Early vocational rehabilitation and psychological support for trauma patients to improve return to work (the ROWTATE trial): study protocol for an individually randomised controlled multicentre pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Moderately severe or major trauma (injury severity score (ISS) > 8) is common, often resulting in physical and psychological problems and leading to difficulties in returning to work. Vocational rehabilitation (VR) can improve return to work/education in some injuries (e.g. traumatic brain and spinal cord injury), but evidence is lacking for other moderately severe or major trauma. METHODS: ROWTATE is an individually randomised controlled multicentre pragmatic trial of early VR and psychological support in trauma patients. It includes an internal pilot, economic evaluation, a process evaluation and an implementation study. Participants will be screened for eligibility and recruited within 12 weeks of admission to eight major trauma centres in England. A total of 722 participants with ISS > 8 will be randomised 1:1 to VR and psychological support (where needed, following psychological screening) plus usual care or to usual care alone. The ROWTATE VR intervention will be provided within 2 weeks of study recruitment by occupational therapists and where needed, by clinical psychologists. It will be individually tailored and provided for ≤ 12 months, dependent on participant need. Baseline assessment will collect data on demographics, injury details, work/education status, cognitive impairment, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic distress, disability, recovery expectations, financial stress and health-related quality of life. Participants will be followed up by postal/telephone/online questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. The primary objective is to establish whether the ROWTATE VR intervention plus usual care is more effective than usual care alone for improving participants' self-reported return to work/education for at least 80% of pre-injury hours at 12 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include other work outcomes (e.g. hours of work/education, time to return to work/education, sickness absence), depression, anxiety, post-traumatic distress, work self-efficacy, financial stress, purpose in life, health-related quality of life and healthcare/personal resource use. The process evaluation and implementation study will be described elsewhere. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide robust evidence regarding a VR intervention for a major trauma population. Evidence of a clinically and cost-effective VR intervention will be important for commissioners and providers to enable adoption of VR services for this large and important group of patients within the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 43115471. Registered 27/07/2021.

Reducing self-harm in adolescents: the RISA-IPD individual patient data meta-analysis and systematic review.

Background: Self-harm is common in adolescents and a major public health concern. Evidence for effective interventions is lacking. An individual patient data meta-analysis has the potential to provide more reliable estimates of the effects of therapeutic interventions for self-harm than conventional meta-analyses, to explore which treatments are best suited to certain groups. Method: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of therapeutic interventions to reduce repeat self-harm in adolescents who had a history of self-harm and presented to clinical services. Primary outcome was repetition of self-harm. The methods employed for searches, study screening and selection, and risk of bias assessment are described, with an overview of the outputs of the searching, selection and quality assessment processes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance is followed. Results: We identified a total 39 eligible studies, from 10 countries, where we sought Individual Patient Data (IPD), of which the full sample of participants were eligible in 18 studies and a partial sample of participants were eligible in 21 studies. We obtained IPD from 26 studies of 3448 eligible participants. For our primary outcome, repetition of self-harm, only 6 studies were rated as low risk of bias with 10 rated as high risk (although 2 of these were for secondary outcomes only). Conclusions: Obtaining individual patient data for meta-analyses is possible but very time-consuming, despite clear guidance from funding bodies that researchers should share their data appropriately. More attention needs to be paid to seeking appropriate consent from study participants for (pseudo) anonymised data-sharing and institutions need to collaborate on agreeing template data-sharing agreements. Researchers and funders need to consider issues of research design more carefully. Our next step is to analyse all the data we have collected to see if it will tell us more about how we might prevent repetition of self-harm in young people. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 17/117/11. A plain language summary of this research article is available on the NIHR Journals Library Website https://doi.org/10.3310/GTNT6331.

