These are (a) text messages, (b) information leaflet, (c) Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based guided self-help (ACT), (d) side-effect management website. Guided by the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy, our pilot trial will use a fractional factorial design to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a larger optimisation trial. The pilot will include a process evaluation to maximise learning regarding the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention components before proceeding with a larger trial. The trial process evaluation has three aims: to assess the (1) fidelity and (2) acceptability of the intervention components; and (3) to understand participant's trial experience, and barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention. Methods: The process evaluation will use multiple methods. Fidelity of the intervention components will be assessed using self-reported questionnaire data, trial data on intervention component adherence, and observations of the ACT sessions. Acceptability of the intervention components and trial experience will be explored using an acceptability questionnaire and interviews with patients and trial therapists. Trial experience will be assessed using a questionnaire and interviews with participants, while barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention will be assessed using a questionnaire completed by research nurses and participant interviews. The pilot trial opened for recruitment on 20th May 2022 and was open at the time of submission. Conclusions: This process evaluation will provide information regarding whether the intervention components can be delivered with fidelity within a national healthcare setting and are acceptable to participants. We will also better understand participant experience in a pilot trial with a fractional factorial design, and any barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention. Registration: ISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN10487576, 16/12/2021).

BACKGROUND: The majority of women with early-stage breast cancer are recommended adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) to reduce the chances of their cancer coming back. Many women given this medication don't take it every day or stop taking it earlier than they should. We have developed four different interventions to help women take AET. These are; text messages reminding women to take AET; an information leaflet explaining how AET works and its benefits and side-effects; a therapy programme to reduce distress, consisting of five support sessions and four module booklets; and a website with strategies to manage AET side-effects. We are now testing whether these interventions can be delivered within the NHS in different combinations, in a small trial. STUDY METHODS: We have three aims: 1. To find out if the interventions can be given and are received in the way they were supposed to (fidelity).2. To find out if the support received as part of the trial was acceptable to women with breast cancer (acceptability).3. To find out what women's experience was of taking part in the trial overall (trial experience). To do this we will: 1. Interview participants to ask them how acceptable they found the interventions, what they understood, whether they used the interventions, and how they found participating in the trial.2. Interview therapists who delivered the therapy programme to see if they delivered it as they were supposed to, and how they found delivering the intervention.3. Ask participants to complete questionnaires about how acceptable the interventions were, and whether they read and used them.4. Ask the staff involved in finding participants for the trial about challenges and improvements. We will use what we find to make improvements in a future trial where we will test whether the interventions help women to take AET.

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.

Optimization of an Information Leaflet to Influence Medication Beliefs in Women With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Factorial Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) is low in women with breast cancer. Negative beliefs about the necessity of AET and high concerns are barriers to adherence. PURPOSE: To use the multiphase optimization strategy to optimize the content of an information leaflet intervention, to change AET beliefs. METHODS: We conducted an online screening experiment using a 25 factorial design to optimize the leaflet. The leaflet had five components, each with two levels: (i) diagrams about AET mechanisms (on/off); (ii) infographics displaying AET benefits (enhanced/basic); (iii) AET side effects (enhanced/basic); (iv) answers to AET concerns (on/off); (v) breast cancer survivor (patient) input: quotes and photographs (on/off). Healthy adult women (n = 1,604), recruited via a market research company, were randomized to 1 of 32 experimental conditions, which determined the levels of components received. Participants completed the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire before and after viewing the leaflet. RESULTS: There was a significant main effect of patient input on beliefs about medication (ß = 0.063, p < .001). There was one significant synergistic two-way interaction between diagrams and benefits (ß = 0.047, p = .006), and one antagonistic two-way interaction between diagrams and side effects (ß = -0.029, p = .093). There was a synergistic three-way interaction between diagrams, concerns, and patient input (ß = 0.029, p = .085), and an antagonistic four-way interaction between diagrams, benefits, side effects, and concerns (ß = -0.038, p = .024). In a stepped approach, we screened in four components and screened out the side effects component. CONCLUSIONS: The optimized leaflet did not contain enhanced AET side effect information. Factorial experiments are efficient and effective for refining the content of information leaflet interventions.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) is a medication given to women to stop breast cancer from returning. Many women do not take AET every day or stop taking it before they should. Some women do not take AET because they do not believe it will help them, or they have concerns about the side effects. We ran an online study aiming to create the best information leaflet to help women understand how AET is helpful and to reduce their concerns. The leaflet had five sections; diagrams explaining how AET works, visual pictures of the benefits of AET, information about the side effects, answers to common concerns, and quotes from other women with breast cancer. 1,604 healthy women filled in a questionnaire before and after looking at an information leaflet about AET. Women received different combinations of the five sections of the information leaflet. We found quotes from other women with breast cancer led to more positive beliefs about AET. Some sections of the leaflet worked better in combination, while other sections were worse in combination. Our results led us to remove the detailed side effect information from the leaflet, as in combination with the other sections this negatively affected women's beliefs about AET.

