A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a peer-delivered outreach community-based smoking cessation intervention for women living in disadvantaged communities in Ireland.

INTRODUCTION: The health of women in rural communities is adversely impacted by increased rates of tobacco use linked to socio-economic disadvantage (SED) and by limited access to services. We Can Quit (WCQ) is a smoking cessation programme delivered by trained lay women (community facilitators) in local communities, which was developed using a Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach and tailored to women living in SED areas of Ireland. METHODS: The We Can Quit2 (WCQ2) pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with an inbuilt process evaluation was conducted in four matched pairs of urban and semi-rural SED districts (8-10,000 women per district) to assess feasibility. Districts were independently randomised to WCQ (group support +/- nicotine replacement therapy), or to individual support delivered by health professionals. RESULTS: Findings showed that that the WCQ outreach programme is acceptable and feasible to implement for smoking women living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. A secondary outcome of smoking abstinence (self-report + biochemical validation) demonstrated 27% abstinence in the intervention group versus 17% in usual care at end of programme. Low literacy was highlighted as a major barrier to participants' acceptability. DISCUSSION: The design of our project provides an affordable solution for governments in prioritising outreach smoking cessation in vulnerable populations in countries with rising rates of female lung cancer. Our community-based model using a CBPR approach empowers local women to become trained to deliver smoking cessation programmes within their own local communities. This provides a foundation to create a sustainable and equitable way to address tobacco use in rural communities.

A process evaluation of 'We Can Quit': a community-based smoking cessation intervention targeting women from areas of socio-disadvantage in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Smoking poses a serious risk of early preventable death and disease especially for women living with socio-economic disadvantage (SED). A smoking cessation programme, 'We Can Quit', was developed in Ireland tailored to SED women. This includes group-based support delivered by trained lay local community facilitators (CFs) and free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The intervention was pilot tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial, 'We Can Quit 2'. This paper reports on the WCQ2 process evaluation which assessed feasibility and acceptability of the programme and trial processes. METHODS: Embedded qualitative design using the UK Medical Research Council's process evaluation framework. Semi-structured interviews with trial participants (N = 21) and CFs (N = 8). Thematic analysis was utilised. RESULTS: Peer-modelling, a non-judgemental environment, CFs facilitation of group support were viewed as acceptable programme related factors. Some participants expressed concerns about NRT side effects. Provision of free NRT was welcomed and accepted by participants, although structural barriers made access challenging. Pharmacists took on a role that became larger than originally envisaged - and the majority provided additional support to women in their quit attempts between group meetings which augmented and supplemented the intervention sessions provided by the CFs. Participants reported good acceptance of repeated measures for data collection, but mixed acceptability of provision of saliva samples. Low literacy affected the feasibility of some women to fully engage with programme and trial-related materials. This was despite efforts made by intervention developers and the trial team to make materials (e.g., participant intervention booklet; consent forms and participant information leaflets) accessible while also meeting requirements under 2018 European General Data Protection Regulation legislation. Hypothetical scenarios of direct (e.g., researcher present during programme delivery) and indirect (e.g., audio recordings of programme sessions) observational fidelity assessments for a future definitive trial (DT) were acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention and trial-related processes were generally feasible and acceptable to participants and CFs. Any future DT will need to take further steps to mitigate structural barriers to accessing free NRT; and the established problem of low literacy and low educational attainment in SED areas, while continuing to comply within the contemporary legislative research environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: WCQ2 pilot trial ( ISRCTN74721694 ).

The SPIRIT Checklist-lessons from the experience of SPIRIT protocol editors.

Crystal clear RCT protocols are of paramount importance. The reader needs to easily understand the trial methodology and know what is pre-planned. They need to know there are procedures in place if there are, for instance, protocol breaches and protocol amendments are required, there is loss to follow-up and missing data, and how solicited and spontaneous reported adverse events are dealt with. This plan is important for the trial and for the results that will be published when the data is analysed. After all, individuals have consented to participate in these trials, and their time and their well-being matter. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) provides guidance to structure RCT protocols and ensures all essential information is included. But sadly, not all trialists follow the guidance, and sometimes, the information is misunderstood. Using experience peer-reviewing for Trials over the last 2 years, we have prepared information to assist authors, peer reviewers, editors, and other current and future SPIRIT protocol editors to use the SPIRIT guidance and understand its importance.