Self-harm is very common in young people and leads to an increased risk of death by suicide. Research so far has not provided clear evidence about which interventions can help to prevent self-harm repetition when young people present to services having harmed themselves. One way to understand what might help is to pool the results from lots of different clinical trials ­ this is known as a meta-analysis. This has already been done using the data published in research articles but has not led to clearer conclusions. In part this is because the information available in published articles is patchy and inconsistent which makes pooling the information and analysing it, difficult. A more useful approach is to ask researchers who led the clinical trials for their original 'raw' data and then pool and analyse all that data ­ this is known as an individual patient data meta-analysis. This has the added benefit that it is possible to include studies where only some of the participants are young people. We did this, and were able to identify many more study participants along with their data, compared to earlier meta-analyses. In this article, we describe how we searched for relevant research studies and the methods we used to obtain individual patient data from other researchers. We also describe our rating of the research quality of the studies we identified. We identified more studies, with many more participants in total, than in previous pooled study research. Gathering the data from other researchers was very time-consuming and not everyone was willing or able to share their data. When we rated the quality of the studies that we found, many were not of high quality. Our next step is to analyse all the data we have collected to see if it will tell us more about how we might prevent repetition of self-harm in young people.

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.

Approaches and experiences implementing remote, electronic consent at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic methods to support informed consent ('eConsent') is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK. MAIN TEXT: We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system's generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach.

A pilot randomised controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy for medication decision-making and quality of life in women with breast cancer: The ACTION trial.

OBJECTIVE: Non-adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) in women with breast cancer is common and associated with medication side-effects and distress. We co-designed an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy intervention (ACTION) to enhance medication decision-making and quality of life (QoL). We undertook a pilot trial of ACTION to inform the feasibility of a phase III trial, and to examine intervention acceptability. METHODS: This was a multi-site, exploratory, two-arm, individually randomised external pilot trial. Women with early breast cancer prescribed AET were randomised (1:1) to receive usual care (UC) or UC + ACTION. The ACTION intervention comprised a remotely delivered one-to-one ACT session followed by three group sessions delivered by clinical psychologists, alongside a website containing ideas for the self-management of side effects. RESULTS: Of the 480 women screened for eligibility, 260 (54.2%) were approached and 79 (30.4%) randomised. 71 (89.9%) women provided data at 3-month and 70 (88.6%) at 6-month 40 women were randomised to receive UC + ACTION and 32 (80.0%) completed the intervention. Most (75.0%) accessed the website at least once. ACTION was acceptable to participants (Borkovec & Nau Scale: mean = 7.8 [SD = 2.7] out of 10). Signals of effectiveness in favour of the UC + ACTION arm were observed for medication adherence (Adherence Starts with Knowledge questionnaire-12), QoL (work and social adjustment scale), health-related QoL (functional assessment of cancer therapy[FACT] general and FACT-ES-19/23), distress (generalised anxiety disorder -7, patient health questionnaire-9) and psychological flexibility (valuing questionnaire). CONCLUSIONS: The ACTION intervention was acceptable to patients. There were promising signals for effectiveness on primary and secondary outcomes. A phase III randomised controlled trial is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12027752.

Long-term cost-utility analysis of family therapy vs. treatment as usual for young people seen after self-harm.

BACKGROUND: The joint evidence of the cost and the effectiveness of family-based therapies is modest. OBJECTIVE: To study the cost-effectiveness of family therapy (FT) versus treatment-as-usual (TAU) for young people seen after self-harm combining data from an 18-month trial and hospital records up to 60-month from randomisation. METHODS: We estimate the cost-effectiveness of FT compared to TAU over 5 years using a quasi-Markov state model based on self-harm hospitalisations where probabilities of belonging in a state are directly estimated from hospital data. The primary outcome is quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Cost perspective is NHS and PSS and includes treatment costs, health care use, and hospital attendances whether it is for self-harm or not. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are calculated and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are conducted. RESULTS: Both trial arms show a significant decrease in hospitalisations over the 60-month follow-up. In the base case scenario, FT participants incur higher costs (mean +£1,693) and negative incremental QALYs (-0.01) than TAU patients. The associated ICER at 5 years is dominated and the incremental health benefit at the £30,000 per QALY threshold is -0.067. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis finds the probability that FT is cost-effective is around 3 - 2% up to a maximum willingness to pay of £50,000 per QALY. This suggest that the extension of the data to 60 months show no difference in effectiveness between treatments. CONCLUSION: Whilst extended trial follow-up from routinely collected statistics is useful to improve the modelling of longer-term cost-effectiveness, FT is not cost-effective relative to TAU and dominated in a cost-utility analysis.

