Describing the content of trial recruitment interventions using the TIDieR reporting checklist: a systematic methodology review.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to clinical trials is an ongoing challenge, and relatively little is known about what recruitment strategies lead to better recruitment. Recruitment interventions can be considered complex interventions, often involving multiple components, targeting a variety of groups, and tailoring to different groups. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting checklist (which comprises 12 items recommended for reporting complex interventions) to guide the assessment of how recruitment interventions are described. We aimed to (1) examine to what extent we could identify information about each TIDieR item within recruitment intervention studies, and (2) observe additional detail for each item to describe useful variation among these studies. METHODS: We identified randomized, nested recruitment intervention studies providing recruitment or willingness to participate rates from two sources: a Cochrane review of trials evaluating strategies to improve recruitment to randomized trials, and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls database. First, we assessed to what extent authors reported information about each TIDieR item. Second, we developed descriptive categorical variables for 7 TIDieR items and extracting relevant quotes for the other 5 items. RESULTS: We assessed 122 recruitment intervention studies. We were able to extract information relevant to most TIDieR items (e.g., brief rationale, materials, procedure) with the exception of a few items that were only rarely reported (e.g., tailoring, modifications, planned/actual fidelity). The descriptive variables provided a useful overview of study characteristics, with most studies using various forms of informational interventions (55%) delivered at a single time point (90%), often by a member of the research team (59%) in a clinical care setting (41%). CONCLUSIONS: Our TIDieR-based variables provide a useful description of the core elements of complex trial recruitment interventions. Recruitment intervention studies report core elements of complex interventions variably; some process elements (e.g., mode of delivery, location) are almost always described, while others (e.g., duration, fidelity) are reported infrequently, with little indication of a reason for their absence. Future research should explore whether these TIDieR-based variables can form the basis of an approach to better reporting of elements of successful recruitment interventions.

Exploring the perspectives of selectors and collecters of trial outcome data: an international qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Selecting and collecting data to support appropriate primary and secondary outcomes is a critical step in designing trials that can change clinical practice. In this study, we aimed to investigate who contributes to the process of selecting and collecting trial outcomes, and how these people are involved. This work serves two main purposes: (1) it provides the trials community with evidence to demonstrate how outcomes are currently selected and collected, and (2) it allows people involved in trial design and conduct to pick apart these processes to consider how efficiencies and improvements can be made. METHODS: One-with-one semi-structured interviews, supported by a topic guide to ensure coverage of key content. The Framework approach was used for thematic analysis of data, and themes were linked through constant comparison of data both within and across participant groups. Interviews took place between July 2020 and January 2021. Participants were twenty-nine international trialists from various contributor groups, working primarily on designing and/or delivering phase III pragmatic effectiveness trials. Their experience spanned various funders, trial settings, clinical specialties, intervention types, and participant populations. RESULTS: We identified three descriptive themes encompassing the process of primary and secondary outcome selection, collection, and the publication of outcome data. Within these themes, participants raised issues around the following: 1) Outcome selection: clarity of the research question; confidence in selecting trial outcomes and how confidence decreases with increased experience; interplay between different interested parties; how patients and the public are involved in outcome selection; perceived impact of poor outcome selection including poor recruitment and/or retention; and use of core outcome sets. 2) Outcome collection: disconnect between decisions made by outcome selectors and the practical work done by outcome collectors; potential impact of outcome measures on trial participants; potential impact on trial staff workload; and use of routinely collected data. 3) Publication of outcome data: difficulties in finding time to write and revise manuscripts for publication due to time and funding constraints. Participants overwhelmingly focused on the process of outcome selection, a topic they talked about unprompted. When prompted, participants do discuss outcome collection, but poor communication between selectors and collectors at the trial design stage means that outcome selection is rarely linked with the data collection workload it generates. DISCUSSION: People involved in the design and conduct of trials fail to connect decisions around outcome selection with data collection workload. Publication of outcome data and effective dissemination of trial results are hindered due to the project-based culture of some academic clinical trial research.

Site staff perspectives on communicating trial results to participants: Cost and feasibility results from the Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed-methods trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. Show RESPECT (ISRCTN96189403) tested ways of sharing results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Sharing results via a printed summary improved patient satisfaction. Little is known about staff experience and the costs of communicating results with participants. We report the costs of communication approaches used in Show RESPECT and the views of site staff on these approaches. METHODS: We allocated 43 hospitals (sites) to share results with trial participants through one of eight intervention combinations (2 × 2 × 2 factorial; enhanced versus basic webpage, printed summary versus no printed summary, email list invitation versus no invitation). Questionnaires elicited data from staff involved in sharing results. Open- and closed-ended questions covered resources used to share results and site staff perspectives on the approaches used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview and free-text data were analysed thematically. The mean additional site costs per participant from each intervention were estimated jointly as main effects by linear regression. RESULTS: We received questionnaires from 68 staff from 41 sites and interviewed 11 site staff. Sites allocated to the printed summary had mean total site costs of sharing results £13.71/patient higher (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.19, 30.60; p = 0.108) than sites allocated no printed summary. Sites allocated to the enhanced webpage had mean total site costs £1.91/patient higher (95% CI: -14, 18.74; p = 0.819) than sites allocated to the basic webpage. Sites allocated to the email list had costs £2.87/patient lower (95% CI: -19.70, 13.95; p = 0.731) than sites allocated to no email list. Most of these costs were staff time for mailing information and handling patients' queries. Most site staff reported no concerns about how they had shared results (88%) and no challenges (76%). Most (83%) found it easy to answer queries from patients about the results and thought the way they were allocated to share results with participants would be an acceptable standard approach (76%), with 79% saying they would follow the same approach for future trials. There were no significant effects of the randomised interventions on these outcomes. Site staff emphasised the importance of preparing patients to receive the results, including giving opt-in/opt-out options, and the need to offer further support, particularly if the results could confuse or distress some patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a printed summary to a webpage (which significantly improved participant satisfaction) may increase costs to sites by ~£14/patient, which is modest in relation to the cost of trials. The Show RESPECT communication interventions were feasible to implement. This information could help future trials ensure they have sufficient resources to share results with participants.

