Assessment of depth of sedation using Bispectral Index™ monitoring in patients with severe traumatic brain injury in UK intensive care units.

Introduction: Severe traumatic brain injury affects ∼4500 per year across the UK. Most patients undergo a period of sedation to prevent secondary brain injury, however the optimal sedation target is unclear. This study aimed to assess the relationship between the electroencephalogram (EEG)-based Bispectral Index™ (BIS™) value and the clinical sedation score, along with other clinical outcomes. Methods: Patients with severe traumatic brain injury in four UK ICUs were recruited to have blinded BIS data collected for a 24-h period while sedated on the ICU. Drug, physiological, and outcome data were recorded from the ICU record. Sedation management was at the discretion of the ICU clinical team. Results: Twenty-six participants were recruited to the study. The mean BIS was 38 (inter-quartile range 29-44) and there was poor correlation between BIS and sedation score as a group (correlation coefficient 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.26), however the spread in BIS values increased with decreasing sedation score. There was no statistically significant relationship between BIS and intracranial pressure, vasopressor use, osmotherapy use, or need for an additional sedative. Conclusion: This study supports previous work showing that BIS decreases with decreasing sedation score. However, the variation in BIS values increased with deeper levels of clinical sedation. Patients may not be benefiting from the full potential of sedation in traumatic brain injury and further studies of sedation titrated to an EEG-based parameter are needed. Clinical trial registration: NCT03575169.

"We are not invited": Australian focus group results on how to improve ethnic diversity in trials.

OBJECTIVES: Lack of ethnic diversity in trials may contribute to health disparities and to inequity in health outcomes. The primary objective was to investigate the experiences and perspectives of ethnically diverse populations about how to improve ethnic diversity in trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative data were collected via 16 focus groups with participants from 21 ethnically diverse communities in Australia. Data collection took place between August and September 2022 in community-based settings in six capital cities: Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, and Darwin, and one rural town: Bordertown (South Australia). RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight purposively sampled adults (aged 18-85, 49% women) participated in groups speaking Tamil, Greek, Punjabi, Italian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Karin, Vietnamese, Nepalese, and Arabic; or English-language groups (comprising Fijian, Filipino, African, and two multicultural groups). Only 10 participants had previously taken part in medical research including three in trials. There was support for medical research, including trials; however, most participants had never been invited to participate. To increase ethnic diversity in trial populations, participants recommended recruitment via partnering with communities, translating trial materials and making them culturally accessible using audiovisual ways, promoting retention by minimizing participant burden, establishing trust and rapport between participants and researchers, and sharing individual results. Participants were reluctant to join studies on taboo topics in their communities (eg, sexual health) or in which physical specimens (eg, blood) were needed. Participants said these barriers could be mitigated by communicating about the topic in more culturally cognizant and safe ways, explaining how data would be securely stored, and reinforcing the benefit of medical research to humanity. CONCLUSION: Participants recognized the principal benefits of trials and other medical research, were prepared to take part, and offered suggestions on recruitment, consent, data collection mechanisms, and retention to enable this to occur. Researchers should consider these community insights when designing and conducting trials; and government, regulators, funders, and publishers should allow for greater innovation and flexibility in their processes to enable ethnic diversity in trials to improve.

Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme.

Background: Randomised controlled trials ('trials') are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted. Objectives: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial. Design: A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Setting: Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible. Participants: Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom. Interventions: Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial. Main outcome measures: Number of host trials funded. Results: Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials. Limitations: The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed (n = 2) or prematurely terminated (n = 3). Conclusions: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial. Future work: Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice. Study registration: All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