An application of PRECIS-2 to evaluate trial design in a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a community-based smoking cessation intervention for women living in disadvantaged areas of Ireland.

BACKGROUND: "We Can Quit2" (WCQ2) was a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with an embedded process evaluation assessing the feasibility and acceptability of 'We Can Quit' (WCQ, a peer-delivered community-based stop-smoking programme for women in disadvantaged communities. The control group comprised 'enhanced usual care' offered by the Irish Health Service Executive (HSE). The PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) is a tool to assess whether a trial design is more explanatory (working under ideal conditions) or pragmatic (working under 'real-world' conditions). The aim of this paper was to retrospectively evaluate the WCQ2 pilot trial using PRECIS-2 to inform the decision-making process on progression to a future definitive trial (DT). METHODS: The WCQ2 trial protocol and HSE standard stop-smoking service were described across the nine PRECIS-2 domains: eligibility, recruitment, setting, organisation, flexibility-delivery, flexibility-adherence, follow-up and primary outcome. Team members scored the domains as pragmatic or explanatory for each arm in a half-day workshop. RESULTS: Seven team members (practitioners and researchers) assessed the overall trial design as more explanatory than pragmatic. Important differences emerged between the two arms. WCQ targeted adult women from disadvantaged communities whereas HSE run a limited enhanced service for all quitters. Trial recruitment was challenging, intense efforts were needed as the trial proceeded. WCQ was delivered in a non-clinical community setting, HSE services in a clinical setting. WCQ organisation was co-designed with community partners and comprises peer-to-peer group support delivered by trained lay community facilitators, whereas HSE one-to-one support is delivered by Smoking Cessation Officers with a clinical background. Only WCQ allowed flexibility in delivery and adherence. Follow-up was more intensive in WCQ. Greater efforts to improve participant retention will be required in a future DT. CONCLUSIONS: PRECIS-2 allowed the reflection of practitioners and researchers on similarities and differences between intervention and control arms. Results will inform the decision on progression to an effectiveness DT, which will require more a pragmatic and less explanatory design. This novel use of PRECIS-2 to retrospectively evaluate a complex community-based pilot trial in advance of a full DT will also support learning for those undertaking hybrid trials of implementation and effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry ( No. 74721694 ).

Peer-Delivery of a Gender-Specific Smoking Cessation Intervention for Women Living in Disadvantaged Communities in Ireland We Can Quit2 (WCQ2)-A Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We Can Quit" (WCQ) is community-based stop-smoking program delivered by trained community facilitators, based on the socio-ecological framework and developed using a Community-based Participatory Research approach, targeting women living in socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) areas of Ireland. AIMS AND METHODS: The We Can Quit2 (WCQ2) pilot trial assessed the feasibility of WCQ. A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial with a process evaluation WCQ2, was conducted in four matched pairs of SED districts (8-10 000 women per district). Districts were independently randomized to WCQ (group support + nicotine replacement therapy), or to individual support delivered by health professionals. Participants were adult women smokers interested in quitting, who were living or working in trial districts. Recruitment of districts and 194 women in four waves (49 women per wave); retention at 12 weeks and 6 months; fidelity to intervention delivery and acceptability of trial-related processes were assessed. Validated smoking abstinence at 12-week and 6-month post-intervention was recorded, missing data assumed as continued smoking. RESULTS: Eight districts were recruited. 125/188 (66.5%) eligible women consented. The 49 women target was reached in wave4. Retention at 12 weeks was (Intervention [I]: 55.4%; Control [C]: 51.7%), at 6 months (I: 47.7%; C: 46.7%). Smoking abstinence at 12 weeks was (I: 23.1%, [95% CI: 14.5 to 34.7]; C: 13%, [95% CI: 6.9 to 24.1]). 83.8% of session activities were delivered. Trial-related processes were acceptable to facilitators. Low literacy was highlighted as a barrier for participants' acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: WCQ was feasible to deliver by trained facilitators and indicated a positive direction in abstinence rates. Low literacy will need to be addressed in a future trial design. IMPLICATIONS: This pilot trial showed that a stop-smoking intervention tailored to a group of women smokers living in SED areas which was delivered by trained local women within their local communities was feasible. Furthermore, although not formally compared, more WCQ women were abstinent from smoking at the end of treatment. The results are relevant to enhance the design of a fully powered effectiveness trial, and provide important evidence on the barriers to deliver a tailored smoking cessation service to SED women smokers in Ireland.