Understanding pre-hospital blood transfusion decision-making for injured patients: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Blood transfusion for bleeding trauma patients is a promising pre-hospital intervention with potential to improve outcomes. However, it is not yet clear which patients may benefit from pre-hospital transfusions. The aim of this study was to enhance our understanding of how experienced pre-hospital clinicians make decisions regarding patient blood loss and the need for transfusion, and explore the factors that influence clinical decision-making. METHODS: Pre-hospital physicians, from two air ambulance sites in the south of England, were interviewed between December 2018 and January 2019. Participants were involved in teaching or publishing on the management of bleeding trauma patients and had at least 5 years of continuous and contemporary practice at consultant level. Interviews were semi-structured and explored how decisions were made and what made decisions difficult. A qualitative description approach was used with inductive thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes related to blood transfusion decision-making in trauma. RESULTS: Ten pre-hospital physicians were interviewed and three themes were identified: recognition-primed analysis, uncertainty and imperfect decision analysis. The first theme describes how participants make decisions using selected cues, incorporating their experience and are influenced by external rules and group expectations. What made decisions difficult for the participants was encapsulated in the uncertainty theme. Uncertainty emerged regarding the patient's true underlying physiological state and the treatment effect of blood transfusion. The last theme focuses on the issues with decision-making itself. Participants demonstrated lapses in decision awareness, often incomplete decision evaluation and described challenges to effective learning due to incomplete patient outcome information. CONCLUSION: Pre-hospital clinicians make decisions about bleeding and transfusion which are recognition-primed and incorporate significant uncertainty. Decisions are influenced by experience and are subject to bias. Improved understanding of the decision-making processes provides a theoretical perspective of how decisions might be supported in the future.

Emergency Department Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Trauma Patients With Exsanguinating Hemorrhage: The UK-REBOA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Bleeding is the most common cause of preventable death after trauma. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) when used in the emergency department along with standard care vs standard care alone on mortality in trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, bayesian, randomized clinical trial conducted at 16 major trauma centers in the UK. Patients aged 16 years or older with exsanguinating hemorrhage were enrolled between October 2017 and March 2022 and followed up for 90 days. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 allocation) to a strategy that included REBOA and standard care (n = 46) or standard care alone (n = 44). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days. Ten secondary outcomes included mortality at 6 months, while in the hospital, and within 24 hours, 6 hours, or 3 hours; the need for definitive hemorrhage control procedures; time to commencement of definitive hemorrhage control procedures; complications; length of stay; blood product use; and cause of death. Results: Of the 90 patients (median age, 41 years [IQR, 31-59 years]; 62 [69%] were male; and the median Injury Severity Score was 41 [IQR, 29-50]) randomized, 89 were included in the primary outcome analysis because 1 patient in the standard care alone group declined to provide consent for continued participation and data collection 4 days after enrollment. At 90 days, 25 of 46 patients (54%) had experienced all-cause mortality in the REBOA and standard care group vs 18 of 43 patients (42%) in the standard care alone group (odds ratio [OR], 1.58 [95% credible interval, 0.72-3.52]; posterior probability of an OR >1 [indicating increased odds of death with REBOA], 86.9%). Among the 10 secondary outcomes, the ORs for mortality and the posterior probabilities of an OR greater than 1 for 6-month, in-hospital, and 24-, 6-, or 3-hour mortality were all increased in the REBOA and standard care group, and the ORs were increased with earlier mortality end points. There were more deaths due to bleeding in the REBOA and standard care group (8 of 25 patients [32%]) than in standard care alone group (3 of 18 patients [17%]), and most occurred within 24 hours. Conclusions and Relevance: In trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage, a strategy of REBOA and standard care in the emergency department does not reduce, and may increase, mortality compared with standard care alone. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16184981.

Core outcome set for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity of outcomes is a problem for assessing intervention effectiveness when considering treatments for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease. The value to all stakeholders of outcomes that have been measured and reported to date is also unclear. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease. METHODS: An in person-meeting was held with patients to prioritize potentially important outcomes from a previously developed longlist of outcomes. This was followed by an online three-round Delphi survey that was conducted with healthcare professionals. The results of each consensus process were compared and combined to produce the final core outcome set. RESULTS: A total of 82 participants enrolled in round 1 of the Delphi survey, with a final sample of 40 participants contributing to round 3. Five patients contributed to the in-person group meeting. Following the consensus processes, 11 outcomes were considered to be core by patients and healthcare professionals, and included in the core outcome set. These were: quality of life; overall health state; overall satisfaction; overall pain; common bile duct injury; biliary leak; haemorrhage; need for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; intra-abdominal collections; admission/readmission for problems; and reoperation. CONCLUSION: A core outcome set for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease has been developed with patients and healthcare professionals. Eleven outcomes across four key domains have been identified. These represent the minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in trials evaluating interventions for gallstone disease.

