Describing the content of trial recruitment interventions using the TIDieR reporting checklist: a systematic methodology review.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to clinical trials is an ongoing challenge, and relatively little is known about what recruitment strategies lead to better recruitment. Recruitment interventions can be considered complex interventions, often involving multiple components, targeting a variety of groups, and tailoring to different groups. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting checklist (which comprises 12 items recommended for reporting complex interventions) to guide the assessment of how recruitment interventions are described. We aimed to (1) examine to what extent we could identify information about each TIDieR item within recruitment intervention studies, and (2) observe additional detail for each item to describe useful variation among these studies. METHODS: We identified randomized, nested recruitment intervention studies providing recruitment or willingness to participate rates from two sources: a Cochrane review of trials evaluating strategies to improve recruitment to randomized trials, and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls database. First, we assessed to what extent authors reported information about each TIDieR item. Second, we developed descriptive categorical variables for 7 TIDieR items and extracting relevant quotes for the other 5 items. RESULTS: We assessed 122 recruitment intervention studies. We were able to extract information relevant to most TIDieR items (e.g., brief rationale, materials, procedure) with the exception of a few items that were only rarely reported (e.g., tailoring, modifications, planned/actual fidelity). The descriptive variables provided a useful overview of study characteristics, with most studies using various forms of informational interventions (55%) delivered at a single time point (90%), often by a member of the research team (59%) in a clinical care setting (41%). CONCLUSIONS: Our TIDieR-based variables provide a useful description of the core elements of complex trial recruitment interventions. Recruitment intervention studies report core elements of complex interventions variably; some process elements (e.g., mode of delivery, location) are almost always described, while others (e.g., duration, fidelity) are reported infrequently, with little indication of a reason for their absence. Future research should explore whether these TIDieR-based variables can form the basis of an approach to better reporting of elements of successful recruitment interventions.

Retention strategies are routinely communicated to potential trial participants but often differ from what was planned in the trial protocol: an analysis of adult participant information leaflets and their corresponding protocols.

BACKGROUND: Retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging and trial teams are often required to use strategies to ensure retention or improve it. Other than monetary incentives, there is no requirement to disclose the use of retention strategies to the participant. Additionally, not all retention strategies are developed at the planning stage, i.e. post-funding during protocol development, but some protocols include strategies for participant retention as retention is considered and planned for early in the trial planning stage. It is yet unknown if these plans are communicated in the corresponding participant information leaflets (PILs). The purpose of our study was to determine if PILs communicate plans to promote participant retention and, if so, are these outlined in the corresponding trial protocol. METHODS: Ninety-two adult PILs and their 90 corresponding protocols from Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) in the UK were analysed. Directed (deductive) content analysis was used to analyse the participant retention text from the PILs. Data were presented using a narrative summary and frequencies where appropriate. RESULTS: Plans to promote participant retention were communicated in 81.5% (n = 75/92) of PILs. Fifty-seven percent (n = 43/75) of PILs communicated plans to use "combined strategies" to promote participant retention. The most common individual retention strategy was telling the participants that data collection for the trial would be scheduled during routine care visits (16%; n = 12/75 PILs). The importance of retention and the impact that missing or deleted data (deleting data collected prior to withdrawal) has on the ability to answer the research question were explained in 6.5% (n = 6/92) and 5.4% (n = 5/92) of PILs respectively. Out of the 59 PILs and 58 matching protocols that both communicated plans to use strategies to promote participant retention, 18.6% (n = 11/59) communicated the same information, the remaining 81.4% (n = 48/59) of PILs either only partially communicated (45.8%; n = 27/59) the same information or did not communicate the same information (35.6%; n = 21/59) as the protocol with regard to the retention strategy(ies). CONCLUSION: Retention strategies are frequently communicated to potential trial participants in PILs; however, the information provided often differs from the content in the corresponding protocol. Participant retention considerations are best done at the planning stage of the trial and we encourage trial teams to be consistent in the communication of these strategies in both the protocol and PIL.