Designing provider-focused implementation trials with purpose and intent: introducing the PRECIS-2-PS tool.

BACKGROUND: First articulated by Schwartz and Lellouch (1967), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be conceptualized along a continuum from more explanatory to more pragmatic. The purpose and intent of the former is to test interventions under ideal contexts, and the purpose and intent of the latter is to test interventions in real-world contexts. The PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) is a validated tool that helps researchers make decisions about the elements of the trial to match the overall purpose and intent of the trial along the continuum. The PRECIS-2 tool has guided the design of hundreds of RCTs. However, a few aspects of the tool would benefit from greater clarity, including its application to provider-focused implementation trials rather than patient-focused intervention trials. MAIN TEXT: We describe the newly developed PRECIS-2-Provider Strategies (PRECIS-2-PS) tool, an extension of the PRECIS-2 tool, which has been adapted for trials testing provider-focused strategies. We elaborate on nine domains that can make a provider-focused trial more explanatory or more pragmatic, including eligibility, recruitment, setting, implementation resources, flexibility of provider strategies, flexibility of intervention, data collection, primary outcome, and primary analysis. We detail the complementary roles that researchers and stakeholders play in the trial design phase, with implications for generalizability of trial results to the contexts in which they are intended to be applied. CONCLUSIONS: The PRECIS-2-PS tool is designed to help research and practice teams plan for provider-focused trials that reflect the overall intent and purpose of the trial. The tool has potential to help advance the science of provider-focused strategies across a range of trials, with the ultimate goal of facilitating the adoption, integration, and sustainability of provider-focused strategies outside the context of trials.

PRECIS-2 for retrospective assessment of RCTs in systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) may be intended either to support real-world decisions on choice between alternative interventions or to help researchers understand mechanisms of action of an intervention. PRECIS-2 is widely used to help investigators match detailed design elements to their main intention for that RCT. PRECIS-2 is increasingly being used retrospectively for assessing RCTs within reviews. In this commentary, we counter arguments that RCTs with a placebo control group, masking/blinding of participants or providers, or conducted in a single center should be retrospectively assessed as completely explanatory, overriding a detailed PRECIS-2 assessment. We also counter arguments that a trial cannot be assessed using only the main peer-reviewed trial report. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a commentary on the use of PRECIS-2 for systematic reviews. RESULTS: Although placebos are seldom openly prescribed in real-world care, knowing that an intervention achieves its impact via the placebo effect might change some clinical and policy decisions, which means that this feature does not always preclude decision-making use and so should not override a full PRECIS-2 assessment. A domain describing the comparator should be added to PRECIS-2. Conduct of an RCT in only a single centre should also not override PRECIS-2 as the decision support value of a single-centre RCT could be high for decision makers in that centre and others like it. Many journals require that submitted RCT reports meet CONSORT reporting guidelines, which standardizes the available information for all RCTs in systematic reviews; whereas information from registration and protocol documents is unstandardized and undermines comparison between RCTs and across reviews. Published RCT reports are thus more suitable for retrospective PRECIS-2 assessments, but PRECIS-2 domains with missing information should be scored as blank. Wider use of the CONSORT extension specific to pragmatic trials may reduce domains with missing data. CONCLUSIONS: PRECIS-2 can be used for retrospective assessments of trials in systematic reviews. The PRECIS-2 instrument should be expanded by including a domain describing the control group(s). Published RCT reports are suitable for retrospective PRECIS-2 assessments.