Supported exercise TrAining for Men wIth prostate caNcer on Androgen deprivation therapy (STAMINA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STAMINA lifestyle intervention compared with optimised usual care, including internal pilot and parallel process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: UK national clinical guidance recommends that men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy are offered twice weekly supervised aerobic and resistance exercise to address iatrogenic harm caused by treatment. Very few NHS trusts have established adequate provision of such services. Furthermore, interventions fail to demonstrate sustained behaviour change. The STAMINA lifestyle intervention offers a system-level change to clinical care delivery addressing barriers to long-term behaviour change and implementation of new prostate cancer care pathways. This trial aims to establish whether STAMINA is clinically and cost-effective in improving cancer-specific quality of life and/or reducing fatigue compared to optimised usual care. The process evaluation aims to inform the interpretation of results and, if the intervention is shown to benefit patients, to inform the implementation of the intervention into the NHS. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 697) will be identified from a minimum of 12 UK NHS trusts to participate in a multi-centre, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial. Consenting men will have a 'safety to exercise' check and be randomly allocated (5:4) to the STAMINA lifestyle intervention (n = 384) or optimised usual care (n = 313). Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-month post-randomisation. The two primary outcomes are cancer-specific quality of life and fatigue. The parallel process evaluation will follow a mixed-methods approach to explore recruitment and aspects of the intervention including, reach, fidelity, acceptability, and implementation. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the STAMINA lifestyle intervention versus optimised usual care and a discrete choice experiment will explore patient preferences. DISCUSSION: The STAMINA lifestyle intervention has the potential to improve quality of life and reduce fatigue in men on androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Embedding supervised exercise into prostate cancer care may also support long-term positive behaviour change and reduce adverse events caused by treatment. Findings will inform future clinical care and could provide a blueprint for the integration of supervised exercise and behavioural support into other cancer and/or clinical services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 46385239, registered on 30/07/2020. Cancer Research UK 17002, retrospectively registered on 24/08/2022.

Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

Criteria and Indicators for Centers of Clinical Excellence in Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation: A Global Consensus Facilitated by ISRRA.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the International Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Alliance is to create a world where worldwide collaboration brings major breakthroughs for the millions of people living with stroke. A key pillar of this work is to define globally relevant criteria for centers that aspire to deliver excellent clinical rehabilitation and generate exceptional outcomes for patients. OBJECTIVES: This paper presents consensus work conducted with an international group of expert stroke recovery and rehabilitation researchers, clinicians, and people living with stroke to identify and define criteria and measurable indicators for Centers of Clinical Excellence (CoCE) in stroke recovery and rehabilitation. These were intentionally developed to be ambitious and internationally relevant, regardless of a country's development or income status, to drive global improvement in stroke services. METHODS: Criteria and specific measurable indicators for CoCE were collaboratively developed by an international panel of stroke recovery and rehabilitation experts from 10 countries and consumer groups from 5 countries. RESULTS: The criteria and associated indicators, ranked in order of importance, focused upon (i) optimal outcome, (ii) research culture, (iii) working collaboratively with people living with stroke, (iv) knowledge exchange, (v) leadership, (vi) education, and (vii) advocacy. Work is currently underway to user-test the criteria and indicators in 14 rehabilitation centers in 10 different countries. CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that use of the criteria and indicators could support individual organizations to further develop their services and, more widely, provide a mechanism by which clinical excellence can be articulated and shared to generate global improvements in stroke care.