A Study Within A Trial is a research study nested inside a larger 'host trial', promoting the use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to do Study Within A Trial routine practice in clinical trial units by funding and supporting at least 25 Studies Within A Trial. The best way to test health and social care treatments is to do a randomised controlled trial ('trial'), where some patients get the treatment being tested and some do not. The results of different groups are compared to see if the treatment improves care. Recruiting patients and keeping them involved in trials is often very difficult. Research teams often do not know how best to recruit and keep patients engaged as the methods have not been tested to see if they work. The best way to test these methods is by doing a Study Within A Trial. We test a programme of Studies Within A Trial for recruiting and keeping patients engaged in trials. Trial teams were able to apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from Promoting the use of Study Within A Trial team to do Studies Within A Trial. We used our experience of doing Studies Within A Trial to outline lessons learnt for doing Studies Within A Trial. We funded 42 Studies Within A Trial and gave teams necessary advice to do them. We significantly increased the knowledge for both recruitment and retention strategies, and found 'pre-notifying' before sending questionnaires, sending pens and personalised text messages were all effective for increasing responses by participants. We tested Studies Within A Trial across several different trials at the same time to find out more quickly whether their methods worked. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others doing Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient partners; picking the right strategy to test; getting ethical approvals; how to do and report Studies Within A Trial. Promoting the use of studies within a trial was successful and supported more Studies Within A Trial than planned. We hope our experience will support those doing Studies Within A Trial in the future.

Evidencing the impacts of health research: Insights from trials reported in the 2018 Australian Engagement and Impact Assessment.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: While definitions of impact may vary, they often refer to the wider benefits of research evidenced beyond academia. We evaluated case studies featuring randomised trials from the 2018 Engagement and Impact Assessment to better understand how the impacts of health research are evidenced and assessed within Australia. METHODS: We collated and evaluated 'high' scoring case studies submitted by higher education institutions with a focus on randomised trials across all areas of health research. A qualitative coding system was used for manual content analysis to assess the key characteristics of trials reported, subsequent impacts and the methods used to evidence impacts. RESULTS: A total of 14 case studies were identified citing 35 clinical trials. The majority of interventions were behavioural with a focus on mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders. Most trials were phase III, focused on the treatment of the indication and were funded by industry. Contribution to clinical guidelines was the highest cited research impact. While there was evidence of researchers seeking to maximise trial impact, case studies lacked details on the role of trial participants and other beneficiaries in generating impact. CONCLUSIONS: The impacts of health research can be improved through a better understanding of the priorities and agendas of funders, providing evidence of tangible impact rather than information that is contextual or predictive, and through the early development of impact strategies involving both researchers and beneficiaries. SO WHAT?: Large-scale impact exercises intended for a broad range of disciplines may not be reflective of the depth and scope of health sciences research including trials.

Cost consequence analysis of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) for urinary incontinence in care home residents alongside a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) is prevalent in more than half of residents of nursing and residential care homes and can have a detrimental impact on dignity and quality of life. Care homes predominantly use absorbent pads to contain UI rather than actively treat the condition. Transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) is a non-invasive, safe, low-cost intervention with demonstrated effectiveness for reducing UI in adults. We examined the costs and consequences of delivering TTNS to care home residents in comparison to sham (inactive) electrical stimulation. METHODS: A cost consequence analysis approach was used to assemble and present the resource use and outcome data for the ELECTRIC trial which randomised 406 residents with UI from 37 care homes in the United Kingdom to receive 12 sessions of 30 min of either TTNS or sham (inactive) TTNS. TTNS was administered by care home staff over 6 weeks. Health state utility was measured using DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-PROXY-U at baseline, 6 weeks and 18 weeks follow-up. Staff completed a resource use questionnaire at baseline, 6 weeks and 18 weeks follow-up, which also assessed use of absorbent pads. RESULTS: HRQoL did not change significantly in either randomised group. Delivery of TTNS was estimated to cost £81.20 per participant, plus training and support costs of £121.03 per staff member. 85% of participants needed toilet assistance as routine, on average requiring one or two staff members to be involved 4 or 5 times in each 24 h. Daily use of mobility aids and other assistive devices to use the toilet were reported. The value of staff time to assist residents to use the toilet (assuming an average of 5 min per resident per visit) was estimated as £19.17 (SD 13.22) for TTNS and £17.30 (SD 13.33) for sham (per resident in a 24-hour period). CONCLUSIONS: Use of TTNS to treat UI in care home residents did not lead to changes in resource use, particularly any reduction in the use of absorbent pads and no cost benefits for TTNS were shown. Managing continence in care homes is labour intensive, requiring both high levels of staff time and use of equipment aids. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN98415244, registered 25/04/2018. NCT03248362 (Clinical trial.gov number), registered 14/08//2017.

Can we achieve better trial recruitment by presenting patient information through multimedia? Meta-analysis of 'studies within a trial' (SWATs).