We Can Quit2 (WCQ2): a community-based intervention on smoking cessation for women living in disadvantaged areas of Ireland-study protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in Ireland with almost 6000 smokers dying each year from smoking-related diseases. The 'We Can Quit2' (WCQ2) study is a pilot pragmatic two-arm, parallel-group, cluster randomised trial that aims to explore the feasibility and acceptability of trial processes including recruitment and to estimate parameters to inform sample size estimates needed for an effectiveness trial. This future trial will assess the effectiveness of a community-based smoking cessation intervention for women living in disadvantaged areas on short- and medium-term cessation rates. METHODS/DESIGN: Four matched pairs of districts (eight clusters) selected by area level of deprivation, geographical proximity, and eligibility for free medical services will be randomised to receive either WCQ (behavioural support + access to Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT)) delivered over 12 weeks by trained Community Facilitators (CFs) or to a form of usual care, a one-to-one smoking cessation service delivered by Smoking Cessation Officers from Ireland's national health service, the Health Service Executive (HSE). Within each cluster, 24-25 women will be recruited (97 per arm; 194 in total) in 4 phases with consent obtained prior to cluster randomisation. The outcome measures will assess feasibility and acceptability of trial processes, including randomisation. Outcome data for a future definitive intervention (biochemically validated smoking abstinence) will be collected at end of programme (12 weeks) and at 6 months. WCQ2 has an embedded process evaluation using both qualitative and quantitative methods. This will be conducted (semi-structured client and CF interviews, intervention delivery checklist, and diary) to explore acceptability of trial processes, intervention fidelity, trial context, and implementation. Trial processes will be assessed against domains of the PRECIS-2 wheel to inform a future definitive trial design. DISCUSSION: Data from this pilot trial will inform the design and sample size for a full cluster randomised trial to determine the effectiveness of an intervention tailored to disadvantaged women in improving smoking cessation rates. It will provide transferable learning on the systems and implementation strategies needed to support effective design of future pragmatic community-based trials which address health promotion interventions for women in disadvantaged communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Concurrent to publication. Controlled trials ISRCTN74721694.

Improving the relevance of randomised trials to primary care: a qualitative study investigating views towards pragmatic trials and the PRECIS-2 tool.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials have been suggested as a way to improve the relevance of clinical trial results to practice. PRECIS-2 (Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2) is a trial design tool which considers how pragmatic a trial is across a number of domains. It is not known whether a pragmatic approach to all PRECIS-2 domains leads to results being more relevant to primary care. The aim of this study was to investigate the views of people with influence on primary care practice towards the design of randomised trials, pragmatic approaches to trial design, and the PRECIS-2 domains. METHODS: We carried out semi-structured interviews with people who influence practice in primary care in the UK. A thematic analysis was undertaken using the framework approach. RESULTS: We conducted individual or small group interviews involving an elite sample of 17 individuals. We found that an exclusively pragmatic approach to randomised trials may not always make the results of trials more applicable to primary care. For example, it may be better to have less flexibility in the way interventions are delivered in randomised trials than in practice. In addition, an appropriate balance needs to be struck when thinking about levels of resourcing and the intensity of steps needed to improve adherence in a trial. Across other aspects of a trial's design, for example the population and trial setting, a pragmatic approach was viewed as more appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: To maximize the relevance of research directed at primary care, trials should be conducted with the same populations and settings that are found in primary care. Across other aspects of trials it is not always necessary to match the conditions found in practice.

Building internal capacity in pragmatic trials: a workshop for program scientists at the US National Cancer Institute.

BACKGROUND: Building capacity in research funding organizations to support the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials is an essential component of advancing biomedical and public health research. To date, efforts to increase the ability to design and carry out pragmatic trials have largely focused on training researchers. To complement these efforts, we developed an interactive workshop tailored to meet the roles and responsibilities of program scientists at the National Cancer Institute-the leading cancer research funding agency in the USA. The objectives of the workshop were to improve the understanding of pragmatic trials and enhance the capacity to distinguish between elements that make a trial more pragmatic or more explanatory among key programmatic staff. To our knowledge, this is the first reported description of such a workshop. MAIN BODY: The workshop was developed to meet the needs of program scientists as researchers and stewards of research funds, which often includes promoting scientific initiatives, advising prospective applicants, collaborating with grantees, and creating training programs. The workshop consisted of presentations from researchers with expertise in the design and interpretation of trials across the explanatory-pragmatic continuum. Presentations were followed by interactive, small-group exercises to solidify participants' understanding of the purpose and conduct of these trials, which were tailored to attendees' areas of expertise across the cancer control continuum and designed to reflect their scope of work as program scientists at NCI. A total of 29 program scientists from the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences and the Division of Cancer Prevention participated; 19 completed a post-workshop evaluation. Attendees were very enthusiastic about the workshop: they reported improved knowledge, significant relevance of the material to their work, and increased interest in pragmatic trials across the cancer control continuum. CONCLUSION: Training program scientists at major biomedical research agencies who are responsible for developing funding opportunities and advising grantees is essential for increasing the quality and quantity of pragmatic trials. Together with workshops for other target audiences (e.g., academic researchers), this approach has the potential to shape the future of pragmatic trials and continue to generate more and better actionable evidence to guide decisions that are of critical importance to health care practitioners, policymakers, and patients.

