Integrating qualitative research within a clinical trials unit: developing strategies and understanding their implementation in contexts.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The value of using qualitative methods within clinical trials is widely recognised. How qualitative research is integrated within trials units to achieve this is less clear. This paper describes the process through which qualitative research has been integrated within Cardiff University's Centre for Trials Research (CTR) in Wales, UK. We highlight facilitators of, and challenges to, integration. METHODS: We held group discussions on the work of the Qualitative Research Group (QRG) within CTR. The content of these discussions, materials for a presentation in CTR, and documents relating to the development of the QRG were interpreted at a workshop attended by group members. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to structure analysis. A writing group prepared a document for input from members of CTR, forming the basis of this paper. RESULTS: Actions to integrate qualitative research comprised: its inclusion in Centre strategies; formation of a QRG with dedicated funding/roles; embedding of qualitative research within operating systems; capacity building/training; monitoring opportunities to include qualitative methods in studies; maximising the quality of qualitative research and developing methodological innovation. Facilitators of these actions included: the influence of the broader methodological landscape within trial/study design and its promotion of the value of qualitative research; and close physical proximity of CTR qualitative staff/students allowing sharing of methodological approaches. Introduction of innovative qualitative methods generated interest among other staff groups. Challenges included: pressure to under-resource qualitative components of research, preference for a statistical stance historically in some research areas and funding structures, and difficulties faced by qualitative researchers carving out individual academic profiles when working across trials/studies. CONCLUSIONS: Given that CTUs are pivotal to the design and conduct of RCTs and related study types across multiple disciplines, integrating qualitative research into trials units is crucial if its contribution is to be fully realised. We have made explicit one trials unit's experience of embedding qualitative research and present this to open dialogue on ways to operationalise and optimise qualitative research in trials. NPT provides a valuable framework with which to theorise these processes, including the importance of sense-making and legitimisation when introducing new practices within organisations.

Exploring critical intervention features and trial processes in the evaluation of sensory integration therapy for autistic children.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of manualised sensory integration therapy (SIT) for autistic children with sensory processing difficulties in a two-arm randomised controlled trial. Trial processes and contextual factors which may have affected intervention outcomes were explored within a nested process evaluation. This paper details the process evaluation methods and results. We also discuss implications for evaluation of individual level, tailored interventions in similar populations. METHODS: The process evaluation was conducted in line with Medical Research Council guidance. Recruitment, demographics, retention, adherence, and adverse effects are reported using descriptive statistics. Fidelity of intervention delivery is reported according to the intervention scoring manual. Qualitative interviews with therapists and carers were undertaken to explore the acceptability of the intervention and trial processes. Qualitative interviews with carers explored potential contamination. RESULTS: Recruitment, reach and retention within the trial met expected thresholds. One hundred thirty-eight children and carers were recruited (92% of those screened and 53.5% of those who expressed an interest) with 77.5% retained at 6 months and 69.9% at 12 months post-randomisation. The intervention was delivered with structural and process fidelity with the majority (78.3%) receiving a 'sufficient dose' of intervention. However, there was considerable individual variability in the receipt of sessions. Carers and therapists reported that trial processes were generally acceptable though logistical challenges such as appointment times, travel and COVID restrictions were frequent barriers to receiving the intervention. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The process evaluation was highly valuable in identifying contextual factors that could impact the effectiveness of this individualised intervention. Rigorous evaluations of interventions for autistic children are important, especially given the limitations such as limited sample sizes and short-term follow-up as faced by previous research. One of the challenges lies in the variability of outcomes considered important by caregivers, as each autistic child faces unique challenges. It is crucial to consider the role of parents or other caregivers in facilitating access to these interventions and how this may impact effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14716440. August 11, 2016.

A systematic review and metanalysis of questionnaires used for auditory processing screening and evaluation.

The recognition of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) as a distinct clinical condition that impacts hearing capacity and mental health has gained attention. Although pure tone audiometry is the gold standard for assessing hearing, it inadequately reflects everyday hearing abilities, especially in challenging acoustic environments. Deficits in speech perception in noise, a key aspect of APD, have been linked to an increased risk of dementia. The World Health Organization emphasizes the need for evaluating central auditory function in cases of mild hearing loss and normal audiometry results. Specific questionnaires play a crucial role in documenting and quantifying the difficulties faced by individuals with APD. Validated questionnaires such as the Children's Auditory Processing Performance Scale, the Fisher's Auditory Problems Checklist, and the Auditory Processing Domains Questionnaire are available for children, while questionnaires for adults include items related to auditory functions associated with APD. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified six questionnaires used for screening and evaluating APD with a total of 783 participants across 12 studies. The questionnaires exhibited differences in domains evaluated, scoring methods, and evaluation of listening in quiet and noise. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that individuals with APD consistently exhibited worse scores compared to healthy controls across all questionnaires. Additionally, comparisons with clinical control groups showed varying results. The study highlights (i) the importance of standardized questionnaires in identifying and assessing APD, aiding in its diagnosis and management, and (ii) the need to use sub-scores as well as overall scores of questionnaires to elaborate on specific hearing and listening situations. There is a need to develop more APD specific questionnaires for the adult population as well as for more focused research on APD diagnosed individuals to further establish the validity and reliability of these questionnaires.

Sensory integration therapy for children with autism and sensory processing difficulties: the SenITA RCT.