Understanding implementation of findings from trial method research: a mixed methods study applying implementation frameworks and behaviour change models.

BACKGROUND: Trial method research produces recommendations on how to best conduct trials. However, findings are not routinely implemented into practice. To better understand why, we conducted a mixed method study on the challenges of implementing trial method research findings into UK-based clinical trial units. METHODS: Three stages of research were conducted. Firstly, case studies of completed projects that provided methodological recommendations were identified within trial design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. These case studies were used as survey examples to query obstacles and facilitators to implementing method research. Survey participants were experienced trial staff, identified via email invitations to UK clinical trial units. This survey assessed the case studies' rates of implementation, and demographic characteristics of trial units through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Further, interviews were conducted with senior members of trial units to explore obstacles and facilitators in more detail. Participants were sampled from trial units that indicated their willingness to participate in interviews following the survey. Interviews, and analysis, were structured via the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model of Behaviour. Finally, potential strategies to leverage lessons learned were generated via the Behaviour Change Wheel. RESULTS: A total of 27 UK trial units responded to the survey. The rates of implementation across the case studies varied, with most trial units implementing recommendations in trial conduct and only few implementing recommendations in reporting. However, most reported implementing recommendations was important but that they lacked the resources to do so. A total of 16 senior members of trial units were interviewed. Several themes were generated from interviews and fell broadly into categories related to the methods recommendations themselves, the trial units, or external factors affecting implementation. Belief statements within themes indicated resources issues and awareness of recommendations as frequent implementation obstacles. Participation in trial networks and recommendations packaged with relevant resources were cited frequently as implementation facilitators. These obstacles and facilitators mirrored results from the survey. Results were mapped, via the Behaviour Change Wheel, to intervention functions likely to change behaviours of obstacles and facilitators identified. These intervention functions were developed into potential solutions to reduce obstacles and enhance facilitators to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Several key areas affecting implementation of trial method recommendations were identified. Potential methods to enhance facilitators and reduce obstacles are suggested. Future research is needed to refine these methods and assess their feasibility and acceptability.

The SHOW RESPECT adaptable framework of considerations for planning how to share trial results with participants, based on qualitative findings from trial participants and site staff.

BACKGROUND: Sharing trial results with participants is a moral imperative, but too often does not happen in appropriate ways. METHODS: We carried out semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 13) and site staff (n = 11), and surveyed 180 patients and 68 site staff who were part of the Show RESPECT study, which tested approaches to sharing results with participants in the context of the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Qualitative and free-text data were analysed thematically, and findings used to develop the SHOW RESPECT adaptable framework of considerations for planning how to share trial results with participants. This paper presents the framework, with illustrations drawn from the Show RESPECT study. RESULTS: Our adaptable 'SHOW RESPECT' framework covers (1) Supporting and preparing trial participants to receive results, (2) HOw will the results reach participants?, (3) Who are the trial participants?, (4) REsults-what do they show?, (5) Special considerations, (6) Provider-who will share results with participants?, (7) Expertise and resources, (8) Communication tools and (9) Timing of sharing results. While the data upon which the framework is based come from a single trial, many of our findings are corroborated by findings from other studies in this area, supporting the transferability of our framework to trials beyond the UK ovarian cancer setting in which our work took place. CONCLUSIONS: This adaptable 'SHOW RESPECT' framework can guide researchers as they plan how to share aggregate trial results with participants. While our data are drawn from a single trial context, the findings from Show RESPECT illustrate how approaches to communication in a specific trial can influence patient and staff experiences of feedback of trial results. The framework generated from these findings can be adapted to fit different trial contexts and used by other researchers to plan the sharing of results with their own participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN96189403. Registered on February 26, 2019. Show RESPECT was supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12023/24 and MC_UU_00004/08) and the NIHR CRN.

Participant characteristics and exclusion from phase 3/4 industry funded trials of chronic medical conditions: meta-analysis of individual participant level data.