Auriculotherapy to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer: protocol of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Due to the worldwide rise in cancer incidence, and therefore the rise in the need for antineoplastic chemotherapy, it is important for both healthcare professionals and patients alike that the side effects of chemotherapy, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), are treated and prevented. Auriculotherapy is a type of acupuncture and may be a low-cost and safe antiemetic measure to control the side effects of chemotherapy. The goal of this systematic review is to synthesize the available evidence in the literature regarding the auriculotherapy effects to treat CINV in people with cancer. METHODS: The review will only include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare the clinical effects of the auriculotherapy intervention (used alone or as an add-on), with sham auriculotherapy, routine treatment with antiemetic drugs, or other non-pharmacological interventions in patients with cancer with CINV who are undergoing chemotherapy. The outcomes to be evaluated are nausea and vomiting: in acute, delayed, or anticipated stages, when induced by chemotherapy. A comprehensive search for studies will be carried out in these databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ICTRP, LILACS, CUMED, IBECS, BVS MTCI Americas, Web of Science, Scopus, PEDro, CNKI, and CBMdisc up until December 31, 2018. Only articles in English, Portuguese, and Spanish will be selected. Two independent reviewers will evaluate full texts, extract data, and assess the risk of bias of eligible articles. The quality of evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A meta-analysis will be undertaken to assess the interventions and outcomes' homogeneity, assessing statistical heterogeneity using the Cochran's Q test and quantified using Higgins' inconsistency index. If there is insufficient data for a meta-analysis, a narrative synthesis will be presented. This protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review will summarize the strength of evidence for the use of auriculotherapy in the control of CINV of patients with cancer and will be used to identify evidence gaps. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018117513.

Framing the conversation: use of PRECIS-2 ratings to advance understanding of pragmatic trial design domains.

BACKGROUND: There continues to be debate about what constitutes a pragmatic trial and how it is distinguished from more traditional explanatory trials. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project, which includes five trials and a coordinating unit, has adopted the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) instrument. The purpose of the study was to collect PRECIS-2 ratings at two points in time to assess whether the tool was sensitive to change in trial design, and to explore with investigators the rationale for rating shifts. METHODS: A mixed-methods design included sequential collection and analysis of quantitative data (PRECIS-2 ratings) and qualitative data. Ratings were collected at two annual, in-person project meetings, and subsequent interviews conducted with investigators were recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo 11 Pro for Windows. Rating shifts were coded as either (1) actual change (reflects a change in procedure or protocol), (2) primarily a rating shift reflecting rater variability, or (3) themes that reflect important concepts about the tool and/or pragmatic trial design. RESULTS: Based on PRECIS-2 ratings, each trial was highly pragmatic at the planning phase and remained so 1 year later in the early phases of trial implementation. Over half of the 45 paired ratings for the nine PRECIS-2 domains indicated a rating change from Time 1 to Time 2 (N = 24, 53%). Of the 24 rating changes, only three represented a true change in the design of the trial. Analysis of rationales for rating shifts identified critical themes associated with the tool or pragmatic trial design more generally. Each trial contributed one or more relevant comments, with Eligibility, Flexibility of Adherence, and Follow-up each accounting for more than one. CONCLUSIONS: PRECIS-2 has proved useful for "framing the conversation" about trial design among members of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project. Our findings suggest that design elements assessed by the PRECIS-2 tool may represent mostly stable decisions. Overall, there has been a positive response to using PRECIS-2 to guide conversations around trial design, and the project's focus on the use of the tool by this group of early adopters has provided valuable feedback to inform future trainings on the tool.

