A pilot randomised controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy for medication decision-making and quality of life in women with breast cancer: The ACTION trial.

OBJECTIVE: Non-adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) in women with breast cancer is common and associated with medication side-effects and distress. We co-designed an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy intervention (ACTION) to enhance medication decision-making and quality of life (QoL). We undertook a pilot trial of ACTION to inform the feasibility of a phase III trial, and to examine intervention acceptability. METHODS: This was a multi-site, exploratory, two-arm, individually randomised external pilot trial. Women with early breast cancer prescribed AET were randomised (1:1) to receive usual care (UC) or UC + ACTION. The ACTION intervention comprised a remotely delivered one-to-one ACT session followed by three group sessions delivered by clinical psychologists, alongside a website containing ideas for the self-management of side effects. RESULTS: Of the 480 women screened for eligibility, 260 (54.2%) were approached and 79 (30.4%) randomised. 71 (89.9%) women provided data at 3-month and 70 (88.6%) at 6-month 40 women were randomised to receive UC + ACTION and 32 (80.0%) completed the intervention. Most (75.0%) accessed the website at least once. ACTION was acceptable to participants (Borkovec & Nau Scale: mean = 7.8 [SD = 2.7] out of 10). Signals of effectiveness in favour of the UC + ACTION arm were observed for medication adherence (Adherence Starts with Knowledge questionnaire-12), QoL (work and social adjustment scale), health-related QoL (functional assessment of cancer therapy[FACT] general and FACT-ES-19/23), distress (generalised anxiety disorder -7, patient health questionnaire-9) and psychological flexibility (valuing questionnaire). CONCLUSIONS: The ACTION intervention was acceptable to patients. There were promising signals for effectiveness on primary and secondary outcomes. A phase III randomised controlled trial is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12027752.

The DANTE trial protocol: a randomised phase III trial to evaluate the Duration of ANti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody Treatment in patients with metastatic mElanoma.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is revolutionising the treatment of patients diagnosed with melanoma and other cancers. The first immune checkpoint inhibitor, ipilimumab (targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4)), showed a survival advantage over standard chemotherapy. Subsequently the anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies, nivolumab and pembrolizumab were shown to be more effective than ipilimumab. Ipilimumab combined with nivolumab gives an incremental gain in overall survival compared with nivolumab alone but increases the risk of severe, potentially life-threatening toxicities. In contrast to ipilimumab monotherapy, anti-PD-1 antibodies are licensed to be continued until disease progression. Follow-up of patients recruited to the first trials evaluating 2 years of pembrolizumab showed that three-quarters of responding patients continue responding after stopping treatment. Suggestive of early response, we hypothesised that continuing anti-PD-1 treatment beyond 1 year in progression-free patients may be unnecessary and so designed the DANTE trial. METHODS: DANTE is a multicentre, randomised, phase III, non-inferiority trial to evaluate the duration of anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic (unresectable stage III and stage IV) melanoma. It uses a two-stage recruitment strategy, registering patients before they complete 1 year of first-line anti-PD-1 +/- CTLA-4 therapy and randomising eligible patients who have received 12 months of treatment and are progression-free at 1 year. At randomisation, 1208 patients are assigned (1:1) to either 1) continue anti-PD-1 treatment until disease progression/ unacceptable toxicity/ for at least 2 years in the absence of disease progression/ unacceptable toxicity or 2) to stop treatment. Randomisation stratifies for baseline prognostic factors. The primary outcome is progression-free survival at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months and then, 6-monthly for up to 4-years. Secondary outcomes collected at all timepoints include overall survival, response-rate and duration and safety, with quality of life and cost-effectiveness outcomes collected 3-monthly for up to 18-months. Sub-studies include a qualitative analysis of patient acceptance of randomisation and sample collection to inform future translational studies into response/ toxicity biomarkers. DISCUSSION: DANTE is a unique prospective trial investigating the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 therapy in metastatic melanoma patients. Outcomes will inform future use of these high burden drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15837212 , 31 July 2018.

Navigating cancer treatment and care when living with comorbid dementia: an ethnographic study.