What influences communication about retention in randomised trials: a multi-trial, theory-based analysis exploring trial staff perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Retention (participants completing a trial) is a persistent, and often under-studied, challenge within clinical trials. Research on retention has focussed on understanding the actions of participants who decide to remain or withdraw from trial participation and developing interventions to target improvements. To better understand how trial staff may influence participants to remain or withdraw from trials, it is important to explore the experiences of staff that recruit and retain said participants and how the process of recruitment impacts retention. METHODS: Two qualitative interview studies informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) were conducted with staff involved in various stages of clinical trials. The first set of interviews were focussed on staff perceptions about why participants failed to be retained and what helped to keep others engaged in trials, but also explored more generally what strategies or factors contributed to retention in trials. The second set of interviews were focussed on staff perceptions specifically about the recruitment and informed consent process and how that may influence trial retention. All interviews were analysed using the TDF and assigned to relevant behavioural domains according to perceived barriers/facilitators of the target behaviour. Belief statements were generated, summarising the narrative content of related responses within these behavioural domains. These belief statements were further analysed for themes that captured higher order relationships between separate beliefs within and between behavioural domains. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants (9 retention staff and 16 recruitment staff) were interviewed. Themes describing the barriers/facilitators to retention broadly, and to communication of retention information at consent, were generated. Four themes on retention broadly and six themes on communication of retention information at consent were identified. Overall, beliefs within all fourteen TDF domains populated these themes. CONCLUSIONS: This study explored staff perspectives on retention and how they interpret their behaviour as contributing to retention success. Perspectives varied considerably but several key themes regarding communication were seen consistently. Specific barriers and facilitators within these findings will serve to guide the design of a behavioural intervention aimed at addressing issues within retention. Findings contribute to a notable gap in the literature on staff behaviour in trials and on retention generally.

Developing an online, searchable database to systematically map and organise current literature on retention research (ORRCA2).

BACKGROUND: Addressing recruitment and retention challenges in trials is a key priority for methods research, but navigating the literature is difficult and time-consuming. In 2016, ORRCA (www.orrca.org.uk) launched a free, searchable database of recruitment research that has been widely accessed and used to support the update of systematic reviews and the selection of recruitment strategies for clinical trials. ORRCA2 aims to create a similar database to map the growing volume and importance of retention research. METHODS: Searches of Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Library, restricted to English language and publications up to the end of 2017. Hand searches of key systematic reviews were undertaken and randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions within the ORRCA database on 1 October 2020 were also reviewed for any secondary retention outcomes. Records were screened by title and abstract before obtaining the full text of potentially relevant articles. Studies reporting or evaluating strategies, methods and study designs to improve retention within healthcare research were eligible. Case reports describing retention challenges or successes and studies evaluating participant reported reasons for withdrawal or losses were also included. Studies assessing adherence to treatments, attendance at appointments outside of research and statistical analysis methods for missing data were excluded. Eligible articles were categorised into one of the following evidence types: randomised evaluations, non-randomised evaluations, application of retention strategies without evaluation and observations of factors affecting retention. Articles were also mapped against a retention domain framework. Additional data were extracted on research outcomes, methods and host study context. RESULTS: Of the 72,904 abstracts screened, 4,364 full texts were obtained, and 1,167 articles were eligible. Of these, 165 (14%) were randomised evaluations, 99 (8%) non-randomised evaluations, 319 (27%) strategies without evaluation and 584 (50%) observations of factors affecting retention. Eighty-four percent (n = 979) of studies assessed the numbers of participants retained, 27% (n = 317) assessed demographic differences between retained and lost participants, while only 4% (n = 44) assessed the cost of retention strategies. The most frequently reported domains within the 165 studies categorised as 'randomised evaluations of retention strategies' were participant monetary incentives (32%), participant reminders and prompts (30%), questionnaire design (30%) and data collection location and method (26%). CONCLUSION: ORRCA2 builds on the success of ORRCA extending the database to organise the growing volume of retention research. Less than 15% of articles were randomised evaluations of retention strategies. Mapping of the literature highlights several areas for future research such as the role of research sites, clinical staff and study design in enhancing retention. Future studies should also include cost-benefit analysis of retention strategies.

The relative importance of information items and preferred mode of delivery when disseminating results from trials to participants: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Participants want to receive the results of trials that they have participated in. Dissemination practices are disparate, and there is limited guidance available on what information to provide to participants and how to deliver it. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to establish what trial participants believe should be included in a results summary and how this information should be delivered. METHODS: A mixed-methods design was used with focus groups and interviews involving women convenience-sampled from two host randomized-controlled trials. Participants ranked information items in order of their importance for inclusion in a trial results summary and potential modes of delivery by preference. All participants provided written informed consent. RESULTS: Sixteen women (mean age [SD] = 71.6 [9.7] years) participated. Participants ranked 'individual results from the study' and 'summary of overall trial results' as most important. Themes such as reassurance and setting results in context were identified as contributing to participants' decisions around ranking. 'A thank you for your contribution to the study' was ranked the least important. Delivery by post was the preferred mode of receiving results, with receiving a hard copy of results cited as helpful to refer back to. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide insight into what information trial participants deem as important when receiving trial results and how they would like results delivered. Involving patients during development of trial results to be communicated to participants could help to ensure that the right information is delivered in the right way. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Public partners were involved in focussed aspects of study conduct.

