Consultations about randomised controlled trials are shorter and less in-depth for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients compared to socioeconomically advantaged patients: qualitative analysis across three trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are underserved in randomised controlled trials, yet they experience a much greater burden of disease compared with patients from socioeconomically advantaged areas. It is crucial to make trials more inclusive to ensure that treatments and interventions are safe and effective in real-world contexts. Improving how information about trials is verbally communicated is an unexplored strategy to make trials more inclusive. This study examined how trials are communicated verbally, comparing consultations involving patients from the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. METHODS: Secondary qualitative analysis of 55 trial consultation transcripts from 41 patients, sampled from 3 qualitative studies embedded in their respective UK multi-site, cancer-related randomised controlled trials. Patients living in the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, defined using English Indices of Multiple Deprivation decile scores, were purposively sampled. Analysis was largely thematic and drew on the constant comparison method. RESULTS: Recruiters communicated clinical uncertainty in a similar way for patients living in different socioeconomic areas. Consultations with disadvantaged patients were, on average, half the duration of those with advantaged patients, and tended to involve recruiters providing less in-depth explanations of trial concepts, used phrasing that softened trial arm risks, and described trial processes (e.g. randomisation) using informal or metaphorical phrasing. Disadvantaged and advantaged patients differed in the concerns they expressed; disadvantaged patients voiced fewer concerns and asked fewer questions but were also less likely to be invited to do so by recruiters. CONCLUSION: Interactions about trials unfolded in different ways between patients living in different socioeconomic areas, likely due to both patient- and recruiter-related factors. We present considerations for recruiters when discussing trials with patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, aimed at enhancing trial communication. Future research should examine disadvantaged patients' and recruiters' experiences of verbal trial communication to inform guidance that addresses the needs and preferences of underserved groups.

Conservative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis in children: the CONTRACT feasibility study, including feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Although non-operative treatment is known to be effective for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children, randomised trial data comparing important outcomes of non-operative treatment with those of appendicectomy are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to ascertain the feasibility of conducting a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods study, which included a feasibility randomised controlled trial, embedded and parallel qualitative and survey studies, a parallel health economic feasibility study and the development of a core outcome set. SETTING: This study was set in three specialist NHS paediatric surgical units in England. PARTICIPANTS: Children (aged 4-15 years) clinically diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis participated in the feasibility randomised controlled trial. Children, their families, recruiting clinicians and other health-care professionals involved in caring for children with appendicitis took part in the qualitative study. UK specialist paediatric surgeons took part in the survey. Specialist paediatric surgeons, adult general surgeons who treat children, and children and young people who previously had appendicitis, along with their families, took part in the development of the core outcome set. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the feasibility randomised controlled trial were randomised to a non-operative treatment pathway (broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation) or appendicectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited to the feasibility trial. DATA SOURCES: Data were sourced from NHS case notes, questionnaire responses, transcribed audio-recordings of recruitment discussions and qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Overall, 50% (95% confidence interval 40% to 59%) of 115 eligible patients approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. There was high acceptance of randomisation and good adherence to trial procedures and follow-up (follow-up rates of 89%, 85% and 85% at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months, respectively). More participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated. Qualitative work enabled us to communicate about the trial effectively with patients and families, to design and deliver bespoke training to optimise recruitment and to understand how to optimise the design and delivery of a future trial. The health economic study indicated that the main cost drivers are the ward stay cost and the cost of the operation; it has also informed quality-of-life assessment methods for future work. A core outcome set for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people was developed, containing 14 outcomes. There is adequate surgeon interest to justify proceeding to an effectiveness trial, with 51% of those surveyed expressing a willingness to recruit with an unchanged trial protocol. LIMITATIONS: Because the feasibility randomised controlled trial was performed in only three centres, successful recruitment across a larger number of sites cannot be guaranteed. However, the qualitative work has informed a bespoke training package to facilitate this. Although survey results suggest adequate clinician interest to make a larger trial possible, actual participation may differ, and equipoise may have changed over time. CONCLUSIONS: A future effectiveness trial is feasible, following limited additional preparation, to establish appropriate outcome measures and case identification. It is recommended to include a limited package of qualitative work to optimise recruitment, in particular at new centres. FUTURE WORK: Prior to proceeding to an effectiveness trial, there is a need to develop a robust method for distinguishing children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis from those with more advanced appendicitis, and to reach agreement on a primary outcome measure and effect size that is acceptable to all stakeholder groups involved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15830435. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Appendicitis is usually treated with an operation to remove the appendix. But we have learned, from other research, that some children with appendicitis may not need an operation, and could be treated with antibiotics instead. To find out how these two different treatments compare with one another, we need to do a big study. First, though, we need to see if doing that kind of study would even be possible (or 'feasible'). We carried out a feasibility study that had several parts. First, we did a small study with children who had appendicitis, whereby children were randomly allocated to have either antibiotics or an operation, with an equal chance of having either treatment. Second, we asked parents and health-care staff about why they wanted, or did not want, to take part in that small study. This helped us to understand how to make a bigger future study as acceptable as possible to children, families and surgeons. Third, we asked parents, patients and surgeons what they think are the most important things ­ or 'outcomes' ­ we should look at in future research on children who have appendicitis. From that, we developed a list of outcomes that should be included in our future big study, so we can be certain that the research we do is likely to help parents and surgeons. Overall, we established that a future big study is feasible and we have plenty of information to help us with how to plan it best, so that it has the greatest possible chance of success. We were also guided in all of these steps of the research by a group of parents, children and young people, some of whom had appendicitis and some of whom did not.

