The process of replication target selection in psychology: what to consider?

Increased execution of replication studies contributes to the effort to restore credibility of empirical research. However, a second generation of problems arises: the number of potential replication targets is at a serious mismatch with available resources. Given limited resources, replication target selection should be well-justified, systematic and transparently communicated. At present the discussion on what to consider when selecting a replication target is limited to theoretical discussion, self-reported justifications and a few formalized suggestions. In this Registered Report, we proposed a study involving the scientific community to create a list of considerations for consultation when selecting a replication target in psychology. We employed a modified Delphi approach. First, we constructed a preliminary list of considerations. Second, we surveyed psychologists who previously selected a replication target with regards to their considerations. Third, we incorporated the results into the preliminary list of considerations and sent the updated list to a group of individuals knowledgeable about concerns regarding replication target selection. Over the course of several rounds, we established consensus regarding what to consider when selecting a replication target. The resulting checklist can be used for transparently communicating the rationale for selecting studies for replication.

Self-Harm in Eating Disorders (SHINE): a mixed-methods exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: Self-harm is highly prevalent among young people with eating disorders. However, why a young person may develop and continue to experience both an eating disorder and self-harm is unclear. This study will investigate the frequency, intensity, duration, function, context and processes of self-harm among people aged 16-25 diagnosed with an eating disorder. It will explore participants' perspectives on the genesis and functions of both their self-harm and eating disorder, as well as their support needs. The study was designed with the input of members of a Young Persons' Advisory Group, who will be key to study delivery and dissemination. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This exploratory study has a sequential mixed-methods explanatory design. Between 70 and 100 young people aged 16-25 with both an eating disorder diagnosis and self-harm thoughts and/or behaviours will be recruited from three NHS Eating Disorder outpatient services in England. Phase 1: a 14-day (six prompts per day) ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of participants' feelings, thoughts, motivations, behaviours and experiences of self-harm. Phase 2: 20-30 participants from phase 1 will be reapproached to take part in an in-depth qualitative interview on the psychological, emotional and social factors that underlie their self-harm and eating disorder as well as their support needs. EMA data from phase 1 will be analysed using descriptive and multilevel statistics. Qualitative interview data from phase 2 will be analysed using inductive and deductive thematic analysis. Results from both phases will be integrated using a mixed-methods matrix, with each participant's data from both phases compared alongside comparative analysis of the datasets as a whole. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study gained ethical approval from the NHS HRA West Midlands-Black Country Research Ethics Committee (number: 296032). We anticipate disseminating findings to clinical, academic and lived experience audiences, at academic conferences, through peer-reviewed articles, and through various public engagement activities (eg, infographics, podcasts).

Web-Based Psychological Interventions for People Living With and Beyond Cancer: Meta-Review of What Works and What Does Not for Maximizing Recruitment, Engagement, and Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Despite high levels of psychological distress experienced by many patients with cancer, previous research has identified several barriers to accessing traditional face-to-face psychological support. Web-based psychosocial interventions have emerged as a promising alternative. OBJECTIVE: This meta-review aimed to synthesize evidence on recruitment challenges and enablers, factors that promote engagement and adherence to web-based intervention content, and factors that promote the efficacy of web-based psychosocial interventions for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of previous reviews that investigated the recruitment, engagement, and efficacy of web-based and app-based psychosocial interventions in adult patients with cancer and cancer survivors. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library database for relevant literature. The search terms focused on a combination of topics pertaining to neoplasms and telemedicine. Two independent authors conducted abstract screening, full text screening, and data extraction for each identified article. RESULTS: A total of 20 articles met eligibility criteria. There was inconsistency in the reporting of uptake and engagement data; however, anxiety about technology and perceived time burden were identified as 2 key barriers. Web-based psychosocial oncology interventions demonstrated efficacy in reducing depression and stress but reported weak to mixed findings for distress, anxiety, quality of life, and well-being. Although no factors consistently moderated intervention efficacy, preliminary evidence indicated that multicomponent interventions and greater communication with a health care professional were preferred by participants and were associated with superior effects. CONCLUSIONS: Several consistently cited barriers to intervention uptake and recruitment have emerged, which we recommend future intervention studies address. Preliminary evidence also supports the superior efficacy of multicomponent interventions and interventions that facilitate communication with a health care professional. However, a greater number of appropriately powered clinical trials, including randomized trials with head-to-head comparisons, are needed to enable more confident conclusions regarding which web-based psychosocial oncology interventions work best and for whom. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020202633; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=202633.