BACKGROUND: People need high-quality information to make decisions about research participation. Providing information in written format alone is conventional but may not be the most effective and acceptable approach. We developed a structure for the presentation of information using multimedia which included generic and trial-specific content. Our aim was to embed 'Studies Within A Trial' (SWATs) across multiple ongoing trials to test whether multimedia presentation of patient information led to better rates of recruitment. METHODS: Five trials included a SWAT and randomised their participants to receive a multimedia presentation alongside standard information, or standard written information alone. We collected data on trial recruitment, acceptance and retention and analysed the pooled results using random effects meta-analysis, with the primary outcome defined as the proportion of participants randomised following an invitation to take part. RESULTS: Five SWATs provided data on the primary outcome of proportion of participants randomised. Multimedia alongside written information results in little or no difference in recruitment rates (pooled odds ratio = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.17, p-value = 0.671, I2 = 0%). There was no effect on any other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Multimedia alongside written information did not improve trial recruitment rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71952900, ISRCTN 06710391, ISRCTN 17160087, ISRCTN05926847, ISRCTN62869767.

A protocol for a systematic review of randomised evaluations of strategies to improve recruitment of rural participants to randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: People living rurally face health inequities fuelled by social exclusion, access to and awareness of health services, and poor transport links. In order to improve the acceptability, accessibility and applicability of health and care interventions, it is important that clinical trial participant populations include people living rurally. Identifying strategies that improve recruitment of rural participants to trials will support trialists, reduce research waste and contribute to alleviating health inequalities experienced by rural patients. The objective of the review is to quantify the effects of randomised evaluations of strategies to recruit rural participants to randomised controlled trials. METHODS: The following databases will be searched for relevant studies: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science All, EBSCO CINAHL, Proquest, ERIC, IngentaConnect, Web of Science SSCI and AHCI, and Scopus. Any randomised evaluation of a recruitment intervention aiming to improve recruitment of rural participants to a randomised trial will be included. We will not apply any restriction on publication date, language or journal. The primary, and only, outcome of our review will be the proportion of participants recruited to a randomised controlled trial. Two reviewers will independently screen abstracts and titles for eligible studies, and then full texts of relevant records will be reviewed by the same two reviewers. Where disagreements cannot be resolved through discussion, a third reviewer will adjudicate. RESULTS: We will assess the methodological quality of individual studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the GRADE approach will be applied to determine the certainty of the evidence within each comparison. CONCLUSION: This systematic review will quantify the effects of randomised evaluations of strategies to recruit rural participants to trials. Our findings will contribute to the evidence base to support trial teams to recruit a participant population that represents society as a whole, informing future research and playing a part to alleviate health inequalities between rural and urban populations.

Addressing health inequalities in diabetes through research: Recommendations from Diabetes UK's 2022 health inequalities in diabetes workshop.

AIMS: To develop a position statement which identifies research priorities to address health inequalities in diabetes and provides recommendations to researchers and research funders on how best to conduct research in these areas. METHODS: A two-day research workshop was conducted bringing together research experts in diabetes, research experts in health inequalities, healthcare professionals and people living with diabetes. RESULTS: The following key areas were identified as needing increased focus: How can we improve patient and public involvement and engagement to make diabetes research more inclusive of and relevant to diverse communities? How can we improve research design so that the people who could benefit most are represented? How can we use theories from implementation science to facilitate the uptake of research findings into routine practice to reach the populations with highest need? How can we collate and evaluate local innovation projects and disseminate best practice around tackling health inequalities in diabetes? How can we best collect and use data to address health inequalities in diabetes, including the harnessing of real-world and routinely collected data? How could research funders allocate funds to best address health inequalities in diabetes? How do we ensure the research community is representative of the general population? CONCLUSIONS: This position statement outlines recommendations to address the urgent need to tackle health inequalities in diabetes through research and calls on the diabetes research community to act upon these recommendations to ensure future research works to eliminate unfair and avoidable disparities in health.

How much is the lack of retention evidence costing trial teams in Ireland and the UK?