Objectives: To assess whether age, sex, comorbidity count, and race and ethnic group are associated with the likelihood of trial participants not being enrolled in a trial for any reason (ie, screen failure). Design: Bayesian meta-analysis of individual participant level data. Setting: Industry funded phase 3/4 trials of chronic medical conditions. Participants: Participants were identified using individual participant level data to be in either the enrolled group or screen failure group. Data were available for 52 trials involving 72 178 screened individuals of whom 24 733 (34%) were excluded from the trial at the screening stage. Main outcome measures: For each trial, logistic regression models were constructed to assess likelihood of screen failure in people who had been invited to screening, and were regressed on age (per 10 year increment), sex (male v female), comorbidity count (per one additional comorbidity), and race or ethnic group. Trial level analyses were combined in Bayesian hierarchical models with pooling across condition. Results: In age and sex adjusted models across all trials, neither age nor sex was associated with increased odds of screen failure, although weak associations were detected after additionally adjusting for comorbidity (odds ratio of age, per 10 year increment was 1.02 (95% credibility interval 1.01 to 1.04) and male sex (0.95 (0.91 to 1.00)). Comorbidity count was weakly associated with screen failure, but in an unexpected direction (0.97 per additional comorbidity (0.94 to 1.00), adjusted for age and sex). People who self-reported as black seemed to be slightly more likely to fail screening than people reporting as white (1.04 (0.99 to 1.09)); a weak effect that seemed to persist after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidity count (1.05 (0.98 to 1.12)). The between-trial heterogeneity was generally low, evidence of heterogeneity by sex was noted across conditions (variation in odds ratios on log scale of 0.01-0.13). Conclusions: Although the conclusions are limited by uncertainty about the completeness or accuracy of data collection among participants who were not randomised, we identified mostly weak associations with an increased likelihood of screen failure for age, sex, comorbidity count, and black race or ethnic group. Proportionate increases in screening these underserved populations may improve representation in trials. Trial registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018048202.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conservative management for adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones: the C-GALL RCT.

Background: Gallstone disease is a common gastrointestinal disorder in industrialised societies. The prevalence of gallstones in the adult population is estimated to be approximately 10-15%, and around 80% remain asymptomatic. At present, cholecystectomy is the default option for people with symptomatic gallstone disease. Objectives: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of observation/conservative management compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for preventing recurrent symptoms and complications in adults presenting with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones in secondary care. Design: Parallel group, multicentre patient randomised superiority pragmatic trial with up to 24 months follow-up and embedded qualitative research. Within-trial cost-utility and 10-year Markov model analyses. Development of a core outcome set for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease. Setting: Secondary care elective settings. Participants: Adults with symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease referred to a secondary care setting were considered for inclusion. Interventions: Participants were randomised 1: 1 at clinic to receive either laparoscopic cholecystectomy or observation/conservative management. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was quality of life measured by area under the curve over 18 months using the Short Form-36 bodily pain domain. Secondary outcomes included the Otago gallstones' condition-specific questionnaire, Short Form-36 domains (excluding bodily pain), area under the curve over 24 months for Short Form-36 bodily pain domain, persistent symptoms, complications and need for further treatment. No outcomes were blinded to allocation. Results: Between August 2016 and November 2019, 434 participants were randomised (217 in each group) from 20 United Kingdom centres. By 24 months, 64 (29.5%) in the observation/conservative management group and 153 (70.5%) in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group had received surgery, median time to surgery of 9.0 months (interquartile range, 5.6-15.0) and 4.7 months (interquartile range 2.6-7.9), respectively. At 18 months, the mean Short Form-36 norm-based bodily pain score was 49.4 (standard deviation 11.7) in the observation/conservative management group and 50.4 (standard deviation 11.6) in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. The mean area under the curve over 18 months was 46.8 for both groups with no difference: mean difference -0.0, 95% confidence interval (-1.7 to 1.7); p-value 0.996; n = 203 observation/conservative, n = 205 cholecystectomy. There was no evidence of differences in quality of life, complications or need for further treatment at up to 24 months follow-up. Condition-specific quality of life at 24 months favoured cholecystectomy: mean difference 9.0, 95% confidence interval (4.1 to 14.0), p < 0.001 with a similar pattern for the persistent symptoms score. Within-trial cost-utility analysis found observation/conservative management over 24 months was less costly than cholecystectomy (mean difference -£1033). A non-significant quality-adjusted life-year difference of -0.019 favouring cholecystectomy resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £55,235. The Markov model continued to favour observation/conservative management, but some scenarios reversed the findings due to uncertainties in longer-term quality of life. The core outcome set included 11 critically important outcomes from both patients and healthcare professionals. Conclusions: The results suggested that in the short term (up to 24 months) observation/conservative management may be a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources in selected patients, but subsequent surgeries in the randomised groups and differences in quality of life beyond 24 months could reverse this finding. Future research should focus on longer-term follow-up data and identification of the cohort of patients that should be routinely offered surgery. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN55215960. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/192/71) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The C-GALL study assessed the benefits, in terms of symptoms, quality of life and costs, of cholecystectomy versus observation (conservative management: by the patient and general practitioner that might include dietary advice and pain management and surgery if needed). Four hundred and thirty-four patients with symptomatic gallstones were randomly allocated surgery or conservative management. The main symptom of ongoing bodily pain and some other quality-of-life measures were assessed over the next 2 years using postal questionnaires. After 2 years, 70% of those allocated to surgery had been operated on and 37% of the observation group either had an operation or were waiting for one. There was no difference in bodily pain or overall quality of life between the groups. However, participants in the surgery group reported fewer ongoing problems related to their gallstone disease or after surgery than those in the conservative management group. Surgery was, however, more costly than conservative management. The C-GALL study has shown that for some patients, a conservative management approach may be a sufficient and less costly way of managing their gallstone symptoms rather than going straight on the waiting list for surgery. More research is needed to identify which patients benefit most from surgery.