Different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: the SIRJIA mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, juvenile idiopathic arthritis is the most common inflammatory disorder in childhood, affecting 10 : 100,000 children and young people aged < 16 years each year, with a population prevalence of around 1 : 1000. Corticosteroids are commonly used to treat juvenile idiopathic arthritis; however, there is currently a lack of consensus as to which corticosteroid induction regimen should be used with various disease subtypes and severities of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. OBJECTIVE: The main study objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to compare the different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods study. Work packages included a literature review; qualitative interviews with children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and their families; a questionnaire survey and screening log to establish current UK practice; a consensus meeting with health-care professionals, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and their families to establish the primary outcome; a feasibility study to pilot data capture and to collect data for future sample size calculations; and a final consensus meeting to establish the final protocol. SETTING: The setting was rheumatology clinics across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children, young people and their families who attended clinics and health-care professionals took part in this mixed-methods study. INTERVENTIONS: This study observed methods of prescribing corticosteroids across the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main study outcomes were the acceptability of a future trial for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals, and the feasibility of delivering such a trial. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews identified differences in the views of children, young people and their families on a randomised controlled trial and potential barriers to recruitment. A total of 297 participants were screened from 13 centres in just less than 6 months. In practice, all routes of corticosteroid administration were used, and in all subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection was the most common treatment. The questionnaire surveys showed the varying clinical practice across the UK, but established intra-articular corticosteroids as the treatment control for a future trial. The primary outcome of choice for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals was the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count. However, results from the feasibility study showed that, owing to missing blood test data, the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score should be used. The Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score are composite disease activity scoring systems for juvenile arthritis. Two final trial protocols were established for a future randomised controlled trial. LIMITATIONS: Fewer clinics were included in this feasibility study than originally planned, limiting the ability to draw strong conclusions about these units to take part in future research. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive randomised controlled trial is likely to be feasible based on the findings from this study; however, important recommendations should be taken into account when planning such a trial. FUTURE WORK: This mixed-methods study has laid down the foundations to develop the evidence base in this area and conducting a randomised control trial to compare different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis is likely to be feasible. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16649996. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ABOUT JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis refers to a group of conditions that cause inflammation and damage of the joints, starting in children and young people aged < 16 years. Treatments include anti-inflammatory medicines, disease-modifying/biologic medicines and corticosteroids. Young people often require corticosteroids at the start of their treatment, or in a flare with worsening inflammation, to get their juvenile idiopathic arthritis under control. A short course of corticosteroids can help and can be given by injection into the joint, through a drip into a vein, by injection into the muscle or in the form of tablets or liquid to be taken orally. Although they have been used for decades, there is no research to show the best way(s) of giving corticosteroids. STUDY AIMS: The study aimed to (1) agree on what corticosteroid treatments to compare in a treatment trial and the best way to measure changes in juvenile idiopathic arthritis to evaluate a quick-acting treatment and (2) find out if there are enough young people with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the UK to be included in such a study. METHODS: Published research on corticosteroids in juvenile idiopathic arthritis was reviewed. Health-care professionals were asked how they choose which corticosteroids to use and which method of administration to use. Interviews were carried out with children and young people and their families to (1) consider the design of a study comparing corticosteroid routes, (2) identify outcomes important to them and (3) determine whether or not they would be willing to take part in a future study. A 3-month feasibility study was carried out to collect details of children and young people with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis before and after corticosteroid treatment to measure improvements in juvenile idiopathic arthritis activity, and to see whether or not a larger study would be possible. FINDINGS: This study showed that corticosteroids are used in different ways across the UK. The views of children, young people and their families must be taken into account when designing a future study. This study calculated the number of young people who would be needed to take part in the future, showing that it would be possible to do a larger study that compared different corticosteroid treatments, which would help everyone to understand the best way to use corticosteroids.