BACKGROUND: Evidence to support the use of many retention strategies in clinical trials is lacking. Despite this, trial teams still need to have some form of retention strategy in their trials to try and avoid high attrition rates. This study aimed to estimate how much this lack of retention evidence might be costing trials in Ireland and the UK. METHODS: We selected the top ten most routinely used retention strategies by Clinical Trial Units in the UK and made assumptions as to how each of these strategies was most likely to be implemented and the costs involved in doing this. We applied our costing model to a hypothetical trial scenario in both Ireland and the UK as well as to three published trial protocols. We developed the costing model and calculated the costs in Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Retention strategies were often poorly specified, meaning we had to make assumptions about implementation and in some cases about the strategy itself. Based on our assumptions, some retention strategies can be extremely expensive; some of the costliest strategies included "data collection scheduled with routine care" (€900-€32,503.25), "a timeline of participant visits for sites"-with integrated participant reminder (€304.74-€14,803.70), and "routine site visits by CTU staff" and "investigator meetings face to face", both costing (€777.67-€14,753.48). Others such as "telephone reminders for questionnaire response" (€34.58-€568.62), "a timeline of participant visits for sites"-site reminder alone (€79.18-€112.23), and "targeted recruitment of sites/GPs" (€30-€1620) were less costly compared to the other strategies. DISCUSSION: The resources invested in the use of some retention strategies may outweigh known or imagined benefits on retention. Where benefits are currently unknown, evaluation should be a priority. CONCLUSION: More evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of trial retention strategies is needed to avoid widespread use of strategies that are both expensive and ineffective.

Can we achieve better recruitment by providing better information? Meta-analysis of 'studies within a trial' (SWATs) of optimised participant information sheets.

BACKGROUND: The information given to people considering taking part in a trial needs to be easy to understand if those people are to become, and then remain, trial participants. However, there is a tension between providing comprehensive information and providing information that is comprehensible. User-testing is one method of developing better participant information, and there is evidence that user-tested information is better at informing participants about key issues relating to trials. However, it is not clear if user-testing also leads to changes in the rates of recruitment in trials, compared to standard trial information. As part of a programme of research, we embedded 'studies within a trial' (SWATs) across multiple ongoing trials to see if user-tested materials led to better rates of recruitment. METHODS: Seven 'host' trials included a SWAT evaluation and randomised their participants to receive routine information sheets generated by the research teams, or information sheets optimised through user-testing. We collected data on trial recruitment and analysed the results across these trials using random effects meta-analysis, with the primary outcome defined as the proportion of participants randomised in a host trial following an invitation to take part. RESULTS: Six SWATs (n=27,805) provided data on recruitment. Optimised participant information sheets likely result in little or no difference in recruitment rates (7.2% versus 6.8%, pooled odds ratio = 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19, p-value = 0.63, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Participant information sheets developed through user testing did not improve recruitment rates. The programme of work showed that co-ordinated testing of recruitment strategies using SWATs is feasible and can provide both definitive and timely evidence on the effectiveness of recruitment strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Healthlines Depression (ISRCTN14172341) Healthlines CVD (ISRCTN27508731) CASPER (ISRCTN02202951) ISDR (ISRCTN87561257) ECLS (NCT01925625) REFORM (ISRCTN68240461) HeLP Diabetes (ISRCTN02123133).