OBJECTIVES: The risks of developing cancer and dementia increase as we age; however, this comorbidity remains relatively under-researched. This study reports on the challenges that people affected by comorbid cancer and dementia face when navigating engagement with cancer treatment within secondary care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An ethnographic study recruiting 17 people with cancer and dementia, 22 relatives and 19 oncology staff in two UK National Health Service Trusts. Observations (46 h) and informal conversations were conducted during oncology appointments involving people with dementia. Semi-structured interviews (n = 37) with people living with cancer and dementia, their relatives and staff working in various roles across oncology services were also carried out. Data were analysed using ethnographically informed thematic analysis. RESULTS: People with cancer and dementia experienced challenges across three areas of navigating cancer treatment and care: navigating through multiple services, appointments and layers of often complex information; repeatedly navigating transport to and from hospital; and navigating non-dementia-friendly hospital outpatient environments alongside the cognitive problems associated with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Dementia impacts patients' abilities to navigate the many practical aspects of attending hospital for cancer treatment and care. This study indicates the importance of addressing ways to improve the experience of travelling to and from the hospital, alongside extending the ongoing efforts to develop 'dementia-friendly' hospital in-patient areas and practices, to outpatient departments. Such steps will serve to improve hospital-based cancer treatment and care and more broadly outpatient appointment experiences for people with dementia and their families.

Understanding and identifying ways to improve hospital-based cancer care and treatment for people with dementia: an ethnographic study.

BACKGROUND: Providing cancer care and treatment for ageing populations with complicating comorbidities like dementia is a growing global challenge. This study aimed to examine the hospital-based cancer care and treatment challenges and support needs of people with dementia, and identify potential ways to address these. METHODS: A two-site ethnographic study in England involving semi-structured interviews, observations and accompanying conversations, and medical record review. Participants (N = 58) were people with dementia and comorbid cancer (n = 17), informal caregivers (n = 22) and hospital staff (n = 19). Ethnographically informed thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: There was an accumulated complexity of living with both illnesses simultaneously. People with dementia and families could feel confused and uninformed due to difficulties understanding, retaining and using cancer information, which impacted their informed treatment decision-making. Dementia increased the complexity and burden of travelling to and navigating unfamiliar hospital environments, frequent lengthy periods of waiting in hospital, and self-managing symptoms and side-effects at home. Oncology staff were often working without the full picture, due to variable documenting of dementia in medical records, dementia training was limited, and time and resource pressures impeded the highly individualised, flexible cancer care required by people with dementia. Supportive family carers were crucial in enabling people with dementia to access, navigate and undergo cancer treatment and care. CONCLUSIONS: Dementia complicates cancer care in a range of ways accumulating across the cancer pathway. Our findings suggest there are several strategies and interventions, which we list here, with potential to improve cancer care and treatment for people with dementia and their families.

An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: A pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345).

Decision-making in cancer care for people living with dementia.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing numbers of people are expected to live with comorbid cancer and dementia. Cancer treatment decision-making for these individuals is complex, particularly for those lacking capacity, requiring support across the cancer care pathway. There is little research to inform practice in this area. This ethnographic study reports on the cancer decision-making experiences of people with cancer and dementia, their families, and healthcare staff. METHODS: Participant observations, informal conversations, semi-structured interviews, and medical note review, in two NHS trusts. Seventeen people with dementia and cancer, 22 relatives and 19 staff members participated. RESULTS: Decision-making raised complex ethical dilemmas and challenges and raised concerns for families and staff around whether correct decisions had been made. Whose decision it was and to what extent a person with dementia and cancer was able to make decisions was complex, requiring careful and ongoing consultation and close involvement of relatives. The potential impact dementia might have on treatment understanding and toleration required additional consideration by clinicians when evaluating treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer treatment decision-making for people with dementia is challenging, should be an ongoing process and has emotional impacts for the individual, relatives, and staff. Longer, flexible, and additional appointments may be required to support decision-making by people with cancer and dementia. Evidence-based decision-making guidance on how dementia impacts cancer prognosis, treatment adherence and efficacy is required.