CONTRACT Study - CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children (feasibility): study protocol for a randomised controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the routine treatment for acute appendicitis in the United Kingdom is an appendicectomy. However, there is increasing scientific interest and research into non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults and children. While a number of studies have investigated non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults, this research cannot be applied to the paediatric population. Ultimately, we aim to perform a UK-based multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost effectiveness of non-operative treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children, as compared with appendicectomy. First, we will undertake a feasibility study to assess the feasibility of performing such a trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The study involves a feasibility RCT with a nested qualitative research to optimise recruitment as well as a health economic substudy. Children (aged 4-15 years inclusive) diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis that would normally be treated with an appendicectomy are eligible for the RCT. Exclusion criteria include clinical/radiological suspicion of perforated appendicitis, appendix mass or previous non-operative treatment of appendicitis. Participants will be randomised into one of two arms. Participants in the intervention arm are treated with antibiotics and regular clinical assessment to ensure clinical improvement. Participants in the control arm will receive appendicectomy. Randomisation will be minimised by age, sex, duration of symptoms and centre. Children and families who are approached for the RCT will be invited to participate in the embedded qualitative substudy, which includes recording of recruitment consultants and subsequent interviews with participants and non-participants and their families and recruiters. Analyses of these will inform interventions to optimise recruitment. The main study outcomes include recruitment rate (primary outcome), identification of strategies to optimise recruitment, performance of trial treatment pathways, clinical outcomes and safety of non-operative treatment. We have involved children, young people and parents in study design and delivery. DISCUSSION: In this study we will explore the feasibility of performing a full efficacy RCT comparing non-operative treatment with appendicectomy in children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Factors determining success of the present study include recruitment rate, safety of non-operative treatment and adequate interest in the future RCT. Ultimately this feasibility study will form the foundation of the main RCT and reinforce its design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15830435 . Registered on 8 February 2017.

Utilizing Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Models to Promote Smoking Cessation: Two Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: The current project sought to examine whether delivery of lung cancer risk projections (calculated using the Liverpool Lung Project [LLP] risk model) predicted follow-up smoking status. DESIGN: Two single-blinded randomized controlled trials. SETTING: Stop Smoking Services in Liverpool (United Kingdom). PARTICIPANTS: Baseline current smokers (N = 297) and baseline recent former smokers (N = 216) were recruited. INTERVENTION: Participants allocated to intervention groups were provided with personalized lung cancer risk projections, calculated using the LLP risk model. MEASURES: Baseline and follow-up questionnaires explored sociodemographics, smoking behavior, and lung cancer risk perceptions. ANALYSIS: Bivariate analyses identified significant differences between randomization groups, and logistic regression models were developed to investigate the intervention effect on the outcome variables. RESULTS: Lung cancer risk projections were not found to predict follow-up smoking status in the trial of baseline current smokers; however, they did predict follow-up smoking status in the trial of baseline recent former smokers (odds ratio: 1.91; 95% confidence interval: 1.03-3.55). CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that lung cancer risk projections may help maintain abstinence among individuals who have quit smoking, but the results did not provide evidence to suggest that lung cancer risk projections motivate current smokers to quit.