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. METHODS: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. RESULTS: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. CONCLUSIONS: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

PeRsOnaliSed care Planning for oldER people with frailty (PROSPER): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is common in older age and is characterised by loss of biological reserves across multiple organ systems. These changes associated with frailty mean older people can be vulnerable to sudden, dramatic changes in health because of relatively small problems. Older people with frailty are at increased risk of adverse outcomes including disability, hospitalisation, and care home admission, with associated reduction in quality of life and increased NHS and social care costs. Personalised Care Planning offers an anticipatory, preventative approach to supporting older adults to live independently for longer, but it has not been robustly evaluated in a population of older adults with frailty. METHODS: Following an initial feasibility study, this multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial aims to establish whether personalised care planning for older people improves health-related quality of life. It will recruit 1337 participants from general practices across Yorkshire and Humber and Mid-Mersey in the North of England. Eligible patients will be aged 65 and over with an electronic frailty index score of 0.21 or above, living in their own homes, without severe cognitive impairment and not in receipt of end-of-life care. Following confirmation of eligibility, informed consent and baseline data collection, participants will be individually randomised to the PeRsOnaliSed care Planning for oldER people with frailty (PROSPER) intervention or usual care in a 2.6:1 allocation ratio. Participants will not be blinded to allocation, but data collection and analysis will be blinded. The intervention will be delivered over 12 weeks by a Personal Independence Co-ordinator worker based within a voluntary sector organisation, Age UK. The primary outcomes are health-related quality of life, measured using both the physical and mental components of the Short-Form 12 Item Health Questionnaire at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes comprise activities of daily living, self-management capabilities and loneliness, admission to care homes, hospitalisations, and health and social care resource use at 12 months post randomisation. Parallel cost-effectiveness and process evaluations will be conducted alongside the trial. DISCUSSION: The PROSPER study will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalised care planning approach for older people with frailty and inform the process of its implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16123291 .  Registered on  28 August 2020.

'Smart' BLE wearables for digital contact tracing in care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic-a process evaluation of the CONTACT feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid and mass transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus amongst vulnerable people led to devastating effects from COVID-19 in care homes. The CONTACT intervention introduced Bluetooth Low Energy 'smart' wearable devices (BLE wearables) as a basis for automated contact tracing in, and feedback on infection risks and patterns to, care homes to try and improve infection prevention and control (IPC). We planned a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of CONTACT. To be feasible, homes had to adopt CONTACT's technology and new ways of working. This paper reports on the process evaluation conducted alongside CONTACT's feasibility study and explains why it lacked the feasibility and acceptability for a definitive RCT. METHODS: This mixed method process evaluation used Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) qualitative (interviews, field notes, study case report forms and documents, and observation) and quantitative (survey instruments, counts of activity) data to plan, implement, and analyse the mechanisms, effects, and contextual factors that shaped the feasibility and acceptability of the CONTACT intervention. RESULTS: Thirteen themes within four core NPT constructs explained CONTACT's lack of feasibility. Coherence: the home's varied in the scale and extent of commitment and understanding of the technology and study procedures. Leadership credibility was important but compromised by competing priorities. Management and direct care staff saw CONTACT differently. Work to promote (cognitive participation) and enact (collective action) CONTACT was burdensome and failed to be prioritised over competing COVID-19-related demands on time and scarce human and cognitive resources. Ultimately, staff appraisal of the value of CONTACT-generated information and study procedures (reflexivity) was that any utility for IPC was insufficient to outweigh the perceived burden and complexity involved. CONCLUSIONS: Despite implementation failure, dismissing BLE wearables' potential for contact tracing is premature. In non-pandemic conditions, with more time, better co-design and integration of theory-driven implementation strategies tailored to care homes' unique contexts, researchers could enhance normalisation in readiness for future pandemic challenges. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registration: 11,204,126 registered 17/02/2021.

Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).

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.

Intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour and improve outcomes after stroke (Get Set Go): a study protocol for the process evaluation of a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RECREATE).