Investigation of ward fidelity to a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention during a multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised, controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: delirium is a frequent complication of hospital admission for older people and can be reduced by multicomponent interventions, but implementation and delivery of such interventions is challenging. OBJECTIVE: to investigate fidelity to the prevention of delirium system of care within a multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised, controlled feasibility trial. SETTING: five care of older people and three orthopaedic trauma wards in eight hospitals in England and Wales. DATA COLLECTION: research nurse observations of ward practice; case note reviews and examination of documentation. ASSESSMENT: 10 health care professionals with experience in older people's care assessed the fidelity to 21 essential implementation components within four domains: intervention installation (five items; maximum score = 5); intervention delivery (12 items; maximum score = 48); intervention coverage (three items; maximum score = 16); and duration of delivery (one item; maximum score = 1). RESULTS: the mean score (range) for each domain was: installation 4.5 (3.5-5); delivery 32.6 (range 27.3-38.3); coverage 7.9 (range 4.2-10.1); and duration 0.38 (0-1). Of the 10 delirium risk factors, infection, nutrition, hypoxia and pain were the most and cognitive impairment, sensory impairment and multiple medications the least consistently addressed. Overall fidelity to the intervention was assessed as high (≥80%) in two wards, medium (51-79%) in five wards and low (≤50%) in one ward. CONCLUSION: the trial was designed as a pragmatic evaluation, and the findings of medium intervention fidelity are likely to be generalisable to delirium prevention in routine care and provide an important context to interpret the trial outcomes.

A multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised, controlled feasibility trial of the POD system of care.

OBJECTIVE: to provide a preliminary estimate of the effectiveness of the prevention of delirium (POD) system of care in reducing incident delirium in acute hospital wards and gather data for a future definitive randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: cluster randomised and controlled feasibility trial. SETTING: sixteen acute care of older people and orthopaedic trauma wards in eight hospitals in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: patients 65 years and over admitted to participating wards during the trial period. INTERVENTIONS: participating wards were randomly assigned to either the POD programme or usual care, determined by existing local policies and practices. The POD programme is a manualised multicomponent delirium prevention intervention that targets 10 risk factors for delirium. The intervention wards underwent a 6-month implementation period before trial recruitment commenced. Main outcome measure incidence of new-onset delirium measured using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) measured daily for up to 10 days post consent. RESULTS: out of 4449, 3274 patients admitted to the wards were eligible. In total, 714 patients consented (713 registered) to the trial, thirty-three participants (4.6%) withdrew. Adherence to the intervention was classified as at least medium for seven wards. Rates of new-onset delirium were lower than expected and did not differ between groups (24 (7.0%) of participants in the intervention group versus 33 (8.9%) in the control group; odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.68 (0.37-1.26); P = 0.2225). CONCLUSIONS: based on these findings, a definitive trial is achievable and would need to recruit 5220 patients in 26 two-ward hospital clusters. Trial registration: ISRCTN01187372. Registered 13 March 2014.

Measuring commissioners' willingness-to-pay for community based childhood obesity prevention programmes using a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, rates of childhood obesity remain high. Community based programmes for child obesity prevention are available to be commissioned by local authorities. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding how programmes are commissioned and which attributes of programmes are valued most by commissioners. The aim of this study was to determine the factors that decision-makers prioritise when commissioning programmes that target childhood obesity prevention. METHODS: An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to survey commissioners and decision makers in the UK to assess their willingness-to-pay for childhood obesity programmes. RESULTS: A total of 64 commissioners and other decision makers completed the DCE. The impact of programmes on behavioural outcomes was prioritised, with participants willing to pay an extra £16,600/year if average daily fruit and vegetable intake increased for each child by one additional portion. Participants also prioritised programmes that had greater number of parents fully completing them, and were willing to pay an extra £4810/year for every additional parent completing a programme. The number of parents enrolling in a programme (holding the number completing fixed) and hours of staff time required did not significantly influence choices. CONCLUSIONS: Emphasis on high programme completion rates and success increasing children's fruit and vegetable intake has potential to increase commissioning of community based obesity prevention programmes.

Use of the confusion assessment method in multicentre delirium trials: training and standardisation.