Codevelopment of a Text Messaging Intervention to Support Adherence to Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Women With Breast Cancer: Mixed Methods Approach.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) reduces breast cancer recurrence and mortality in women with early-stage breast cancer. Unintentional nonadherence to AET is common (eg, forgetting to take medication). Forming habits surrounding medication taking could reduce reliance on memory and improve AET adherence. SMS text messaging interventions may offer a low-cost approach for promoting medication-taking habits. To optimize the likely effectiveness of such SMS text messages, the content should be developed using a transparent approach to ensure fidelity to relevant psychological theory and with user input to increase acceptability. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a pool of brief SMS text messages promoting habit formation to support AET adherence, which are acceptable to women with breast cancer and show fidelity to theory-based behavior change techniques (BCTs). METHODS: According to published literature, we selected 6 BCTs derived from the habit formation model: action planning, habit formation, restructuring the physical environment, adding objects to the environment, prompts/cues, and self-monitoring of behavior. In study 1, behavior change experts (n=10) created messages, each based on 1 of the 6 BCTs, in a web-based workshop and rated the fidelity of the messages to the intended BCT. In study 2, women with experience of taking AET discussed the acceptability of the messages in a focus group (n=5), and the messages were refined following this. In study 3, women with breast cancer rated the acceptability of each message in a web-based survey (n=60). In study 4, additional behavior change experts rated the fidelity of the remaining messages to the intended BCT in a web-based survey (n=12). Finally, a consultant pharmacist reviewed a selection of messages to ensure that they did not contradict general medical advice. RESULTS: In study 1, 189 messages were created targeting the 6 BCTs. In total, 92 messages were removed because they were repetitious, unsuitable, or >160 characters, and 3 were removed because of low fidelity (scoring <5.5/10 on a fidelity rating scale). Following study 2, we removed 13 messages considered unacceptable to our target population. In study 3, all remaining messages scored above the midpoint on an acceptability scale (1-5); therefore, no messages were removed (mean 3.9/5, SD 0.9). Following study 4, we removed 13 messages owing to low fidelity (scoring <5.5/10 on a fidelity rating scale). All the remaining messages showed fidelity to the intended BCTs (mean 7.9/10, SD 1.3). Following the pharmacist review, 2 messages were removed, and 3 were amended. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a pool of 66 brief SMS text messages targeting habit formation BCTs to support AET adherence. These showed acceptability to women with breast cancer and fidelity to the intended BCTs. The delivery of the messages will be further evaluated to assess their effect on medication adherence.