Tibial nerve stimulation compared with sham to reduce incontinence in care home residents: ELECTRIC RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is prevalent in nursing and residential care homes, and has a profound impact on residents' dignity and quality of life. Treatment options are limited in these care contexts and care homes predominantly use absorbent pads to contain incontinence, rather than actively treat it. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a non-invasive, safe, low-cost intervention that is effective in reducing urinary incontinence in adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation to treat urinary incontinence in care home residents and to determine the associated costs of the treatment. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, participant and outcome assessor-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: A total of 37 UK residential and nursing care homes. PARTICIPANTS: Care home residents with at least weekly urinary incontinence that is contained using absorbent pads and who are able to use a toilet/toilet aid with or without assistance. INTERVENTIONS: Residents were randomised (1 : 1) to receive 12 30-minute sessions of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or sham stimulation over a 6-week period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - change in volume of urine leaked over a 24-hour period at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes - number of pads used, Perception of Bladder Condition, toileting skills, quality of life and resource use. RESULTS: A total of 408 residents were randomised (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, n = 197; sham stimulation, n = 209); two exclusions occurred post randomisation. Primary outcome data were available for 345 (85%) residents (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, n = 167; sham stimulation, n = 178). Adherence to the intervention protocol was as follows: 78% of the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation group and 71% of the sham group received the correct stimulation. Primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis indicated a mean change of -5 ml (standard deviation 362 ml) urine leakage from baseline in the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation group and -66 ml (standard deviation 394 ml) urine leakage in the sham group, which was a statistically significant, but not clinically important, between-group difference of 68-ml urine leakage (95% confidence interval 0 to 136 ml; p = 0.05) in favour of the sham group. Sensitivity analysis supported the primary analysis. No meaningful differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. No serious adverse events related to transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation were reported. Economic evaluation assessed the resources used. The training and support costs for the staff to deliver the intervention were estimated at £121.03 per staff member. Estimated costs for delivery of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation during the trial were £81.20 per participant. No significant difference was found between participants' scores over time, or between transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and sham groups at any time point, for resident or proxy quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSIONS: The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial showed, in the care home context (with a high proportion of residents with poor cognitive capacity and limited independent mobility), that transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was not effective in reducing urinary incontinence. No economic case for transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was made by the cost-consequences analysis; however, the positive reception of learning about urinary incontinence for care home staff supports a case for routine education in this care context. LIMITATIONS: Completing 24-hour pad collections was challenging for care home staff, resulting in some missing primary outcome data. FUTURE WORK: Research should investigate transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation in residents with urgency urinary incontinence to determine whether or not targeted stimulation is effective. Research should evaluate the effects of continence training for staff on continence care in care homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98415244 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03248362. 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. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bladder leakage (urinary incontinence) is common among people living in care homes. Most people wear absorbent pads to contain urine leakage, but this does not treat the cause of incontinence. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a treatment for the type of incontinence associated with a sudden need to use the toilet (urgency incontinence). Two sticky patches applied to the ankle are connected to a small electrical stimulator. The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial looked at whether or not transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation can help reduce incontinence for people in care homes. A total of 406 residents from 37 care homes were given transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment or a dummy treatment for 30 minutes, twice per week for 6 weeks. The amount of urine leaked by each resident was measured over 24 hours by collecting all pads used in a sealable plastic bag and weighing the bag. This happened after the final transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or dummy treatment, and again after 3 and 5 months. Residents, family members and care home staff were asked if they thought that the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had any effect and for their views of the treatment. We found no important difference in leakage between residents who had the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and those who had the dummy treatment. There were also no differences in daily pad use, feelings about bladder condition or quality of life. It cost around £120 to train staff to deliver transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and around £80 per person to have transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had no serious side-effects. Care home residents, even those with severe dementia, found the application of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation acceptable. Staff found learning about incontinence helpful, but continence care routines did not change. In summary, the ELECTRIC trial found that for very dependent older people in care homes, transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation did not reduce urinary incontinence. The findings do not support transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation use to reduce urinary incontinence in care home environments.

Feasibility study protocol of a pragmatic, randomised controlled pilot trial: membrane sweeping to prevent post-term pregnancy-the MILO Study.

BACKGROUND: Post-term pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of maternal complications, respiratory distress and trauma to the neonate. Amniotic membrane sweeping has been recommended as a simple procedure to promote the spontaneous onset of labour. However, despite its widespread use, there is an absence of evidence on (a) its effectiveness and (b) its optimal timing and frequency. The primary aim of the MILO Study is to inform the optimal design of a future definitive randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness (including optimal timing and frequency) of membrane sweeping to prevent post-term pregnancy. We will also assess the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed trial interventions to clinicians and women (through focus group interviews). METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial with an embedded factorial design. Pregnant women with a live, singleton foetus ≥ 38 weeks gestation; cephalic presentation; longitudinal lie; intact membranes; English speaking and ≥ 18 years of age will be randomised in a 2:1 ratio to membrane sweep versus no membrane sweep. Women allocated randomly to a sweep will then be randomised further (factorial component) to early (from 39 weeks) versus late (from 40 weeks) sweep commencement and a single versus weekly sweep. The proposed feasibility study consists of four work packages, i.e. (1) a multicentre, pilot randomised trial; (2) a health economic analysis; (3) a qualitative study; and (4) a study within the host trial (a SWAT). Outcomes to be collected include recruitment and retention rates, compliance with protocol, randomisation and allocation processes, attrition rates and cost-effectiveness. Focus groups will be held with women and clinicians to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed intervention, study procedures and perceived barriers and enablers to recruitment. DISCUSSION: The primary aim of the MILO Study is to inform the optimal design of a future definitive randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness (including optimal timing and frequency) of membrane sweeping to prevent post-term pregnancy. Results will inform whether and how the design of the definitive trial as originally envisaged should be delivered or adapted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04307199 . Registered on 12 March 2020.

Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies. OBJECTIVES: To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste.

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.

Five-year cost-effectiveness analysis of the European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) physical activity intervention for men versus no intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Increasing physical activity reduces the risk of chronic illness including Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer. Lifestyle interventions can increase physical activity but few successfully engage men. This study aims to investigate the 5 year cost-effectiveness of EuroFIT, a program to improve physical activity tailored specifically for male football (soccer) fans compared to a no intervention comparison group. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model in which the impact of improving physical activity on five chronic health conditions (colorectal cancer, Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke and depression) and mortality was modelled. We estimated costs from a societal perspective and expressed benefits as quality adjusted life years (QALYs). We obtained data from a 4-country (England, Netherlands, Portugal and Norway) pragmatic randomised controlled trial evaluating EuroFIT, epidemiological and cohort studies, and meta-analyses. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of uncertainty in the model's parameter values on the cost-effectiveness results. We used Monte Carlo simulations to estimate uncertainty and presented this using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). We tested the robustness of the base case analysis using five scenario analyses. RESULTS: Average costs over 5 years per person receiving EuroFIT were €14,663 and per person receiving no intervention €14,598. Mean QALYs over 5 years were 4.05 per person for EuroFIT and 4.04 for no intervention. Thus, the average incremental cost per person receiving EuroFIT was €65 compared to no intervention, while the average QALY gain was 0.01. This resulted in an ICER of €5206 per QALY gained. CEACs show that the probability of EuroFIT being cost-effective compared to no intervention is 0.53, 0.56 and 0.58 at thresholds of €10,000, €22,000 and €34,000 per QALY gained, respectively. When using a time horizon of 10 years, the results suggest that EuroFIT is more effective and less expensive compared to (i.e. dominant over) no intervention with a probability of cost-effectiveness of 0.63 at a threshold of €22,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude the EuroFIT intervention is not cost-effective compared to no intervention over a period of 5 years from a societal perspective, but is more effective and less expensive (i.e. dominant) after 10 years. We thus suggest that EuroFIT can potentially improve public health in a cost-effective manner in the long term.

The effect of a programme to improve men's sedentary time and physical activity: The European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Reducing sitting time as well as increasing physical activity in inactive people is beneficial for their health. This paper investigates the effectiveness of the European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) programme to improve physical activity and sedentary time in male football fans, delivered through the professional football setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A total of 1,113 men aged 30-65 with self-reported body mass index (BMI) ≥27 kg/m2 took part in a randomised controlled trial in 15 professional football clubs in England, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal. Recruitment was between September 19, 2015, and February 2, 2016. Participants consented to study procedures and provided usable activity monitor baseline data. They were randomised, stratified by club, to either the EuroFIT intervention or a 12-month waiting list comparison group. Follow-up measurement was post-programme and 12 months after baseline. EuroFIT is a 12-week, group-based programme delivered by coaches in football club stadia in 12 weekly 90-minute sessions. Weekly sessions aimed to improve physical activity, sedentary time, and diet and maintain changes long term. A pocket-worn device (SitFIT) allowed self-monitoring of sedentary time and daily steps, and a game-based app (MatchFIT) encouraged between-session social support. Primary outcome (objectively measured sedentary time and physical activity) measurements were obtained for 83% and 85% of intervention and comparison participants. Intention-to-treat analyses showed a baseline-adjusted mean difference in sedentary time at 12 months of -1.6 minutes/day (97.5% confidence interval [CI], -14.3-11.0; p = 0.77) and in step counts of 678 steps/day (97.5% CI, 309-1.048; p < 0.001) in favor of the intervention. There were significant improvements in diet, weight, well-being, self-esteem, vitality, and biomarkers of cardiometabolic health in favor of the intervention group, but not in quality of life. There was a 0.95 probability of EuroFIT being cost-effective compared with the comparison group if society is willing to pay £1.50 per extra step/day, a maximum probability of 0.61 if society is willing to pay £1,800 per minute less sedentary time/day, and 0.13 probability if society is willing to pay £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). It was not possible to blind participants to group allocation. Men attracted to the programme already had quite high levels of physical activity at baseline (8,372 steps/day), which may have limited room for improvement. Although participants came from across the socioeconomic spectrum, a majority were well educated and in paid work. There was an increase in recent injuries and in upper and lower joint pain scores post-programme. In addition, although the five-level EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) is now the preferred measure for cost-effectiveness analyses across Europe, baseline scores were high (0.93), suggesting a ceiling effect for QALYs. CONCLUSION: Participation in EuroFIT led to improvements in physical activity, diet, body weight, and biomarkers of cardiometabolic health, but not in sedentary time at 12 months. Within-trial analysis suggests it is not cost-effective in the short term for QALYs due to a ceiling effect in quality of life. Nevertheless, decision-makers may consider the incremental cost for increase in steps worth the investment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN-81935608.