BACKGROUND: Delirium occurs commonly in older adults and is associated with adverse outcomes. Multicentre clinical trials evaluating interventions to prevent delirium are needed. The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) is a validated instrument for delirium detection. We hypothesised it would be possible for a large feasibility study to train a large number of research assistants, with varying experience levels, to conduct CAM assessments reliably in multiple hospital sites. METHODS: A standardised training programme was followed, incorporating structured training at a central location and at study sites. CAM practice sessions on both delirious and non-delirious patients by research assistants were conducted and, thereafter, there was ongoing inter-rater reliability assessment on the CAM between research assistant pairs at study sites. The setting was eight acute care hospitals in England and Wales. Participants were research assistants working on a multicentre feasibility study of delirium prevention. The measurement used was the Confusion Assessment Method. RESULTS: Thirty-seven research assistants were trained in CAM assessment and 33 returned training logs. The logs showed there was 100% overall agreement between research assistant pairs on 295 CAM assessments, of which 263 (89.2%) were negative for delirium and 32 (10.8%) were positive. In the course of the feasibility study, research assistants successfully completed 5065 (89.7%) of the 5645 expected CAM assessments, with minimal missing data. CONCLUSION: Using the training methods described in this study, it is possible to achieve high quality delirium assessments for large numbers of patients with little missing data across geographically dispersed sites in multicentre studies. The standardisation of multisite delirium assessments is an important contribution to research methodology, and provides a much-needed advance for the field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCT ISRCTN01187372 . Registered 13 March 2014.

The PiTSTOP study: a feasibility cluster randomized trial of delirium prevention in care homes for older people.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: delirium is a distressing but potentially preventable condition common in older people in long-term care. It is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, functional decline, hospitalization and significant healthcare costs. Multicomponent interventions, addressing delirium risk factors, have been shown to reduce delirium by one-third in hospitals. It is not known whether this approach is also effective in long-term care. In previous work, we designed a bespoke delirium prevention intervention, called 'Stop Delirium!' In preparation for a definitive trial of Stop Delirium, we sought to address key aspects of trial design for the particular circumstances of care homes. DESIGN: a cluster randomized feasibility study with an embedded process evaluation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: residents of 14 care homes for older people in one metropolitan district in the UK. INTERVENTION: Stop Delirium!: a 16-month-enhanced educational package to support care home staff to address key delirium risk factors. Control homes received usual care. MEASUREMENTS: we collected data to determine the following: recruitment and attrition; delirium rates and variability between homes; feasibility of measuring delirium, resource use, quality of life, hospital admissions and falls; and intervention implementation and adherence. RESULTS: two-thirds (215) of eligible care home residents were recruited. One-month delirium prevalence was 4.0% in intervention and 7.1% in control homes. Proposed outcome measurements were feasible, although our approach appeared to underestimate delirium. Health economic evaluation was feasible using routinely collected data. CONCLUSION: a definitive trial of delirium prevention in long-term care is needed but will require some further design modifications and pilot work.

Delivering an Optimised Behavioural Intervention (OBI) to people with low back pain with high psychological risk; results and lessons learnt from a feasibility randomised controlled trial of Contextual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CCBT) vs. Physiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Low Back Pain (LBP) remains a common and costly problem. Psychological obstacles to recovery have been identified, but psychological and behavioural interventions have produced only moderate improvements. Reviews of trials have suggested that the interventions lack clear theoretical basis, are often compromised by low dose, lack of fidelity, and delivery by non-experts. In addition, interventions do not directly target known risk mechanisms. We identified a theory driven intervention (Contexual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, CCBT) that directly targets an evidence-based risk mechanism (avoidance and ensured dose and delivery were optimised. This feasibility study was designed to test the credibility and acceptability of optimised CCBT against physiotherapy for avoidant LBP patients, and to test recruitment, delivery of the intervention and response rates prior to moving to a full definitive trial. METHODS: A randomised controlled feasibility trial with patients randomised to receive CCBT or physiotherapy. CCBT was delivered by trained supervised psychologists on a one to one basis and comprised up to 8 one-hour sessions. Physiotherapy comprised back to fitness group exercises with at least 60 % of content exercise-based. Patients were eligible to take part if they had back pain for more than 3 months, and scored above a threshold indicating fear avoidance, catastrophic beliefs and distress. RESULTS: 89 patients were recruited. Uptake rates were above those predicted. Scores for credibility and acceptability of the interventions met the set criteria. Response rates at three and six months fell short of the 75 % target. Problems associated with poor response rates were identified and successfully resolved, rates increased to 77 % at 3 months, and 68 % at 6 months. Independent ratings of treatment sessions indicated that CCBT was delivered to fidelity. Numbers were too small for formal analysis. Although average scores for acceptance were higher in the CCBT group than in the group attending physiotherapy (increase of 7.9 versus 5.1) and change in disability and pain from baseline to 6 months were greater in the CCBT group than in the physiotherapy group, these findings should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: CCBT is a credible and acceptable intervention for LBP patients who exhibit psychological obstacles to recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN43733490 , registered 15/12/2010.