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.

Patient reported outcomes and recruitment rates following the introduction of principled patient information leaflets (PrinciPILs): Protocol for a meta-analysis.

Background: The way potential benefits and harms of trial interventions are shared within patient information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and may cause unnecessary harms ("nocebo effects"). The aim of this meta-analysis will be to evaluate the influence on recruitment rates and early effects on patient reported adverse events of principled patient information leaflets (PrinciPILs) compared with standard PILs. Methods: Eligible studies will include those that report the effects on recruitment and patient reported adverse events of PrinciPILs compared to standard PILs. We will include in this meta-analysis all the standard PILs in studies within trials (SWATs) of PrinciPILs that were developed as part of the Medical Research Council (MRC) funded PrinciPIL project. By publishing this as a living meta-analysis, we will allow the meta-analysis to be updated with future SWATs of PrinciPILs. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to evaluate the risk of bias for each outcome. We will report the total number of studies and participants analysed and the characteristics of included studies (including details of intervention, comparators, outcomes). For dichotomous data, we will calculate the risk difference and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we will use weighted mean differences with 95% CIs or standardized mean differences with 95% CIs. We will investigate heterogeneity by visually inspecting the forest plot and by considering the I 2 test result. We will assess the certainty warranted for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Ethics approval is not applicable since no original data will be collected. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. Discussion: We will discuss the limitations of the meta-analysis including study risk of bias, inconsistency, heterogeneity, and imprecision. A general interpretation of the results and important implications will be provided.

People who take part in randomised trials need to understand the risks as well as the benefits of taking part. Most 'patient information leaflets' (PILs) that describe trial treatments include information about harms. Yet only some PILs contain information about potential benefits. This variation is confusing. Also, the over-emphasis on harms can cause "nocebo" effects, which are the harms caused by expecting something bad to happen. To solve these problems, we have developed seven principles that ensure that information about potential benefits and harms in PILs is balanced and consistent. We will now compare PILs that have been developed according to our principles (we call these 'PrinciPILs') with PILs that have not been developed with our principles. We will test whether PrinciPILs reduce nocebo effects and improve trial recruitment. Here we have described our plans to test the effect of PrinciPILs in a few trials.