Risk of bias assessment of sequence generation: a study of 100 systematic reviews of trials.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of randomised trials guide policy and healthcare decisions. Yet, we observed that some reviews judge randomised trials as high or unclear risk of bias (ROB) for sequence generation, potentially introducing bias. However, to date, the extent of this issue has not been well examined. We evaluated the consistency in the ROB assessment for sequence generation of randomised trials in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, and explored the reviewers' judgement of the quality of evidence for the related outcomes. METHODS: Cochrane intervention reviews (01/01/2017-31/03/2017) were retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched for systematic reviews in ten general medical journals with highest impact factors (01/01/2016-31/03/2017). We examined the proportion of reviews that rated the sequence generation domain as high, low or unclear risk of selection bias. For reviews that had rated any randomised trials as high or unclear risk of bias, we examined the proportion that had assessed the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Overall, 100 systematic reviews were included in our analysis. We evaluated 64 Cochrane reviews which comprised of 984 randomised trials; 0.8% (n = 8) and 52.2% (n = 514) were rated as high and unclear ROB for sequence generation respectively. We further evaluated 36 non-Cochrane reviews which comprised of 1376 trials; 5.8% (n = 80) and 39.6% (n = 545) were rated as high and unclear ROB respectively. Ninety percent (n = 10) of non-Cochrane reviews which rated randomised trials as high ROB for sequence generation did not report an underlying reason. All Cochrane reviews assessed the quality of evidence (GRADE). For the non-Cochrane reviews, only just over half had assessed the quality of evidence. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of interventions frequently rate randomised trials as high or unclear ROB for sequence generation. In general, Cochrane reviews were more transparent than non-Cochrane reviews in ROB and quality of evidence assessment. The scientific community should more strongly promote consistent ROB assessment for sequence generation to minimise selection bias and support transparent quality of evidence assessment. Consistency ensures that appropriate conclusions are drawn from the data.

Randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of a lifestyle intervention (ActWELL) in women invited to NHS breast screening.

INTRODUCTION: In Scotland, the incidence of breast cancer is predicted to rise significantly in the next few decades and while there are measures to support reductions in morbidity and mortality, the breast cancer community is currently exploring preventative opportunities including supporting weight management programmes in postmenopausal women. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a theory-based, community delivered, minimal contact, weight management (diet, physical activity and behaviour change techniques) programme (ActWELL) in women with a body mass index (BMI) >25 kg/m2 attending routine breast cancer screening appointments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be a four-centre, 1:1 parallel group randomised controlled trial of a 12-month weight management intervention initiated in breast cancer screening centres, delivered by trained Breast Cancer Now lifestyle coaches in community settings. The intervention programme involves two intervention meetings with coaches plus (up to) nine telephone contacts over 12 months. The programme will focus on personalised diet (including alcoholic and sugary drinks) and physical activity habits. Behaviour change techniques include self-monitoring, goal setting, implementation intentions, action and coping plans. The study has a sample size of 414 women with a BMI >25 kg/m2 attending routine National Health Service breast cancer screening appointments. Measures will be taken at baseline, 12 weeks and at 12-month follow-up, complemented by qualitative interviews exploring perceived acceptability and impact on habitual behaviours. The two co-primary outcomes are mean change in measured body weight and change in physical activity between groups to 12 months. Secondary outcomes are changes in eating habits, alcohol intake, sedentary time, quality of life, waist circumference, lipid, haemoglobin A1c and insulin profiles, blood pressure and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (17/ES/0073). All participants provide written informed consent. Dissemination will be through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11057518; Pre-results.