Pressure ulcer related pain in community populations: a prevalence survey.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are costly to the healthcare provider and can have a major impact on patient's quality of life. One of the most distressing symptoms reported is pain. There is very little published data on the prevalence and details of pain experienced by patients with pressure ulcers, particularly in community populations. The study was conducted in two community NHS sites in the North of England. METHODS: The aim was to estimate the prevalence of pressure area related pain within a community population. We also explored the type and severity of the pain and its association with pressure ulcer classification. A cross-sectional survey was performed of community nurses caseloads to identify adult patients with pressure ulcers and associated pain. Consenting patients then had a full pain assessment and verification of pressure ulcer grade. RESULTS: A total of 287 patients were identified with pressure ulcers (0.51 per 1000 adult population). Of the 176 patients who were asked, 133 (75.6%) reported pain. 37 patients consented to a detailed pain assessment. Painful pressure ulcers of all grades and on nearly all body sites were identified. Pain intensity was not related to number or severity of pressure ulcer. Both inflammatory and neuropathic pain were reported at all body sites however the proportion of neuropathic pain was greater in pressure ulcers on lower limbs. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified the extent and type of pain suffered by community patients with pressure ulcers and indicates the need for systematic and regular pain assessment and treatment.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a sustainable obesity prevention programme for preschool children delivered at scale 'HENRY' (Health, Exercise, Nutrition for the Really Young): protocol for the HENRY III cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: One-fifth of children start school already overweight or living with obesity, with rates disproportionately impacting those living in the most deprived areas. Social, environmental and biological factors contribute to excess weight gain and programmes delivered in early years settings aim to support families to navigate these in order to prevent obesity. One of these programmes (Health, Exercise and Nutrition for the Really Young, HENRY) has been delivered in UK community venues (hereon named 'centres') in high deprivation areas since 2008 and aims to help families to provide a healthy start for their preschool children. We aim to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HENRY, including its potential role from a wider systems perspective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, open-labelled, two-group, prospective, cluster randomised controlled trial, with cost-effectiveness analysis, systems-based process evaluation and internal pilot. Primary analysis will compare body mass index (BMI) z-score at 12 months in children (n=984) whose parents have attended HENRY to those who have not attended. Secondary outcomes include parent and staff BMI and waist circumference, parenting efficacy, feeding, eating habits, quality of life, resource use and medium term (3 years) BMI z-scores (child and siblings). 82 centres in ~14 local authority areas will be randomised (1:1) to receive HENRY or continue with standard practice. Intention-to-treat analysis will compare outcomes using mixed effects linear regression. Economic evaluation will estimate a within-trial calculation of cost-per unit change in BMI z-score and longer-term trajectories to determine lifelong cost savings (long-term outcomes). A systems process evaluation will explore whether (and how) implementation of HENRY impacts (and is impacted by) the early years obesity system. An established parent advisory group will support delivery and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the University of York, Health Sciences' Research Governance Committee (HSRGC/2022/537/E). Dissemination includes policy reports, community resources, social media and academic outputs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16529380.

Supported exercise TrAining for Men wIth prostate caNcer on Androgen deprivation therapy (STAMINA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STAMINA lifestyle intervention compared with optimised usual care, including internal pilot and parallel process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: UK national clinical guidance recommends that men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy are offered twice weekly supervised aerobic and resistance exercise to address iatrogenic harm caused by treatment. Very few NHS trusts have established adequate provision of such services. Furthermore, interventions fail to demonstrate sustained behaviour change. The STAMINA lifestyle intervention offers a system-level change to clinical care delivery addressing barriers to long-term behaviour change and implementation of new prostate cancer care pathways. This trial aims to establish whether STAMINA is clinically and cost-effective in improving cancer-specific quality of life and/or reducing fatigue compared to optimised usual care. The process evaluation aims to inform the interpretation of results and, if the intervention is shown to benefit patients, to inform the implementation of the intervention into the NHS. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 697) will be identified from a minimum of 12 UK NHS trusts to participate in a multi-centre, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial. Consenting men will have a 'safety to exercise' check and be randomly allocated (5:4) to the STAMINA lifestyle intervention (n = 384) or optimised usual care (n = 313). Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-month post-randomisation. The two primary outcomes are cancer-specific quality of life and fatigue. The parallel process evaluation will follow a mixed-methods approach to explore recruitment and aspects of the intervention including, reach, fidelity, acceptability, and implementation. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the STAMINA lifestyle intervention versus optimised usual care and a discrete choice experiment will explore patient preferences. DISCUSSION: The STAMINA lifestyle intervention has the potential to improve quality of life and reduce fatigue in men on androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Embedding supervised exercise into prostate cancer care may also support long-term positive behaviour change and reduce adverse events caused by treatment. Findings will inform future clinical care and could provide a blueprint for the integration of supervised exercise and behavioural support into other cancer and/or clinical services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 46385239, registered on 30/07/2020. Cancer Research UK 17002, retrospectively registered on 24/08/2022.

