A Decade of Efforts to Add Value to Child Health Research Practices.

OBJECTIVE: To identify practices that add value to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of child health research and reduce research waste. STUDY DESIGN: In order to categorize the contributions of members of Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health network, we developed a novel Child Health Improving Research Practices (CHIRP) framework comprised of 5 domains meant to counteract avoidable child health research waste and improve quality: 1) address research questions relevant to children, their families, clinicians, and researchers; 2) apply appropriate research design, conduct and analysis; 3) ensure efficient research oversight and regulation; 4) Provide accessible research protocols and reports; and 5) develop unbiased and usable research reports, including 17 responsible research practice recommendations. All child health research relevant publications by the 48 original StaR standards' authors over the last decade were identified, and main topic areas were categorized using this framework. RESULTS: A total of 247 publications were included in the final sample: 100 publications (41%) in domain 1 (3 recommendations), 77 publications (31%) in domain 2 (3), 35 publications (14%) in domain 3 (4), 20 publications (8%) in domain 4 (4), and 15 publications (6%) in domain 5 (3). We identified readily implementable "responsible" research practices to counter child health research waste and improve quality, especially in the areas of patients and families' engagement throughout the research process, developing Core Outcome Sets, and addressing ethics and regulatory oversight issues. CONCLUSION: While most of the practices are readily implementable, increased awareness of methodological issues and wider guideline uptake is needed to improve child health research. The CHIRP Framework can be used to guide responsible research practices that add value to child health research.

Plain Language vs Standard Format for Youth Understanding of COVID-19 Recommendations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To ensure that youths can make informed decisions about their health, it is important that health recommendations be presented for understanding by youths. Objective: To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of youths provided with a digital plain language recommendation (PLR) format vs the original standard language version (SLV) of a health recommendation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, allocation-concealed, blinded, superiority randomized clinical trial included individuals from any country who were 15 to 24 years of age, had internet access, and could read and understand English. The trial was conducted from May 27 to July 6, 2022, and included a qualitative component. Interventions: An online platform was used to randomize youths in a 1:1 ratio to an optimized digital PLR or SLV format of 1 of 2 health recommendations related to the COVID-19 vaccine; youth-friendly PLRs were developed in collaboration with youth partners and advisors. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to 7 comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior. After completion of the survey, participants indicated their interest in completing a 1-on-1 semistructured interview to reflect on their preferred digital format (PLR or SLV) and their outcome assessment survey response. Results: Of the 268 participants included in the final analysis, 137 were in the PLR group (48.4% female) and 131 were in the SLV group (53.4% female). Most participants (233 [86.9%]) were from North and South America. No significant difference was found in understanding scores between the PLR and SLV groups (mean difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 11.6%; P = .11). Participants found the PLR to be more accessible and usable (mean difference, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.05-0.63) and satisfying (mean difference, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.06-0.73) and had a stronger preference toward the PLR (mean difference, 4.8; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1 [4.0 indicated a neutral response]) compared with the SLV. No significant difference was found in intended behavior (mean difference, 0.22 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.74). Interviewees (n = 14) agreed that the PLR was easier to understand and generated constructive feedback to further improve the digital PLR. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, compared with the SLV, the PLR did not produce statistically significant findings in terms of understanding scores. Youths ranked it higher in terms of accessibility, usability, and satisfaction, suggesting that the PLR may be preferred for communicating health recommendations to youths. The interviews provided suggestions for further improving PLR formats. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05358990.

Paper I: Heterogeneous use of registry data for participant identification and primary outcome ascertainment is found in registry-based randomized controlled trials: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) have potential to address limitations of traditional clinical trials. To describe their current use, information on planned and published RRCTs was identified and synthesized. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A scoping review of published RRCT protocols and reports was conducted. Articles published between 2010 and 2021 identified from electronic database searching, a recent review of RRCTs, and targeted searching for recent RRCT protocols (2018-2021) were screened. Data on trial data sources, types of primary outcomes, and how these primary outcomes were described, selected, and reported were extracted. RESULTS: Ninety RRCT articles (77 reports; 13 protocols) were included. Forty nine (54%) used or planned to rely on registry data for their trial, 26 (29%) used both registry and additional data, and 15 (17%) used the registry solely for recruitment. Primary outcomes were routinely collected from the registry for 66 articles (73%). Only 28 articles (31%) described any methods to promote outcome data quality during or after data collection. Core outcome sets were not used in any of the trials. CONCLUSION: With improvements in registry design, outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, future RRCTs may deliver on promises of efficient, high-quality trials that address clinically relevant questions.

Paper II: thematic framework analysis of registry-based randomized controlled trials provided insights for designing trial ready registries.

OBJECTIVES: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) are increasingly used, promising to address challenges associated with traditional randomized controlled trials. We identified strengths and limitations reported in planned and completed RRCTs to inform future RRCTs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an environmental scan of literature discussing conceptual or methodological strengths and limitations of using registries for trial design and conduct (n = 12), followed by an analysis of RRCT protocols (n = 13) and reports (n = 77) identified from a scoping review. Using framework analysis, we developed and refined a conceptual framework of RRCT-specific strengths and limitations. We mapped and interpreted strengths and limitations discussed by authors of RRCT articles using framework codes and quantified the frequencies at which these were mentioned. RESULTS: Our conceptual framework identified six main RRCT strengths and four main RRCT limitations. Considering implications for RRCT conduct and design, we formulated ten recommendations for registry designers, administrators, and trialists planning future RRCTs. CONCLUSION: Consideration and application of empirically underpinned recommendations for future registry design and trial conduct may help trialists utilize registries and RRCTs to their full potential.