Abdominal massage plus advice, compared with advice only, for neurogenic bowel dysfunction in MS: a RCT.

BACKGROUND: Between 50% and 80% of people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) experience neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) (i.e. constipation and faecal incontinence) that affects quality of life and can lead to hospitalisation. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of abdominal massage plus advice on bowel symptoms on PwMS compared with advice only. A process evaluation investigated the factors that affected the clinical effectiveness and possible implementation of the different treatments. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and health economic components. Outcome analysis was undertaken blind. SETTING: The trial took place in 12 UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: PwMS who had 'bothersome' NBD. INTERVENTION: Following individualised training, abdominal massage was undertaken daily for 6 weeks (intervention group). Advice on good bowel management as per the Multiple Sclerosis Society advice booklet was provided to both groups. All participants received weekly telephone calls from the research nurse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference between the intervention and control groups in change in the NBD score from baseline to week 24. Secondary outcomes were measured via a bowel diary, adherence diary, the Constipation Scoring System, patient resource questionnaire and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L). RESULTS: A total of 191 participants were finalised, 189 of whom were randomised (two participants were finalised in error) (control group, n = 99; intervention group, n = 90) and an intention-to-treat analysis was performed. The mean age was 52 years (standard deviation 10.83 years), 81% (n = 154) were female and 11% (n = 21) were wheelchair dependent. Fifteen participants from the intervention group and five from the control group were lost to follow-up. The change in NBD score by week 24 demonstrated no significant difference between groups [mean difference total score -1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.32 to 0.04; p = 0.0558]; there was a significant difference between groups in the change in the frequency of stool evacuation per week (mean difference 0.62, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.21; p = 0.039) and in the number of times per week that participants felt that they emptied their bowels completely (mean difference 1.08, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.76; p = 0.002), in favour of the intervention group. Of participant interviewees, 75% reported benefits, for example less difficulty passing stool, more complete evacuations, less bloated, improved appetite, and 85% continued with the massage. A cost-utility analysis conducted from a NHS and patient cost perspective found in the imputed sample with bootstrapping a mean incremental outcome effect of the intervention relative to usual care of -0.002 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI -0.029 to 0.027 QALYs). In the same imputed sample with bootstrapping, the mean incremental cost effect of the intervention relative to usual care was £56.50 (95% CI -£372.62 to £415.68). No adverse events were reported. Limitations include unequal randomisation, dropout and the possibility of ineffective massage technique. CONCLUSION: The increment in the primary outcome favoured the intervention group, but it was small and not statistically significant. The economic analysis identified that the intervention was dominated by the control group. Given the small improvement in the primary outcome, but not in terms of QALYs, a low-cost version of the intervention might be considered worthwhile by some patients. FUTURE WORK: Research is required to establish possible mechanisms of action and modes of massage delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN85007023 and NCT03166007. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Routinely collected data for randomized trials: promises, barriers, and implications.

BACKGROUND: Routinely collected health data (RCD) are increasingly used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This can provide three major benefits: increasing value through better feasibility (reducing costs, time, and resources), expanding the research agenda (performing trials for research questions otherwise not amenable to trials), and offering novel design and data collection options (e.g., point-of-care trials and other designs directly embedded in routine care). However, numerous hurdles and barriers must be considered pertaining to regulatory, ethical, and data aspects, as well as the costs of setting up the RCD infrastructure. Methodological considerations may be different from those in traditional RCTs: RCD are often collected by individuals not involved in the study and who are therefore blinded to the allocation of trial participants. Another consideration is that RCD trials may lead to greater misclassification biases or dilution effects, although these may be offset by randomization and larger sample sizes. Finally, valuable insights into external validity may be provided when using RCD because it allows pragmatic trials to be performed. METHODS: We provide an overview of the promises, challenges, and potential barriers, methodological implications, and research needs regarding RCD for RCTs. RESULTS: RCD have substantial potential for improving the conduct and reducing the costs of RCTs, but a multidisciplinary approach is essential to address emerging practical barriers and methodological implications. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should be directed toward such issues and specifically focus on data quality validation, alternative research designs and how they affect outcome assessment, and aspects of reporting and transparency.