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. METHODS: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. RESULTS: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. CONCLUSIONS: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

The prevalence of pain at pressure areas and pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with pressure ulcers (PUs) report that pain is their most distressing symptom, but there are few PU pain prevalence studies. We sought to estimate the prevalence of unattributed pressure area related pain (UPAR pain) which was defined as pain, soreness or discomfort reported by patients, on an "at risk" or PU skin site, reported at a patient level. METHODS: We undertook pain prevalence surveys in 2 large UK teaching hospital NHS Trusts (6 hospitals) and a district general hospital NHS Trust (3 hospitals) during their routine annual PU prevalence audits. The hospitals provide secondary and tertiary care beds in acute and elective surgery, trauma and orthopaedics, burns, medicine, elderly medicine, oncology and rehabilitation. Anonymised individual patient data were recorded by the ward nurse and PU prevalence team. The analysis of this prevalence survey included data summaries; no inferential statistical testing was planned or undertaken. Percentages were calculated using the total number of patients from the relevant population as the denominator (i.e. including all patients with missing data for that variable). RESULTS: A total of 3,397 patients in 9 acute hospitals were included in routine PU prevalence audits and, of these, 2010 (59.2%) patients participated in the pain prevalence study. UPAR pain prevalence was 16.3% (327/2010). 1769 patients had no PUs and of these 223 patients reported UPAR pain, a prevalence of 12.6%. Of the 241 people with pressure ulcers, 104 patients reported pain, a UPAR pain prevalence of 43.2% (104/241). CONCLUSION: One in six people in acute hospitals experience UPAR pain on 'at risk' or PU skin sites; one in every 8 people without PUs and, more than 2 out of every five people with PUs. The results provide a clear indication that all patients should be asked if they have pain at pressure areas even when they do not have a PU.

Acceptability, fidelity and trial experience of four intervention components to support medication adherence in women with breast cancer: A process evaluation protocol for a pilot fractional factorial trial.

Background: The Refining and Optimising a behavioural intervention to Support Endocrine Therapy Adherence (ROSETA) programme has developed four intervention components aiming to improve medication adherence in women with early-stage breast cancer. These are (a) text messages, (b) information leaflet, (c) Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based guided self-help (ACT), (d) side-effect management website. Guided by the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy, our pilot trial will use a fractional factorial design to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a larger optimisation trial. The pilot will include a process evaluation to maximise learning regarding the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention components before proceeding with a larger trial. The trial process evaluation has three aims: to assess the (1) fidelity and (2) acceptability of the intervention components; and (3) to understand participant's trial experience, and barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention. Methods: The process evaluation will use multiple methods. Fidelity of the intervention components will be assessed using self-reported questionnaire data, trial data on intervention component adherence, and observations of the ACT sessions. Acceptability of the intervention components and trial experience will be explored using an acceptability questionnaire and interviews with patients and trial therapists. Trial experience will be assessed using a questionnaire and interviews with participants, while barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention will be assessed using a questionnaire completed by research nurses and participant interviews. The pilot trial opened for recruitment on 20th May 2022 and was open at the time of submission. Conclusions: This process evaluation will provide information regarding whether the intervention components can be delivered with fidelity within a national healthcare setting and are acceptable to participants. We will also better understand participant experience in a pilot trial with a fractional factorial design, and any barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention. Registration: ISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN10487576, 16/12/2021).