Suicide rates amongst individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Existing evidence suggests that some individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds are at increased risk of suicide compared to their majority ethnic counterparts, whereas others are at decreased risk. We aimed to estimate the absolute and relative risk of suicide in individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds globally. Methods: Databases (Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo) were searched for epidemiological studies between 01/01/2000 and 3/07/2020, which provided data on absolute and relative rates of suicide amongst ethnic minority groups. Studies reporting on clinical or specific populations were excluded. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate overall, sex, location, migrant status, and ancestral origin, stratified pooled estimates for absolute and rate ratios. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020197940. Findings: A total of 128 studies were included with 6,026,103 suicide deaths in individuals from an ethnic minority background across 31 countries. Using data from 42 moderate-high quality studies, we estimated a pooled suicide rate of 12·1 per 100,000 (95% CIs 8·4-17·6) in people from ethnic minority backgrounds with a broad range of estimates (1·2-139·7 per 100,000). There was weak statistical evidence from 51 moderate-high quality studies that individuals from ethnic minority groups were more likely to die by suicide (RR 1·3 95% CIs 0·9-1·7) with again a broad range amongst studies (RR 0·2-18·5). In our sub-group analysis we only found evidence of elevated risk for indigenous populations (RR: 2·8 95% CIs 1·9-4·0; pooled rate: 23·2 per 100,000 95% CIs 14·7-36·6). There was very substantial heterogeneity (I2  > 98%) between studies for all pooled estimates. Interpretation: The homogeneous grouping of individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds is inappropriate. To support suicide prevention in marginalised groups, further exploration of important contextual differences in risk is required. It is possible that some ethnic minority groups (for example those from indigenous backgrounds) have higher rates of suicide than majority populations. Funding: No specific funding was provided to conduct this research. DK is funded by Wellcome Trust and Elizabeth Blackwell Institute Bristol. Matthew Spittal is a recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project number FT180100075) funded by the Australian Government. Rebecca Musgrove is funded by the NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (PSTRC-2016-003).

Evaluating process and effectiveness of a low-intensity CBT intervention for women with gynaecological cancer (the EPELIT Trial).

Background: Improving survival from gynaecological cancers is creating an increasing clinical challenge for long-term distress management. Psychologist-led interventions for cancer survivors can be beneficial, but are often costly. The rise of the Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner (PWP) workforce in the UK might offer a cheaper, but equally effective, intervention delivery method that is more sustainable and accessible. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a PWP co-facilitated intervention for reducing depression and anxiety, quality of life and unmet needs. Methods: We planned this trial using a pragmatic, non-randomised controlled design, recruiting a comparator sample from a second clinical site. The intervention was delivered over six-weekly sessions; data were collected from participants at baseline, weekly during the intervention, and at one-week and three-month follow-up. Logistical challenges meant that we only recruited 8 participants to the intervention group, and 26 participants to the control group. Results: We did not find significant, between-group differences for depression, quality of life or unmet needs, though some differences at follow-up were found for anxiety ( p<.001). Analysis of potential intervention mediator processes indicated the potential importance of self-management self-efficacy. Low uptake into the psychological intervention raises questions about (a) patient-driven needs for group-based support, and (b) the sustainability of this intervention programme. Conclusions: This study failed to recruit to target; the under-powered analysis likely explains the lack of significant effects reported, though some trends in the data are of interest. Retention in the intervention group, and low attrition in the control group indicate acceptability of the intervention content and trial design; however a small baseline population rendered this trial infeasible in its current design. Further work is required to answer our research questions, but also, importantly, to address low uptake for psychological interventions in this group of cancer survivors. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553784 (registered 14 June 2018).

An increasing number of people are surviving for longer time periods following treatment for gynaecological cancer and this means we need to change how we care for and support a growing cancer survivor population. Psychological distress and poor quality of life are common in people affected by cancer, and these do not always improve once treatment ends. Providing psychological support can be expensive, which means that not everyone who wants it can access it. Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners (PWPs) have been introduced in UK health care. This workforce might offer an alternative for providing psychological support to a greater number of cancer survivors. We aimed to test how good a PWP co-delivered intervention is at improving depression, anxiety and quality of life in people who had been treated for gynaecological cancer. The intervention was delivered to small groups of patients over six weekly sessions. We compared those who received the intervention with a similar patient group who did not have access to the same psychological support from a different hospital. Participants reported their psychological wellbeing and quality of life at the point of recruitment, weekly for six weeks, and then at follow-up time-points one week and three months later. Because of low interest in the group intervention we did not recruit to target. Only 8 participants took part in the intervention, and we recruited only 26 participants in the control group. This means we can't have full confidence in our results. Nonetheless, the findings indicate that this intervention was helpful for improving participants' anxiety levels. Further trials, which recruit a larger number of cancer survivors, are needed to answer our research questions. However, this trial indicates acceptability and potential benefit. We also need to undertake research to understand why so few cancer survivors wanted to take part in this group-based intervention.

Recruiting cancer survivors into research studies using online methods: a secondary analysis from an international cancer survivorship cohort study.

Recruiting participants into cancer survivorship research remains a significant challenge. Few studies have tested and compared the relative use of non-clinical online recruitment methods, especially in samples of adult cancer survivors. This paper reports on the feasibility of recruiting a representative cohort of cancer survivors using online social media. Two hundred participants with cancer diagnosis within the past 12 months were recruited via social media (Facebook, Twitter and Reddit) into a longitudinal questionnaire study. Different methods of online recruitment proved to be more effective than others over time. Paid Facebook boosting, Reddit posts and Twitter advertisements placed by existing cancer charities proved most helpful in reaching our recruitment target (contributing 27%, 22% and 32%, respectively). Recruiting online achieved a more demographically and clinically representative sample for our study: our subject was younger, less heteronormative, including those with a range of clinical diagnoses, primary and recurrence illness, and patients who had both completed and were still receiving treatment. This was certainly not a quick method of sample recruitment but that could have been optimised by focussing only on the three most effective methods described earlier. While we found that online recruitment is significantly lower in cost than traditional recruitment methods, and can reduce some biases, there still remains the potential for some biases (e.g. excluding much older participants) and ethical/methodological issues (e.g. excluding those without access to Internet). We outline our recruitment strategy, retention rates and a cost breakdown in order to guide other researchers considering such methods for future research in cancer survivorship.