Conservative management versus tonsillectomy in adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis in the UK (NATTINA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tonsillectomy is regularly performed in adults with acute tonsillitis, but with scarce evidence. A reduction in tonsillectomies has coincided with an increase in acute adult hospitalisation for tonsillitis complications. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative management versus tonsillectomy in patients with recurrent acute tonsillitis. METHODS: This pragmatic multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial was conducted in 27 hospitals in the UK. Participants were adults aged 16 years or older who were newly referred to secondary care otolaryngology clinics with recurrent acute tonsillitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive tonsillectomy or conservative management using random permuted blocks of variable length. Stratification by recruiting centre and baseline symptom severity was assessed using the Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 score (categories defined as mild 0-35, moderate 36-48, or severe 49-70). Participants in the tonsillectomy group received elective surgery to dissect the palatine tonsils within 8 weeks after random assignment and those in the conservative management group received standard non-surgical care during 24 months. The primary outcome was the number of sore throat days collected during 24 months after random assignment, reported once per week with a text message. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 55284102. FINDINGS: Between May 11, 2015, and April 30, 2018, 4165 participants with recurrent acute tonsillitis were assessed for eligibility and 3712 were excluded. 453 eligible participants were randomly assigned (233 in the immediate tonsillectomy group vs 220 in the conservative management group). 429 (95%) patients were included in the primary ITT analysis (224 vs 205). The median age of participants was 23 years (IQR 19-30), with 355 (78%) females and 97 (21%) males. Most participants were White (407 [90%]). Participants in the immediate tonsillectomy group had fewer days of sore throat during 24 months than those in the conservative management group (median 23 days [IQR 11-46] vs 30 days [14-65]). After adjustment for site and baseline severity, the incident rate ratio of total sore throat days in the immediate tonsillectomy group (n=224) compared with the conservative management group (n=205) was 0·53 (95% CI 0·43 to 0·65; <0·0001). 191 adverse events in 90 (39%) of 231 participants were deemed related to tonsillectomy. The most common adverse event was bleeding (54 events in 44 [19%] participants). No deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: Compared with conservative management, immediate tonsillectomy is clinically effective and cost-effective in adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Refining and optimising a behavioural intervention to support endocrine therapy adherence (ROSETA) in UK women with breast cancer: protocol for a pilot fractional factorial trial.

INTRODUCTION: Women with breast cancer who do not adhere to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) have increased risks of mortality and recurrence. There are multiple barriers to AET adherence, including medication side-effects, beliefs about medication, memory and psychological distress. We developed four intervention components, each targeting a different barrier. This pilot trial is part of the preparation phase of the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy, and aims to establish key trial parameters, establish intervention component adherence, establish availability and feasibility of outcome and process data, estimate variability in planned outcome measures and estimate cost of developing and delivering each intervention component. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The four intervention components are as follows: short message service text reminders (target: memory); a written information leaflet (target: medication beliefs); a guided self-help Acceptance and Commitment Therapy programme (target: psychological flexibility to reduce distress) and a self-management website (target: side-effect management). To evaluate the feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of the intervention components and the availability of outcome data, we will conduct a multisite, exploratory pilot trial using a 24-1 fractional factorial design, with a nested process evaluation. We will randomise 80 women with early-stage breast cancer who have been prescribed AET to one of eight experimental conditions. This will determine the combination of intervention components they receive, ranging from zero to four, with all conditions receiving usual care. Key outcomes of interest include medication adherence and quality of life. Progression to the optimisation phase will be based on predefined criteria for consent rates, patient adherence to intervention components and availability of medication adherence data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was reviewed by the Wales Research Authority Research Ethics Committee 3 (21/WA/0322). Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients before randomisation. The results of this trial will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRTCN10487576.