BACKGROUND: The majority of women with early-stage breast cancer are recommended adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) to reduce the chances of their cancer coming back. Many women given this medication don't take it every day or stop taking it earlier than they should. We have developed four different interventions to help women take AET. These are; text messages reminding women to take AET; an information leaflet explaining how AET works and its benefits and side-effects; a therapy programme to reduce distress, consisting of five support sessions and four module booklets; and a website with strategies to manage AET side-effects. We are now testing whether these interventions can be delivered within the NHS in different combinations, in a small trial. STUDY METHODS: We have three aims: 1. To find out if the interventions can be given and are received in the way they were supposed to (fidelity).2. To find out if the support received as part of the trial was acceptable to women with breast cancer (acceptability).3. To find out what women's experience was of taking part in the trial overall (trial experience). To do this we will: 1. Interview participants to ask them how acceptable they found the interventions, what they understood, whether they used the interventions, and how they found participating in the trial.2. Interview therapists who delivered the therapy programme to see if they delivered it as they were supposed to, and how they found delivering the intervention.3. Ask participants to complete questionnaires about how acceptable the interventions were, and whether they read and used them.4. Ask the staff involved in finding participants for the trial about challenges and improvements. We will use what we find to make improvements in a future trial where we will test whether the interventions help women to take AET.

Refining and optimising a behavioural intervention to support endocrine therapy adherence (ROSETA) in UK women with breast cancer: protocol for a pilot fractional factorial trial.

INTRODUCTION: Women with breast cancer who do not adhere to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) have increased risks of mortality and recurrence. There are multiple barriers to AET adherence, including medication side-effects, beliefs about medication, memory and psychological distress. We developed four intervention components, each targeting a different barrier. This pilot trial is part of the preparation phase of the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy, and aims to establish key trial parameters, establish intervention component adherence, establish availability and feasibility of outcome and process data, estimate variability in planned outcome measures and estimate cost of developing and delivering each intervention component. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The four intervention components are as follows: short message service text reminders (target: memory); a written information leaflet (target: medication beliefs); a guided self-help Acceptance and Commitment Therapy programme (target: psychological flexibility to reduce distress) and a self-management website (target: side-effect management). To evaluate the feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of the intervention components and the availability of outcome data, we will conduct a multisite, exploratory pilot trial using a 24-1 fractional factorial design, with a nested process evaluation. We will randomise 80 women with early-stage breast cancer who have been prescribed AET to one of eight experimental conditions. This will determine the combination of intervention components they receive, ranging from zero to four, with all conditions receiving usual care. Key outcomes of interest include medication adherence and quality of life. Progression to the optimisation phase will be based on predefined criteria for consent rates, patient adherence to intervention components and availability of medication adherence data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was reviewed by the Wales Research Authority Research Ethics Committee 3 (21/WA/0322). Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients before randomisation. The results of this trial will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRTCN10487576.

Explaining variable effects of an adaptable implementation package to promote evidence-based practice in primary care: a longitudinal process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based recommendations is challenging in UK primary care, especially given system pressures and multiple guideline recommendations competing for attention. Implementation packages that can be adapted and hence applied to target multiple guideline recommendations could offer efficiencies for recommendations with common barriers to achievement. We developed and evaluated a package of evidence-based interventions (audit and feedback, educational outreach and reminders) incorporating behaviour change techniques to target common barriers, in two pragmatic trials for four "high impact" indicators: risky prescribing; diabetes control; blood pressure control; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. We observed a significant, cost-effective reduction in risky prescribing but there was insufficient evidence of effect on the other outcomes. We explored the impact of the implementation package on both social processes (Normalisation Process Theory; NPT) and hypothesised determinants of behaviour (Theoretical Domains Framework; TDF). METHODS: We conducted a prospective multi-method process evaluation. Observational, administrative and interview data collection and analyses in eight primary care practices were guided by NPT and TDF. Survey data from trial and process evaluation practices explored fidelity. RESULTS: We observed three main patterns of variation in how practices responded to the implementation package. First, in integration and achievement, the package "worked" when it was considered distinctive and feasible. Timely feedback directed at specific behaviours enabled continuous goal setting, action and review, which reinforced motivation and collective action. Second, impacts on team-based determinants were limited, particularly when the complexity of clinical actions impeded progress. Third, there were delivery delays and unintended consequences. Delays in scheduling outreach further reduced ownership and time for improvement. Repeated stagnant or declining feedback that did not reflect effort undermined engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Variable integration within practice routines and organisation of care, variable impacts on behavioural determinants, and delays in delivery and unintended consequences help explain the partial success of an adaptable package in primary care.