Testing approaches to sharing trial results with participants: The Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed methods trial.

BACKGROUND: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. We tested an Enhanced Webpage versus a Basic Webpage, Mailed Printed Summary versus no Mailed Printed Summary, and Email List Invitation versus no Email List Invitation to see which approach resulted in the highest patient satisfaction with how the results were communicated. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We carried out a cluster randomised, 2 by 2 by 2 factorial, nonblinded study within a trial, with semistructured qualitative interviews with some patients (ISRCTN96189403). Each cluster was a UK hospital participating in the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial. Interventions were shared with 384 ICON8 participants who were alive and considered well enough to be contacted, at 43 hospitals. Hospitals were allocated to share results with participants through one of the 8 intervention combinations based on random permutation within blocks of 8, stratified by number of participants. All interventions contained a written plain English summary of the results. The Enhanced Webpage also contained a short video. Both the Enhanced Webpage and Email contained links to further information and support. The Mailed Printed Summary was opt-out. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 1 month after patients had been offered the interventions. Patients' reported satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale, analysed by ordinal logistic regression estimating main effects for all 3 interventions, with random effects for site, restricted to those who reported receiving the results and assuming no interaction. Data collection took place in 2018 to 2019. Questionnaires were sent to 275/384 randomly selected participants and returned by 180: 90/142 allocated Basic Webpage, 90/133 Enhanced Webpage; 91/141 no Mailed Printed Summary, 89/134 Mailed Printed Summary; 82/129 no Email List Invitation, 98/146 Email List Invitation. Only 3 patients opted out of receiving the Mailed Printed Summary; no patients signed up to the email list. Patients' satisfaction was greater at sites allocated the Mailed Printed Summary, where 65/81 (80%) were quite or very satisfied compared to sites with no Mailed Printed Summary 39/64 (61%), ordinal odds ratio (OR) = 3.15 (1.66 to 5.98, p < 0.001). We found no effect on patient satisfaction from the Enhanced Webpage, OR = 1.47 (0.78 to 2.76, p = 0.235) or Email List Invitation, OR = 1.38 (0.72 to 2.63, p = 0.327). Interviewees described the results as interesting, important, and disappointing (the ICON8 trial found no benefit). Finding out the results made some feel their trial participation had been more worthwhile. Regardless of allocated group, patients who received results generally reported that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. The main limitation of our study is the 65% response rate. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all respondents wanted to know the results and were glad to receive them. Adding an opt-out Mailed Printed Summary alongside a webpage yielded the highest reported satisfaction. This study provides evidence on how to share results with other similar trial populations. Further research is needed to look at different results scenarios and patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN96189403.

Considerations and methods for placebo controls in surgical trials (ASPIRE guidelines).

Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this Review is to provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials. A placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. This Review outlines what a placebo control entails and present understanding of this tool in the context of surgery. We consider when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable) in terms of ethical arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be done and interpreted. Use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided there is a strong scientific and ethical rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. This Review forms an outline for best practice and provides guidance, in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (known as ASPIRE) checklist, for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Poor retention of participants in randomised trials can lead to missing outcome data which can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to improve retention but few have been formally evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention of participants in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection (SCI-expanded, SSCI, CPSI-S, CPCI-SSH and ESCI) either directly with a specified search strategy or indirectly through the ORRCA database. We also searched the SWAT repository to identify ongoing or recently completed retention trials. We did our most recent searches in January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included eligible randomised or quasi-randomised trials of evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on: the retention strategy being evaluated; location of study; host trial setting; method of randomisation; numbers and proportions in each intervention and comparator group. We used a risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to estimate the effectiveness of the strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials. We applied GRADE to determine the certainty of the evidence within each comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 70 eligible papers that reported data from 81 retention trials. We included 69 studies with more than 100,000 participants in the final meta-analyses, of which 67 studies evaluated interventions aimed at trial participants and two evaluated interventions aimed at trial staff involved in retention. All studies were in health care and most aimed to improve postal questionnaire response. Interventions were categorised into broad comparison groups: Data collection; Participants; Sites and site staff; Central study management; and Study design. These intervention groups consisted of 52 comparisons, none of which were supported by high-certainty evidence as determined by GRADE assessment. There were four comparisons presenting moderate-certainty evidence, three supporting retention (self-sampling kits, monetary reward together with reminder or prenotification and giving a pen at recruitment) and one reducing retention (inclusion of a diary with usual follow-up compared to usual follow-up alone). Of the remaining studies, 20 presented GRADE low-certainty evidence and 28 presented very low-certainty evidence. Our findings do provide a priority list for future replication studies, especially with regard to comparisons that currently rely on a single study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the interventions we identified aimed to improve retention in the form of postal questionnaire response. There were few evaluations of ways to improve participants returning to trial sites for trial follow-up. None of the comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence. Comparisons in the review where the evidence certainty could be improved with the addition of well-done studies should be the focus for future evaluations.