Providing care for children with tracheostomies: a qualitative interview study with parents and health professionals.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experience of caring for children with tracheostomies from the perspectives of parents and health professional caregivers. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interview study. SETTING: One region in England covered by a tertiary care centre that includes urban and remote rural areas and has a high level of deprivation. PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of health professionals and parents who care for children who have, or have had, tracheostomies and who received care at the tertiary care centre. INTERVENTION: Interviews undertaken by telephone or video link. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative reflexive thematic analysis with QSR Nvivo 12. RESULTS: This paper outlines key determinants and mediators of the experiences of caregiving and the impact on psychological and physical health and quality of life of parents and their families, confidence of healthcare providers and perceived quality of care. For parents, access to care packages and respite care at home as well as communication and relationships with healthcare providers are key mediators of their experience of caregiving, whereas for health professionals, an essential influence is multidisciplinary team working and support. We also highlight a range of challenges focused on the shared care space, including: a lack of standardisation in access to different support teams, care packages and respite care, irregular training and updates, and differences in health provider expertise and experiences across departments and shift patterns, exacerbated in some settings by limited contact with children with tracheostomies. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the experiences of caregiving can help inform measures to support caregivers and improve quality standards. Our findings suggest there is a need to facilitate further standardisation of care and support available for parent caregivers and that this may be transferable to other regions. Potential solutions to be explored could include the development of a paediatric tracheostomy service specification, increasing use of paediatric tracheostomy specialist nurse roles, and addressing the emotional and psychological support needs of caregivers.

Tonsillectomy compared with conservative management in patients over 16 years with recurrent sore throat: the NATTINA RCT and economic evaluation.

Background: The place of tonsillectomy in the management of sore throat in adults remains uncertain. Objectives: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tonsillectomy, compared with conservative management, for tonsillitis in adults, and to evaluate the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways. Design: This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing tonsillectomy with conservative management. The trial included a qualitative process evaluation and an economic evaluation. Setting: The study took place at 27 NHS secondary care hospitals in Great Britain. Participants: A total of 453 eligible participants with recurrent sore throats were recruited to the main trial. Interventions: Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis between tonsil dissection and conservative management (i.e. deferred surgery) using a variable block-stratified design, stratified by (1) centre and (2) severity. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the total number of sore throat days over 24 months following randomisation. The secondary outcome measures were the number of sore throat episodes and five characteristics from Sore Throat Alert Return, describing severity of the sore throat, use of medications, time away from usual activities and the Short Form questionnaire-12 items. Additional secondary outcomes were the Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 total and subscales and Short Form questionnaire-12 items 6 monthly. Evaluation of the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways by observation and statistical modelling of outcomes against baseline severity, as assessed by Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 score at recruitment. The incremental cost per sore throat day avoided, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained based on responses to the Short Form questionnaire-12 items and the incremental net benefit based on costs and responses to a contingent valuation exercise. A qualitative process evaluation examined acceptability of trial processes and ramdomised arms. Results: There was a median of 27 (interquartile range 12-52) sore throats over the 24-month follow-up. A smaller number of sore throats was reported in the tonsillectomy arm [median 23 (interquartile range 11-46)] than in the conservative management arm [median 30 (interquartile range 14-65)]. On an intention-to-treat basis, there were fewer sore throats in the tonsillectomy arm (incident rate ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.65). Sensitivity analyses confirmed this, as did the secondary outcomes. There were 52 episodes of post-operative haemorrhage reported in 231 participants undergoing tonsillectomy (22.5%). There were 47 re-admissions following tonsillectomy (20.3%), 35 relating to haemorrhage. On average, tonsillectomy was more costly and more effective in terms of both sore throat days avoided and quality-adjusted life-years gained. Tonsillectomy had a 100% probability of being considered cost-effective if the threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life year was £20,000. Tonsillectomy had a 69% probability of having a higher net benefit than conservative management. Trial processes were deemed to be acceptable. Patients who received surgery were unanimous in reporting to be happy to have received it. Limitations: The decliners who provided data tended to have higher Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory-14 scores than those willing to be randomised implying that patients with a higher burden of tonsillitis symptoms may have declined entry into the trial. Conclusions: The tonsillectomy arm had fewer sore throat days over 24 months than the conservative management arm, and had a high probability of being considered cost-effective over the ranges considered. Further work should focus on when tonsillectomy should be offered. National Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults has assessed the effectiveness of tonsillectomy when offered for the current UK threshold of disease burden. Further research is required to define the minimum disease burden at which tonsillectomy becomes clinically effective and cost-effective. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN55284102. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/146/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 31. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Tonsillectomy is an operation to take out the pair of tonsil glands at the back of the throat. It is an option for adults who suffer from repeated, severe sore throats. Adults who have a tonsillectomy say that they get fewer sore throats afterwards, but it is not clear whether or not they would have got better over time without the operation. There is pressure on doctors to limit the number of tonsillectomies carried out. At the same time, emergency hospital admissions for adults with severe throat infections have been increasing. NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults aimed to find out whether tonsillectomy is an effective and worthwhile treatment for repeated severe sore throats or whether patients would be better off treated without an operation. A total of 453 patients from 27 hospitals in Great Britain took part in the study. Patients were assigned at random to receive either tonsillectomy or conservative management (treatment as needed from their general practitioner). We measured how many sore throats patients had in the next 2 years by sending them text messages every week. We asked about the impact of their sore throats on their quality of life and time off work, and looked at the costs of treatment. We also interviewed 47 patients, general practitioners and hospital staff about their experiences of tonsillectomy and NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults. The typical patient in the tonsillectomy arm had 23 days of sore throat compared with 30 days of sore throat in the conservative management arm. Tonsillectomy resulted in higher quality of life. We looked to see whether or not it was only those with the most severe sore throats who benefited from tonsillectomy, but we found that patients with more or less severe sore throats at the start all did better with tonsillectomy. Patients who had a tonsillectomy were happy to have undertaken this. Our findings suggest a clear benefit of tonsillectomy using modest additional NHS resources for adults with repeated severe sore throats.