INTRODUCTION: Stroke survivors spend long periods of time engaging in sedentary behaviour (SB) even when their functional recovery is good. In the RECREATE programme, an intervention aimed at reducing SB ('Get Set Go') will be implemented and evaluated in a pragmatic external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. We report the protocol for the process evaluation which will address the following objectives: (1) describe and clarify causal assumptions about the intervention, and its mechanisms of impact; (2) assess implementation fidelity; (3) explore views, perceptions and acceptability of the intervention to staff, stroke survivors and their carers; (4) establish the contextual factors that influence implementation, intervention mechanisms and outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pilot trial will be conducted in 15 UK-based National Health Service stroke services. This process evaluation study, underpinned by the Medical Research Council guidance, will be undertaken in six of the randomised services (four intervention, two control). Data collection includes the following: observations of staff training sessions, non-participant observations in inpatient and community settings, semi-structured interviews with staff, patients and carers, and documentary analysis of key intervention components. Additional quantitative implementation data will be collected in all sites. Training observations and documentary analysis data will be summarised, with other observational and interview data analysed using thematic analysis. Relevant theories will be used to interpret the findings, including the theoretical domains framework, normalisation process theory and the theoretical framework of acceptability. Anticipated outputs include the following: recommendations for intervention refinements (both content and implementation); a revised implementation plan and a refined logic model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by Yorkshire & The Humber - Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 19/YH/0403). Findings will be disseminated via peer review publications, and national and international conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN82280581.

A cluster randomised controlled trial, process and economic evaluation of quality improvement collaboratives aligned to a national audit to improve the care for people with diabetes (EQUIPD): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: People with type 1 diabetes and raised glucose levels are at greater risk of retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy, cardiovascular disease, sexual health problems and foot disease. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends continuous subcutaneous 'insulin pump' therapy for people with type 1 diabetes whose HbA1c is above 69 mmol/mol. Insulin pump use can improve quality of life, cut cardiovascular risk and increase treatment satisfaction. About 90,000 people in England and Wales meet NICE criteria for insulin pumps but do not use one. Insulin pump use also varies markedly by deprivation, ethnicity, sex and location. Increasing insulin pump use is a key improvement priority. Audit and feedback is a common but variably effective intervention. Limited capabilities of healthcare providers to mount effective responses to feedback from national audits, such as the National Diabetes Audit (NDA), undermines efforts to improve care. We have co-developed a theoretically and empirically informed quality improvement collaborative (QIC) to strengthen local responses to feedback with patients and carers, national audits and healthcare providers. We will evaluate whether the QIC improves the uptake of insulin pumps following NDA feedback. METHODS: We will undertake an efficient cluster randomised trial using routine data. The QIC will be delivered alongside the NDA to specialist diabetes teams in England and Wales. Our primary outcome will be the proportion of people with type 1 diabetes and an HbA1c above 69 mmol/mol who start and continue insulin pump use during the 18-month intervention period. Secondary outcomes will assess change in glucose control and duration of pump use. Subgroup analyses will explore impacts upon inequalities by ethnicity, sex, age and deprivation. A theory-informed process evaluation will explore diabetes specialist teams' engagement, implementation, fidelity and tailoring through observations, interviews, surveys and documentary analysis. An economic evaluation will micro-cost the QIC, estimate cost-effectiveness of NDA feedback with QIC and estimate the budget impact of NHS-wide QIC roll out. DISCUSSION: Our study responds to a need for more head-to-head trials of different ways of reinforcing feedback delivery. Our findings will have implications for other large-scale audit and feedback programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN82176651 Registered 18 October 2022.

The detection and management of attempted fraud during an online randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Online studies offer an efficient method of recruiting participants and collecting data. Whilst delivering an online randomised trial, we detected unusual recruitment activity. We describe our approach to detecting and managing suspected fraud and share lessons for researchers. METHODS: Our trial investigated the single and combined effects of different ways of presenting clinical audit and feedback. Clinicians and managers who received feedback from one of five United Kingdom national clinical audit programmes were emailed invitations that contained a link to the trial website. After providing consent and selecting their relevant audit, participants were randomised automatically to different feedback versions. Immediately after viewing their assigned feedback, participants completed a questionnaire and could request a financial voucher by entering an email address. Email addresses were not linked to trial data to preserve participant anonymity. We actively monitored participant numbers, questionnaire completions, and voucher claims. RESULTS: Following a rapid increase in trial participation, we identified 268 new voucher claims from three email addresses that we had reason to believe were linked. Further scrutiny revealed duplicate trial completions and voucher requests from 24 email addresses. We immediately suspended the trial, improved security measures, and went on to successfully complete the study. We found a peak in questionnaires completed in less than 20 seconds during a likely contamination period. Given that study and personal data were not linked, we could not directly identify the trial data from the 268 duplicate entries within the 603 randomisations occurring during the same period. We therefore excluded all 603 randomisations from the primary analysis, which was consequently based on 638 randomisations. A sensitivity analysis, including all 961 randomisations over the entire study except for questionnaire completions of less than 20 seconds, found only minor differences from the primary analysis. CONCLUSION: Online studies offering incentives for participation are at risk of attempted fraud. Systematic monitoring and analysis can help detect such activity. Measures to protect study integrity include linking participant identifiers to study data, balancing study security and ease of participation, and safeguarding the allocation of participant incentives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN41584028. Registration date is August 17, 2017.