Understanding the applicability of results from primary care trials: lessons learned from applying PRECIS-2.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two approaches for trial teams to apply PRECIS-2 to pragmatic trials: independent scoring and scoring following a group discussion. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We recruited multidisciplinary teams who were conducting or had conducted trials in primary care in collaboration with the Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London. Each team carried out two rounds of scoring on the nine PRECIS-2 domains: first independently using an online version of PRECIS-2 and second following a discussion. RESULTS: Seven teams took part in the study. Before the discussion, within-team agreement in scores was generally poor and not all raters were able to score all domains; agreement improved after the discussion. The PRECIS-2 wheels suggested that the trials were pragmatic, although some domains were more pragmatic than others. CONCLUSION: PRECIS-2 can facilitate information exchange within trial teams. To apply PRECIS-2 successfully, we recommend a discussion between those with detailed understanding of what usual care is for the intervention, the trial's design including operational and technical aspects, and the PRECIS-2 domains. For some cluster-randomized trials, greater insight may be gained by plotting two PRECIS-2 wheels, one at the individual participant level and another at the cluster level.

The PRECIS-2 tool has good interrater reliability and modest discriminant validity.

OBJECTIVES: PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS)-2 is a tool that could improve design insight for trialists. Our aim was to validate the PRECIS-2 tool, unlike its predecessor, testing the discriminant validity and interrater reliability. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Over 80 international trialists, methodologists, clinicians, and policymakers created PRECIS-2 helping to ensure face validity and content validity. The interrater reliability of PRECIS-2 was measured using 19 experienced trialists who used PRECIS-2 to score a diverse sample of 15 randomized controlled trial protocols. Discriminant validity was tested with two raters to independently determine if the trial protocols were more pragmatic or more explanatory, with scores from the 19 raters for the 15 trials as predictors of pragmatism. RESULTS: Interrater reliability was generally good, with seven of nine domains having an intraclass correlation coefficient over 0.65. Flexibility (adherence) and recruitment had wide confidence intervals, but raters found these difficult to rate and wanted more information. Each of the nine PRECIS-2 domains could be used to differentiate between trials taking more pragmatic or more explanatory approaches with better than chance discrimination for all domains. CONCLUSION: We have assessed the validity and reliability of PRECIS-2. An elaboration study and web site provide guidance to help future users of the tool which is continuing to be tested by trial teams, systematic reviewers, and funders.

What do patients and the public know about clinical practice guidelines and what do they want from them? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Guideline producers are increasingly producing versions of guidelines for the public. The aim of this study was to explore what patients and the public understand about the purpose and production of clinical guidelines, and what they want from clinical guidelines to support their healthcare decisions. METHODS: Participants were purposively selected to represent a range of the likely users of patient versions of guidelines, including individuals with health conditions (diabetes and depression), general members of the public, health communication professionals and a group of young people. Participants were asked about their awareness and understanding of clinical guidelines and presented with scenario recommendations, or draft materials from patient guidelines to prompt discussion. Each discussion was facilitated by one or two researchers. All focus groups were recorded and transcribed prior to analysis. Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: We ran nine focus groups involving 62 individuals, supplemented by four interviews with people experiencing homelessness. Eight groups were held in Scotland, one in England. The four interviews were held in Scotland. The framework analysis yielded five themes: access and awareness; what patients want to know; properties of guidelines; presenting evidence; and format. Awareness of guidelines was low. Participants emphasised the need for information that enables them to choose between treatment options, including harms. They would like help with this from healthcare professionals, especially general practitioners. Participants differed in their support for the inclusion of numerical information and graphs. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the public want information to help them choose between treatments, including information on harms, particularly to support shared decisions with health professionals. Presenting numerical information is a challenge and layered approaches that present information in stages may be helpful. Ignoring the themes identified in this study is likely to lead to materials that fail to support public and patient healthcare decision making.