Photobiomodulation in the management of oral mucositis for adult head and neck cancer patients receiving irradiation: the LiTEFORM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is a debilitating and painful complication of head and neck cancer irradiation that is characterised by inflammation of the mucous membranes, erythema and ulceration. Oral mucositis affects 6000 head and neck cancer patients per year in England and Wales. Current treatments have not proven to be effective. International studies suggest that low-level laser therapy may be an effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in the management of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer irradiation. To identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing low-level laser therapy in routine care. DESIGN: Placebo-controlled, individually randomised, multicentre Phase III superiority trial, with an internal pilot and health economic and qualitative process evaluations. The participants, outcome assessors and therapists were blinded. SETTING: Nine NHS head and neck cancer sites in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 87 out of 380 participants were recruited who were aged ≥ 18 years and were undergoing head and neck cancer irradiation with ≥ 60 Gy. INTERVENTION: Random allocation (1 : 1 ratio) to either low-level laser therapy or sham low-level laser therapy three times per week for the duration of irradiation. The diode laser had the following specifications: wavelength 660 nm, power output 75 mW, beam area 1.5 cm2, irradiance 50 mW/cm2, exposure time 60 seconds and fluence 3 J/cm2. There were 20-30 spots per session. Sham low-level laser therapy was delivered in an identical manner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks following the start of irradiation. Higher scores indicate a worse outcome. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were screened and, of these, 87 were randomised (low-level laser therapy arm, n = 44; sham arm, n = 43). The mean age was 59.4 years (standard deviation 8.8 years) and 69 participants (79%) were male. The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks was 33.2 (standard deviation 10) in the low-level laser therapy arm and 27.4 (standard deviation 13.8) in the sham arm. LIMITATIONS: The trial lacked statistical power because it did not meet the recruitment target. Staff and patients willingly participated in the trial and worked hard to make the LiTEFORM trial succeed. However, the task of introducing, embedding and sustaining new low-level laser therapy services into a complex care pathway proved challenging. Sites could deliver low-level laser therapy to only a small number of patients at a time. The administration of low-level laser therapy was viewed as straightforward, but also time-consuming and sometimes uncomfortable for both patients and staff, particularly those staff who were not used to working in a patient's mouth. CONCLUSIONS: This trial had a robust design but lacked power to be definitive. Low-level laser therapy is relatively inexpensive. In contrast with previous trials, some patients found low-level laser therapy sessions to be difficult. The duration of low-level laser therapy sessions is, therefore, an important consideration. Clinicians experienced in oral cavity work most readily adapt to delivering low-level laser therapy, although other allied health professionals can be trained. Blinding the clinicians delivering low-level laser therapy is feasible. There are important human resource, real estate and logistical considerations for those setting up low-level laser therapy services. FUTURE WORK: Further well-designed randomised controlled trials investigating low-level laser therapy in head and neck cancer irradiation are needed, with similar powered recruitment targets but addressing the recruitment challenges and logistical findings from this research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14224600. 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. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Around 9 out of 10 head and neck cancer patients undergoing treatment experience pain, swelling and sores in their mouth (oral mucositis). This can lead to weight loss, painful ulcers, difficulty talking, eating and drinking, and even hospitalisation. Current care includes helping patients to keep their mouth and teeth clean, encouraging them to have a healthy diet and prescribing mouthwashes, painkillers and mouth-coating gels. However, these treatments give limited help in preventing or treating this condition. The LiTEFORM trial looked at whether or not low-level laser therapy could be used to prevent and treat oral mucositis. Patients were allocated to one of two arms at random: active laser or fake (sham) laser. Neither the patients nor the hospital staff knew which laser was being used. Eighty-seven people joined the study during the time allowed (44 received low-level laser therapy and 43 received sham treatment); however, this was a smaller number than the planned target of 380 people. As a result, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from the results about whether the therapy is beneficial or cost-effective. People receiving the low-level laser therapy reported slightly more soreness in their mouth than those receiving the sham laser, but this could be down to chance. The number of participants is too small to draw conclusions about whether or not the low-level laser is helpful. Some patients found the laser treatment sessions to be difficult. Setting up a new service delivering laser therapy at the same time as cancer treatments was more complicated than originally anticipated. Problems included the scheduling of appointments, finding suitable rooms and having enough trained staff with time to deliver laser therapy. However, this study has provided us with knowledge on how best to set up a laser therapy service in the NHS as part of the cancer treatment pathway and the costs involved. These findings could help future studies looking into low-level laser therapy for those with head and neck cancer.