A behavioural approach to specifying interventions: what insights can be gained for the reporting and implementation of interventions to reduce antibiotic use in hospitals?

BACKGROUND: Reducing unnecessary antibiotic exposure is a key strategy in reducing the development and selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Hospital antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions are inherently complex, often requiring multiple healthcare professionals to change multiple behaviours at multiple timepoints along the care pathway. Inaction can arise when roles and responsibilities are unclear. A behavioural perspective can offer insights to maximize the chances of successful implementation. OBJECTIVES: To apply a behavioural framework [the Target Action Context Timing Actors (TACTA) framework] to existing evidence about hospital AMS interventions to specify which key behavioural aspects of interventions are detailed. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies with a focus on reducing unnecessary exposure to antibiotics were identified from the most recent Cochrane review of interventions to improve hospital AMS. The TACTA framework was applied to published intervention reports to assess the extent to which key details were reported about what behaviour should be performed, who is responsible for doing it and when, where, how often and with whom it should be performed. RESULTS: The included studies (n = 45; 31 RCTs and 14 ITS studies with 49 outcome measures) reported what should be done, where and to whom. However, key details were missing about who should act (45%) and when (22%). Specification of who should act was missing in 79% of 15 interventions to reduce duration of treatment in continuing-care wards. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of precise specification within AMS interventions limits the generalizability and reproducibility of evidence, hampering efforts to implement AMS interventions in practice.

Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of previous randomised controlled trials concluded that the smooth muscle relaxant drugs tamsulosin and nifedipine assisted stone passage for people managed expectantly for ureteric colic, but emphasised the need for high-quality trials with wide inclusion criteria. We aimed to fulfil this need by testing effectiveness of these drugs in a standard clinical care setting. METHODS: For this multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited adults (aged 18-65 years) undergoing expectant management for a single ureteric stone identified by CT at 24 UK hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned by a remote randomisation system to tamsulosin 400 µg, nifedipine 30 mg, or placebo taken daily for up to 4 weeks, using an algorithm with centre, stone size (≤5 mm or >5 mm), and stone location (upper, mid, or lower ureter) as minimisation covariates. Participants, clinicians, and trial personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who did not need further intervention for stone clearance within 4 weeks of randomisation, analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population defined as all eligible patients for whom we had primary outcome data. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT number 2010-019469-26, and as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 69423238. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2011, and Dec 20, 2013, we randomly assigned 1167 participants, 1136 (97%) of whom were included in the primary analysis (17 were excluded because of ineligibility and 14 participants were lost to follow-up). 303 (80%) of 379 participants in the placebo group did not need further intervention by 4 weeks, compared with 307 (81%) of 378 in the tamsulosin group (adjusted risk difference 1·3% [95% CI -5·7 to 8·3]; p=0·73) and 304 (80%) of 379 in the nifedipine group (0·5% [-5·6 to 6·5]; p=0·88). No difference was noted between active treatment and placebo (p=0·78), or between tamsulosin and nifedipine (p=0·77). Serious adverse events were reported in three participants in the nifedipine group (one had right loin pain, diarrhoea, and vomiting; one had malaise, headache, and chest pain; and one had severe chest pain, difficulty breathing, and left arm pain) and in one participant in the placebo group (headache, dizziness, lightheadedness, and chronic abdominal pain). INTERPRETATION: Tamsulosin 400 µg and nifedipine 30 mg are not effective at decreasing the need for further treatment to achieve stone clearance in 4 weeks for patients with expectantly managed ureteric colic. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Decision aids for people considering taking part in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Several interventions have been developed to promote informed consent for participants in clinical trials. However, many of these interventions focus on the content and structure of information (e.g. enhanced information or changes to the presentation format) rather than the process of decision making. Patient decision aids support a decision making process about medical options. Decision aids support the decision process by providing information about available options and their associated outcomes, alongside information that enables patients to consider what value they place on particular outcomes, and provide structured guidance on steps of decision making. They have been shown to be effective for treatment and screening decisions but evidence on their effectiveness in the context of informed consent for clinical trials has not been synthesised. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of decision aids for clinical trial informed consent compared to no intervention, standard information (i.e. usual practice) or an alternative intervention on the decision making process. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases and to March 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OvidSP) (from 1950); EMBASE (OvidSP) (from 1980); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (from 1806); ASSIA (ProQuest) (from 1987); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/); ClinicalTrials.gov; ISRCTN Register (http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/). We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We contacted study authors and other experts. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing decision aids in the informed consent process for clinical trials alone, or in conjunction with standard information (such as written or verbal) or alongside alternative interventions (e.g. paper-based versus web-based decision aids). Included trials involved potential trial participants, or their guardians, being asked to consider participating in a real or hypothetical clinical trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted reported data and assessed risk of bias. Findings were pooled where appropriate. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one study (290 randomised participants) that investigated the effectiveness of decision aids compared to standard information in the informed consent process for clinical trials. This study reported two separate decision aid randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The decision aid trials were nested within two different parent trials focusing on breast cancer in postmenopausal women. One trial focused on informed consent for treatment in women who had previously had surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), the other on informed consent for prevention in women at high risk for breast cancer. Two different decision aids were used in these RCTs, and were compared with standard information.The pooled findings highlight the uncertainty surrounding most reported outcomes, including knowledge, decisional conflict, anxiety, trial participation and attrition. There was very low quality evidence that decision aids lower levels of decisional regret to a small degree (MD -5.53, 95% CI -10.29 to -0.76). No data were identified on several prespecified primary outcomes, including accurate risk perception, values-based decision, or whether potential participants recognised that a decision needed to be made, were able to identify features of options that matter most to individuals, or were involved in the decision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether decision aids to support the informed consent process for clinical trials are more effective than standard information. Additional well designed, adequately powered clinical trials in more diverse clinical and social populations are needed to strengthen the results of this review. More generally, future research on which outcomes are most relevant for assessment in this context would be helpful.