RECREATE: a study protocol for a multicentre pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) in UK stroke services evaluating an intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in stroke survivors (Get Set Go) with embedded process and economic evaluations.

INTRODUCTION: Sedentary behaviour (sitting or lying during waking hours without being otherwise active) is strongly associated with adverse health outcomes, including all-cause, cancer and cardiovascular mortality in adults. Stroke survivors are consistently reported as being more sedentary than healthy age-matched controls, spending more hours sedentary daily and sustaining longer unbroken bouts of sedentary time. An evidence-based and clinically feasible intervention ('Get Set Go') was developed. A pragmatic definitive trial to evaluate Get Set Go was planned; however, due to the unprecedented effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on National Health Service (NHS) services this study was reduced in size and scope to become an external pilot trial. We report the protocol for this external pilot trial, which aims to undertake a preliminary exploration of whether Get Set Go is likely to improve ability to complete extended activities of daily living in the first year post-stroke and inform future trial designs in stroke rehabilitation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. UK-based stroke services will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention (usual care plus Get Set Go) or control (usual care) arm. Fifteen stroke services will recruit 300-400 stroke inpatient and carer participants, with follow-up at 6, 12 and 24 months. The proposed primary endpoint is stroke survivor self-reported Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale at 12 months. Endpoint analyses will be exploratory and provide preliminary estimates of intervention effect. The process evaluation will provide valuable information on intervention fidelity, acceptability and how it can be optimised. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by Yorkshire and The Humber - Bradford-Leeds Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 19/YH/0403). Results will be disseminated through journal publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial was registered prospectively on 01 April 2020 (ISRCTN ref: ISRCTN82280581).

An intervention to support stroke survivors and their carers in the longer term: results of a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial (LoTS2Care).

BACKGROUND: To address the limited provision of longer-term stroke care, we conducted a programme of research (LoTS2Care) to develop and test an intervention to form part of a replicable longer-term care strategy. New Start, a programme of facilitated self-management, was developed to be delivered at 6 months post-stroke by trained facilitators. Here, we report the findings from the final workstream of this programme, which aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a future definitive cluster randomised controlled trial of the developed intervention (New Start) to support stroke survivors and their carers in the longer term. METHODS: A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in English and Welsh NHS stroke services. Stroke services (clusters) were randomised on a 1:1 basis to implement New Start or continue with usual care only. Community-dwelling stroke survivors between 4 and 6 months post-stroke were invited to participate in the trial by post. Outcome measures were collected via post at 3, 6 and 9 months after recruitment. Recruitment and follow-up rates, delivery and uptake of the intervention, data collection feasibility (including postal outcome measures of health and disability, mental well-being at 3, 6, and 9 months post-recruitment) and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Ten stroke services were recruited. A total of 1127 stroke survivors were screened for participation, and 269 were registered (New Start, n = 145; usual care, n = 124). Retention was high with 239 (89%) stroke survivors being available for follow-up at 9 months, and high return rates of postal questionnaires were achieved (80.3% at 9 months). Intervention training was successfully delivered, and New Start was offered to 95.2% of trial participants in the intervention arm. Uptake was variable, however, ranging from 11.8 to 75.0%. There were no safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke service recruitment and longer-term stroke survivor postal recruitment and outcome data collection are feasible; however, refinement of intervention targeting and delivery is required prior to undertaking a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN38920246. Registered 22 June 2016 ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN38920246 ).