Rapid qualitative analysis in a mixed-methods evaluation of an infection prevention intervention in a UK hospital setting during the COVID-19 pandemic: A discussion of the CLEAN study methodology.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an urgent need for high-quality rapid research. One clinical challenge was how to minimise the risk of transmission in the hospital setting. The CLEAN study conducted a rapid evaluation of the potential utility of a spray-based disinfectant in a hospital setting. The study was undertaken between December 2020 and March 2021 and involved the implementation of the spray in 10 different clinical areas in one UK teaching hospital. A mixed-methods approach was adopted (including observations, surveys, and qualitative interviews) informed by the theories for understanding the implementation of new healthcare technologies. The evaluation found that while the spray had a number of perceived benefits when added to existing disinfection processes, other factors limited its potential utility. These findings informed a number of recommendations for future adoption within hospital settings. This paper describes and reflects on the rapid methodology that allowed us to undertake the study and deliver results in a short space of time. We experienced a number of pressures during set-up and fieldwork due to the challenging conditions caused by the pandemic, and the methodological approach had to evolve throughout the study because of the changing clinical context. The involvement of clinicians from the research setting as full members of the research team was key to the rapid delivery of the research. They provided an essential link to the implementation environment, and their experiential knowledge of the setting added an important perspective to the analysis. Balancing their involvement with their clinical roles was challenging, however, as was coordinating a large and diverse team of interviewers in such a short space of time. Overall, the study highlighted the value of rapid research to inform urgent healthcare decisions in a pandemic. Although our experience suggests that conducting such research requires some practical and methodological trade-offs, we found that there were also numerous benefits of using rapid methods and identified various opportunities to ensure their robustness.