Types of indwelling urethral catheters for short-term catheterisation in hospitalised adults.

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common hospital-acquired infection. The major associated cause is indwelling urethral catheters. Several measures have been introduced to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). One of these measures is the introduction of specialised urethral catheters that have been designed to reduce the risk of infection. These include antiseptic-coated and antimicrobial-impregnated catheters. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness of different types of indwelling urethral catheters in reducing the risk of UTI and to assess their impact on other outcomes in adults who require short-term urethral catheterisation in hospitals. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group's Specialised Trials Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 9 September 2014). We also examined the bibliographies of relevant articles and contacted catheter manufacturer representatives for trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing types of indwelling urethral catheters for short-term catheterisation in hospitalised adults. 'Short-term' is defined as a duration of catheterisation which is intended to be less than or equal to 14 days. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion or consultation with a third party. We processed data as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-six trials met the inclusion criteria involving 12,422 hospitalised adults in 25 parallel group trials, and 27,878 adults in one large cluster-randomised cross-over trial. No trials compared one antiseptic catheter versus another, nor an antimicrobial catheter versus another. Antiseptic-coated indwelling urethral catheters versus standard indwelling urethral cathetersThe primary outcome, symptomatic CAUTI was reported in one large trial with a low risk of bias, comparing silver alloy hydrogel-coated latex catheter (antiseptic-coated) against a standard polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-coated latex catheter (control). The trial used a pragmatic, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-based definition for symptomatic CAUTI. For the comparison between silver alloy-coated catheter versus standard catheter, there was no significant difference in symptomatic CAUTI incidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16).For secondary outcomes, the included trials reported on two types of antiseptic catheters (coated with either silver oxide or silver alloy). For the outcome of bacteriuria, silver oxide catheters were not associated with any statistically significant reduction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.13). These catheters are no longer manufactured. Silver alloy catheters achieved a slight but statistically significant reduction in bacteriuria (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92). However, the one large trial with a low risk of bias did not support this finding (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16). The randomised cross-over trial of silver alloy catheters versus standard catheters was excluded from the pooled results because data were not available prior to crossover. The results of this trial showed less bacteriuria in the silver alloy catheter group.For the outcome of discomfort whilst the catheter was in-situ, fewer patients with silver alloy catheters complained of discomfort compared with standard catheters (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96). Antimicrobial-impregnated indwelling urethral catheters versus standard indwelling urethral cathetersThe primary outcome measure, symptomatic CAUTI was reported in one large trial with a low risk of bias, comparing nitrofurazone-impregnated silicone catheter (antimicrobial-impregnated) against a standard PTFE-coated latex catheter (control). The nitrofurazone catheter achieved a reduction in symptomatic CAUTI incidence which was of borderline statistical significance (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99).For secondary outcomes, the included trials reported on two types of antimicrobial catheters (impregnated with either nitrofurazone or minocycline/rifampicin). Antimicrobial-impregnated catheters, compared with standard catheters, were found to lower the rate of bacteriuria in the antimicrobial group for both minocycline and rifampicin (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.73), and nitrofurazone (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). The minocycline and rifampicin catheter is no longer manufactured.For the outcome of discomfort whilst the catheter was in-situ, more patients with nitrofurazone catheters complained of pain whilst the catheter was in-situ compared with standard catheters (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.41). For the period after catheter removal, more patients with nitrofurazone catheters complained of pain than standard catheters (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.57). Antimicrobial-impregnated indwelling urethral catheters versus antiseptic-coated indwelling urethral cathetersOne large trial compared antimicrobial-impregnated (nitrofurazone) catheters versus silver alloy-coated (antiseptic-coated) catheters. The results showed people were less likely to have a symptomatic CAUTI with nitrofurazone-impregnated catheters (228/2153, 10.6%) compared with silver alloy-coated catheters (263/2097, 12.5%), but this was of borderline statistical significance (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00). They did, however, have significantly less bacteriuria (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91),While the catheter was in-situ (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.70), and on removal (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.45), nitrofurazone catheters were associated with more discomfort compared with silver-coated catheters. One type of standard indwelling urethral catheter versus another type of standard indwelling urethral catheterNone of the trials comparing standard catheters versus other types of standard catheters measured symptomatic CAUTI. In terms of reducing bacteriuria, individual trials were too small to show whether one type of standard catheter was superior to another type. For the outcome of urethral reactions, fully siliconised catheters appeared to be superior to latex-based catheters. However, the trials involved small numbers of participants. There were no statistically significant differences between the different catheters for all other outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Silver alloy-coated catheters were not associated with a statistically significant reduction in symptomatic CAUTI, and are considerably more expensive. Nitrofurazone-impregnated catheters reduced the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and bacteriuria, although the magnitude of reduction was low and hence may not be clinically important. However, they are more expensive than standard catheters. They are also more likely to cause discomfort than standard catheters.