Patients, health information, and guidelines: A focus-group study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based clinical guidelines could support shared decision-making and help patients to participate actively in their care. However, it is not well known how patients view guidelines as a source of health information. This qualitative study aimed to assess what patients know about guidelines, and what they think of their presentation formats. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the role of guidelines as health information for patients and how could the implementation of evidence-based information for patients be improved? METHODS: A qualitative study with focus groups that were built around a semi-structured topic guide. Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed and analysed using a phenomenographic approach. RESULTS: Five focus groups were carried out in 2012 with a total of 23 participants. Patients searched for health information from the Internet or consulted health professionals or their personal networks. The concepts of guidelines included instructions or standards for health professionals, information given by a health professional to the patient, and material to protect and promote the interests of patients. Some patients did not have a concept for guidelines. Patients felt that health information was abundant and its quality sometimes difficult to assess. They respected conciseness, clarity, clear structure, and specialists or well-known organizations as authors of health information. Patients would like health professionals to deliver and clarify written materials to them or point out to them the relevant Internet sites. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of guidelines was not well known among our interviewees; however, they expressed an interest in having more communication on health information, both written information and clarifications with their health professionals.

Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform.

Randomised trials are at the heart of evidence-based healthcare, but the methods and infrastructure for conducting these sometimes complex studies are largely evidence free. Trial Forge ( www.trialforge.org ) is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision making and, in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.This paper summarises a one-day workshop held in Edinburgh on 10 July 2014 to discuss Trial Forge and how to advance this initiative. We first outline the problem of inefficiency in randomised trials and go on to describe Trial Forge. We present participants' views on the processes in the life of a randomised trial that should be covered by Trial Forge.General support existed at the workshop for the Trial Forge approach to increase the evidence base for making randomised trial decisions and for improving trial efficiency. Agreed upon key processes included choosing the right research question; logistical planning for delivery, training of staff, recruitment, and retention; data management and dissemination; and close down. The process of linking to existing initiatives where possible was considered crucial. Trial Forge will not be a guideline or a checklist but a 'go to' website for research on randomised trials methods, with a linked programme of applied methodology research, coupled to an effective evidence-dissemination process. Moreover, it will support an informal network of interested trialists who meet virtually (online) and occasionally in person to build capacity and knowledge in the design and conduct of efficient randomised trials.Some of the resources invested in randomised trials are wasted because of limited evidence upon which to base many aspects of design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials. Trial Forge will help to address this lack of evidence.

Patient and public attitudes to and awareness of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review with thematic and narrative syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are typically written for healthcare providers but there is increasing interest in producing versions for the public, patients and carers. The main objective of this review is to identify and synthesise evidence of the public's attitudes towards clinical practice guidelines and evidence-based recommendations written for providers or the public, together with their awareness of guidelines. METHODS: We included quantitative and qualitative studies of any design reporting on public, patient (and their carers) attitudes and awareness of guidelines written for providers or patients/public. We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, ERIC, ASSIA and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2012. We also searched relevant websites, reviewed citations and contacted experts in the field. At least two authors independently screened, abstracted data and assessed the quality of studies. We conducted a thematic analysis of first and second order themes and performed a separate narrative synthesis of patient and public awareness of guidelines. RESULTS: We reviewed 5415 records and included 26 studies (10 qualitative studies, 13 cross sectional and 3 randomised controlled trials) involving 24 887 individuals. Studies were mostly good to fair quality. The thematic analysis resulted in four overarching themes: Applicability of guidelines; Purpose of guidelines for patient; Purpose of guidelines for health care system and physician; and Properties of guidelines. Overall, participants had mixed attitudes towards guidelines; some participants found them empowering but many saw them as a way of rationing care. Patients were also concerned that the information may not apply to their own health care situations. Awareness of guidelines ranged from 0-79%, with greater awareness in participants surveyed on national guideline websites. CONCLUSION: There are many factors, not only formatting, that may affect the uptake and use of guideline-derived material by the public. Producers need to make clear how the information is relevant to the reader and how it can be used to make healthcare improvements although there were problems with data quality. Awareness of guidelines is generally low and guideline producers cannot assume that the public has a more positive perception of their material than of alternative sources of health information.