BACKGROUND: Carers report unmet need for occupational therapy services addressing sensory difficulties in autism, yet insufficient evidence exists to recommend a therapeutic approach. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sensory integration therapy for children with autism and sensory difficulties across behavioural, functional and quality-of-life outcomes. DESIGN: We carried out a parallel-group randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and a process evaluation. Randomisation utilised random permuted blocks. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Children were recruited via services and self-referral in Wales and England. Inclusion criteria were having an autism diagnosis, being in mainstream primary education and having definite/probable sensory processing difficulties. Exclusion criteria were having current/previous sensory integration therapy and current applied behaviour analysis therapy. INTERVENTION: The intervention was manualised sensory integration therapy delivered over 26 weeks and the comparator was usual care. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was problem behaviours (determined using the Aberrant Behavior Checklist), including irritability/agitation, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were adaptive behaviour, functioning and socialisation (using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales); carer stress (measured using the Autism Parenting Stress Index); quality of life (measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions and Carer Quality of Life); functional change (according to the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure); sensory processing (determined using the Sensory Processing Measure™ at screening and at 6 months to examine mediation effects); and cost-effectiveness (assessed using the Client Service Receipt Inventory). Every effort was made to ensure that outcome assessors were blind to allocation. RESULTS: A total of 138 participants were randomised (n = 69 per group). Usual care was significantly different from the intervention, which was delivered with good fidelity and adherence and minimal contamination, and was associated with no adverse effects. Trial procedures and outcome measures were acceptable. Carers and therapists reported improvement in daily functioning. The primary analysis included 106 participants. There were no significant main effects of the intervention at 6 or 12 months. The adjusted mean difference between groups on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist - irritability at 6 months post randomisation was 0.40 (95% confidence interval -2.33 to 3.14; p = 0.77). Subgroup differences in irritability/agitation at 6 months were observed for sex of child (intervention × female = 6.42, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 12.85; p = 0.050) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (intervention × attention deficit hyperactivity disorder = -6.77, 95% confidence interval -13.55 to -0.01; p = 0.050). There was an effect on carer stress at 6 months by region (intervention × South England = 7.01, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 13.56; p = 0.04) and other neurodevelopmental/genetic conditions (intervention × neurodevelopmental/genetic condition = -9.53, 95% confidence interval -18.08 to -0.98; p = 0.030). Carer-rated goal performance and satisfaction increased across sessions (p < 0.001), with a mean change of 2.75 (95% confidence interval 2.14 to 3.37) for performance and a mean change of 3.34 (95% confidence interval 2.63 to 4.40) for satisfaction. Health economic evaluation suggests that sensory integration therapy is not cost-effective compared with usual care alone. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included variability of the intervention setting (i.e. NHS vs. private), delay for some receiving therapy, an error in administration of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales and no measurement of comparator arm goal performance. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention did not demonstrate clinical benefit above standard care. Subgroup effects are hypothesis-generating only. The intervention is likely to be effective for individualised performance goals, although it is unclear whether effects were in addition to standard care or were maintained. FUTURE WORK: Further investigation of subgroup effects is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14716440. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Children with autism often experience problems with processing sensory information (e.g. noise, touch, movement, taste and sight), and this can lead to problems in daily life. This study was designed to see if sensory integration therapy can help children with these difficulties. Sensory integration therapy is a type of face-to-face play-based treatment that is delivered by occupational therapists. We compared sensory integration therapy with the type of treatment normally offered to children with autism (i.e. 'usual care'). We recruited children and their carers from Wales and England. Children could take part in the study if they had an autism diagnosis, had sensory processing difficulties and were in mainstream primary education. The children taking part in the study were randomly split into two groups. Sixty-nine children were given sensory integration therapy and 69 children carried on with their usual care. The sensory integration therapy involved 24 face-to-face sessions in an occupational therapy clinic, followed by two telephone calls with the carer. The sensory integration therapy lasted for 26 weeks. We collected information on the type of care being given to children in the usual-care group. Carers of each child were asked questions about their child's behaviour 6 and 12 months after starting the study. Some carers also completed an interview to talk about what it was like taking part in the study. Therapists delivered the sensory integration therapy well. Carers and therapists said that they saw some improvements. However, sensory integration therapy was not significantly better than the usual care and is a more expensive option. We cannot say that sensory integration therapy is helpful for all children with autism and different sensory processing difficulties; however, it might be helpful for some children to focus on specific problems. Future work could focus on which children and problems it would help the most.

Understanding the support experiences of families of children with autism and sensory processing difficulties: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Support, such as information, advice and therapies, can play a vital role in the lives of families of autistic children. However, little is known about the support experiences of UK parents and carers. AIM: To explore experiences of and access to support for families of children with autism and sensory processing difficulties, from the perspective of parents and carers. METHODS: Semi-structured, timeline-assisted interviews were conducted with parents/carers of 30 children aged 5-11, exploring experiences of support. Framework analysis was used to identify themes in the interview data. RESULTS: Support varied widely and was not accessed equitably. Specialist autism support, together with support from other parents and voluntary organizations, was perceived as more useful than statutory and nonspecialist provision. Unmet support needs included an ongoing point of contact for information and advice for parents, and access to direct therapy and specialist mental health provision for children. CONCLUSIONS: Findings emphasize the need for a clear pathway of support following autism diagnosis, autism-specific training for professional service providers and specialist provision tailored to the needs of autistic children. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: An advisory group of four parents of children with autism provided feedback on study procedures and materials, including participant information sheets and timeline completion instructions.