Retention strategies are routinely communicated to potential trial participants but often differ from what was planned in the trial protocol: an analysis of adult participant information leaflets and their corresponding protocols.

BACKGROUND: Retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging and trial teams are often required to use strategies to ensure retention or improve it. Other than monetary incentives, there is no requirement to disclose the use of retention strategies to the participant. Additionally, not all retention strategies are developed at the planning stage, i.e. post-funding during protocol development, but some protocols include strategies for participant retention as retention is considered and planned for early in the trial planning stage. It is yet unknown if these plans are communicated in the corresponding participant information leaflets (PILs). The purpose of our study was to determine if PILs communicate plans to promote participant retention and, if so, are these outlined in the corresponding trial protocol. METHODS: Ninety-two adult PILs and their 90 corresponding protocols from Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) in the UK were analysed. Directed (deductive) content analysis was used to analyse the participant retention text from the PILs. Data were presented using a narrative summary and frequencies where appropriate. RESULTS: Plans to promote participant retention were communicated in 81.5% (n = 75/92) of PILs. Fifty-seven percent (n = 43/75) of PILs communicated plans to use "combined strategies" to promote participant retention. The most common individual retention strategy was telling the participants that data collection for the trial would be scheduled during routine care visits (16%; n = 12/75 PILs). The importance of retention and the impact that missing or deleted data (deleting data collected prior to withdrawal) has on the ability to answer the research question were explained in 6.5% (n = 6/92) and 5.4% (n = 5/92) of PILs respectively. Out of the 59 PILs and 58 matching protocols that both communicated plans to use strategies to promote participant retention, 18.6% (n = 11/59) communicated the same information, the remaining 81.4% (n = 48/59) of PILs either only partially communicated (45.8%; n = 27/59) the same information or did not communicate the same information (35.6%; n = 21/59) as the protocol with regard to the retention strategy(ies). CONCLUSION: Retention strategies are frequently communicated to potential trial participants in PILs; however, the information provided often differs from the content in the corresponding protocol. Participant retention considerations are best done at the planning stage of the trial and we encourage trial teams to be consistent in the communication of these strategies in both the protocol and PIL.

Understanding implementation of findings from trial method research: a mixed methods study applying implementation frameworks and behaviour change models.

BACKGROUND: Trial method research produces recommendations on how to best conduct trials. However, findings are not routinely implemented into practice. To better understand why, we conducted a mixed method study on the challenges of implementing trial method research findings into UK-based clinical trial units. METHODS: Three stages of research were conducted. Firstly, case studies of completed projects that provided methodological recommendations were identified within trial design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. These case studies were used as survey examples to query obstacles and facilitators to implementing method research. Survey participants were experienced trial staff, identified via email invitations to UK clinical trial units. This survey assessed the case studies' rates of implementation, and demographic characteristics of trial units through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Further, interviews were conducted with senior members of trial units to explore obstacles and facilitators in more detail. Participants were sampled from trial units that indicated their willingness to participate in interviews following the survey. Interviews, and analysis, were structured via the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model of Behaviour. Finally, potential strategies to leverage lessons learned were generated via the Behaviour Change Wheel. RESULTS: A total of 27 UK trial units responded to the survey. The rates of implementation across the case studies varied, with most trial units implementing recommendations in trial conduct and only few implementing recommendations in reporting. However, most reported implementing recommendations was important but that they lacked the resources to do so. A total of 16 senior members of trial units were interviewed. Several themes were generated from interviews and fell broadly into categories related to the methods recommendations themselves, the trial units, or external factors affecting implementation. Belief statements within themes indicated resources issues and awareness of recommendations as frequent implementation obstacles. Participation in trial networks and recommendations packaged with relevant resources were cited frequently as implementation facilitators. These obstacles and facilitators mirrored results from the survey. Results were mapped, via the Behaviour Change Wheel, to intervention functions likely to change behaviours of obstacles and facilitators identified. These intervention functions were developed into potential solutions to reduce obstacles and enhance facilitators to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Several key areas affecting implementation of trial method recommendations were identified. Potential methods to enhance facilitators and reduce obstacles are suggested. Future research is needed to refine these methods and assess their feasibility and acceptability.

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

Background: Gallstone disease is a common gastrointestinal disorder in industrialised societies. The prevalence of gallstones in the adult population is estimated to be approximately 10-15%, and around 80% remain asymptomatic. At present, cholecystectomy is the default option for people with symptomatic gallstone disease. Objectives: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of observation/conservative management compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for preventing recurrent symptoms and complications in adults presenting with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones in secondary care. Design: Parallel group, multicentre patient randomised superiority pragmatic trial with up to 24 months follow-up and embedded qualitative research. Within-trial cost-utility and 10-year Markov model analyses. Development of a core outcome set for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease. Setting: Secondary care elective settings. Participants: Adults with symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease referred to a secondary care setting were considered for inclusion. Interventions: Participants were randomised 1: 1 at clinic to receive either laparoscopic cholecystectomy or observation/conservative management. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was quality of life measured by area under the curve over 18 months using the Short Form-36 bodily pain domain. Secondary outcomes included the Otago gallstones' condition-specific questionnaire, Short Form-36 domains (excluding bodily pain), area under the curve over 24 months for Short Form-36 bodily pain domain, persistent symptoms, complications and need for further treatment. No outcomes were blinded to allocation. Results: Between August 2016 and November 2019, 434 participants were randomised (217 in each group) from 20 United Kingdom centres. By 24 months, 64 (29.5%) in the observation/conservative management group and 153 (70.5%) in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group had received surgery, median time to surgery of 9.0 months (interquartile range, 5.6-15.0) and 4.7 months (interquartile range 2.6-7.9), respectively. At 18 months, the mean Short Form-36 norm-based bodily pain score was 49.4 (standard deviation 11.7) in the observation/conservative management group and 50.4 (standard deviation 11.6) in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. The mean area under the curve over 18 months was 46.8 for both groups with no difference: mean difference -0.0, 95% confidence interval (-1.7 to 1.7); p-value 0.996; n = 203 observation/conservative, n = 205 cholecystectomy. There was no evidence of differences in quality of life, complications or need for further treatment at up to 24 months follow-up. Condition-specific quality of life at 24 months favoured cholecystectomy: mean difference 9.0, 95% confidence interval (4.1 to 14.0), p < 0.001 with a similar pattern for the persistent symptoms score. Within-trial cost-utility analysis found observation/conservative management over 24 months was less costly than cholecystectomy (mean difference -£1033). A non-significant quality-adjusted life-year difference of -0.019 favouring cholecystectomy resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £55,235. The Markov model continued to favour observation/conservative management, but some scenarios reversed the findings due to uncertainties in longer-term quality of life. The core outcome set included 11 critically important outcomes from both patients and healthcare professionals. Conclusions: The results suggested that in the short term (up to 24 months) observation/conservative management may be a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources in selected patients, but subsequent surgeries in the randomised groups and differences in quality of life beyond 24 months could reverse this finding. Future research should focus on longer-term follow-up data and identification of the cohort of patients that should be routinely offered surgery. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN55215960. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/192/71) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The C-GALL study assessed the benefits, in terms of symptoms, quality of life and costs, of cholecystectomy versus observation (conservative management: by the patient and general practitioner that might include dietary advice and pain management and surgery if needed). Four hundred and thirty-four patients with symptomatic gallstones were randomly allocated surgery or conservative management. The main symptom of ongoing bodily pain and some other quality-of-life measures were assessed over the next 2 years using postal questionnaires. After 2 years, 70% of those allocated to surgery had been operated on and 37% of the observation group either had an operation or were waiting for one. There was no difference in bodily pain or overall quality of life between the groups. However, participants in the surgery group reported fewer ongoing problems related to their gallstone disease or after surgery than those in the conservative management group. Surgery was, however, more costly than conservative management. The C-GALL study has shown that for some patients, a conservative management approach may be a sufficient and less costly way of managing their gallstone symptoms rather than going straight on the waiting list for surgery. More research is needed to identify which patients benefit most from surgery.

Participant characteristics and exclusion from phase 3/4 industry funded trials of chronic medical conditions: meta-analysis of individual participant level data.

Objectives: To assess whether age, sex, comorbidity count, and race and ethnic group are associated with the likelihood of trial participants not being enrolled in a trial for any reason (ie, screen failure). Design: Bayesian meta-analysis of individual participant level data. Setting: Industry funded phase 3/4 trials of chronic medical conditions. Participants: Participants were identified using individual participant level data to be in either the enrolled group or screen failure group. Data were available for 52 trials involving 72 178 screened individuals of whom 24 733 (34%) were excluded from the trial at the screening stage. Main outcome measures: For each trial, logistic regression models were constructed to assess likelihood of screen failure in people who had been invited to screening, and were regressed on age (per 10 year increment), sex (male v female), comorbidity count (per one additional comorbidity), and race or ethnic group. Trial level analyses were combined in Bayesian hierarchical models with pooling across condition. Results: In age and sex adjusted models across all trials, neither age nor sex was associated with increased odds of screen failure, although weak associations were detected after additionally adjusting for comorbidity (odds ratio of age, per 10 year increment was 1.02 (95% credibility interval 1.01 to 1.04) and male sex (0.95 (0.91 to 1.00)). Comorbidity count was weakly associated with screen failure, but in an unexpected direction (0.97 per additional comorbidity (0.94 to 1.00), adjusted for age and sex). People who self-reported as black seemed to be slightly more likely to fail screening than people reporting as white (1.04 (0.99 to 1.09)); a weak effect that seemed to persist after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidity count (1.05 (0.98 to 1.12)). The between-trial heterogeneity was generally low, evidence of heterogeneity by sex was noted across conditions (variation in odds ratios on log scale of 0.01-0.13). Conclusions: Although the conclusions are limited by uncertainty about the completeness or accuracy of data collection among participants who were not randomised, we identified mostly weak associations with an increased likelihood of screen failure for age, sex, comorbidity count, and black race or ethnic group. Proportionate increases in screening these underserved populations may improve representation in trials. Trial registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018048202.