The impact of midwife/nurse-led psychosocial interventions on parents experiencing perinatal bereavement: An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Perinatal loss is a traumatic event associated with a high risk of parents experiencing negative psychological outcomes. Despite most parents being in regular contact with midwives and nurses during the perinatal period, there is a lack of evidence which hampers these professionals from using effective psychosocial interventions with parents. AIM: This study aims to synthesise the existing evidence on the types of psychosocial interventions delivered by midwives/nurses for parents with perinatal bereavement, their impacts on bereaved parents' mental health and the experiences of midwives and nurses in delivering psychosocial interventions for parents experiencing perinatal loss. DESIGN: An integrative review of the literature. METHODS: Whittemore and Knafl's five-stage integrative review framework guided this review. A systematic literature search of the Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and ASSIA, Cochrane Library and ProQuest databases was conducted from inception to January 2023, with no language or geographical limiters set due to the paucity of research published in this subject area. Two researchers independently screened and reviewed each study's data extraction and methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute and Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Results were analysed and synthesised using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. From these, we identified nine types of psychosocial interventions for perinatal bereavement that can be delivered by midwives and nurses. The positive impacts of midwife/nurse-led psychosocial interventions on grief, anxiety, depression posttraumatic stress disorder and other psychosocial outcomes amongst parents experiencing perinatal loss have been demonstrated. In addition, we identified the useful components of these interventions and the experiences of midwives and nurses in delivering psychosocial interventions, thereby highlighting barriers such as lack of knowledge and skills, stressful working environments and inadequate emotional support. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that midwife/nurse-led psychosocial interventions have the potential to improve grief, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and other psychosocial outcomes for parents experiencing perinatal loss. Thus, future research should consider training, workload, time cost and emotional support for midwives/nurses when developing midwife/nurse-led psychosocial interventions for parents with perinatal loss. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022369032. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Midwife/nurse-led psychosocial interventions have the potential to improve mental health amongst parents experiencing perinatal loss.

Outcomes of interventions in neonatal sepsis: A systematic review of qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: While a systematic review exists detailing neonatal sepsis outcomes from clinical trials, there remains an absence of a qualitative systematic review capturing the perspectives of key stakeholders. OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to identify outcomes from qualitative research on any intervention to prevent or improve the outcomes of neonatal sepsis that are important to parents, other family members, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers as a part of the development of a core outcome set (COS) for neonatal sepsis. SEARCH STRATEGY: A literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Publications describing qualitative data relating to neonatal sepsis outcomes were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Drawing on the concepts of thematic synthesis, texts related to outcomes were coded and grouped. These outcomes were then mapped to the domain headings of an existing model. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 6777 records screened, six studies were included. Overall, 19 outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The most frequently reported outcomes were those in the domains related to parents, healthcare workers and individual organ systemas such as gastrointestinal system. The remaining outcomes were classified under the headings of general outcomes, miscellaneous outcomes, survival, and infection. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes identified in this review are different from those reported in neonatal sepsis clinical trials, thus highlighting the importance of incorporating qualitative studies into COS development to encapsulate all relevant stakeholders' perspectives.

IPV Routine Enquiry in Antenatal Care: Perspectives of Women and Healthcare Professionals-A Qualitative Study.

Despite one in three women experiencing abuse by an intimate partner in their lifetime, intimate partner violence (IPV) is under-reported. Globally, IPV routine enquiry is used as part of healthcare response to addressing IPV. This paper presents the views of pregnant women (n = 40) and providers (n = 30) of IPV routine enquiry as part of antenatal care policy in Ireland. Respondents supported IPV routine enquiry as part of usual antenatal care, and while immediate disclosure was recognized as important, it was not a primary expectation. Routine enquiry was seen as a woman's right and a providers' duty to provide holistic, empowered, women centered and safe care and where provision of information and education on IPV is as fundamental as the disclosure of abuse.

COHESION: a core outcome set for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in outcomes reported in trials of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy (NE) makes evaluating the effectiveness of treatments difficult. Developing a core outcome set for NE treatment would enable researchers to measure and report the same outcomes in future trials. This would minimise waste, ensure relevant outcomes are measured and enable evidence synthesis. Therefore, we aimed to develop a core outcome set for treating NE. METHODS: Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature and interviews with parents were prioritised by stakeholders (n = 99 parents/caregivers, n = 101 healthcare providers, and n = 22 researchers/ academics) in online Delphi surveys. Agreement on the outcomes was achieved at online consensus meetings attended by n = 10 parents, n = 18 healthcare providers, and n = 13 researchers/ academics. RESULTS: Seven outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: survival; brain injury on imaging; neurological status at discharge; cerebral palsy; general cognitive ability; quality of life of the child, and adverse events related to treatment. CONCLUSION: We developed a core outcome set for the treatment of NE. This will allow future trials to measure and report the same outcomes and ensure results can be compared. Future work should identify how best to measure the COS. IMPACT: We have identified seven outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. Previously, a core outcome set for neonatal encephalopathy treatments did not exist. This will help to reduce heterogeneity in outcomes reported in clinical trials and other studies, and help researchers identify the best treatments for neonatal encephalopathy.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for neonatal sepsis (NESCOS).

Neonatal sepsis is a serious public health problem; however, there is substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in research evaluating the effectiveness of the treatments. Therefore, we aim to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for studies evaluating the effectiveness of treatments for neonatal sepsis. Since a systematic review of key outcomes from randomised trials of therapeutic interventions in neonatal sepsis was published recently, we will complement this with a qualitative systematic review of the key outcomes of neonatal sepsis identified by parents, other family members, parent representatives, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers. We will interpret the outcomes of both studies using a previously established framework. Stakeholders across three different groups i.e., (1) researchers, (2) healthcare providers, and (3) patients' parents/family members and parent representatives will rate the importance of the outcomes in an online Real-Time Delphi Survey. Afterwards, consensus meetings will be held to agree on the final COS through online discussions with key stakeholders. This COS is expected to minimize outcome heterogeneity in measurements and publications, improve comparability and synthesis, and decrease research waste.

Factors that impact on recruitment to vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines. OBJECTIVES: To explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease. Our GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings. Some factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial. Other factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision. Finally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

Multi-Round versus Real-Time Delphi survey approach for achieving consensus in the COHESION core outcome set: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Delphi surveys are commonly used to prioritise critical outcomes in core outcome set (COS) development. This trial aims to compare a three-round (Multi-Round) Delphi (MRD) with a Real-Time Delphi (RTD) in the prioritisation of outcomes for inclusion in a COS for neonatal encephalopathy treatments and explore whether 'feedback', 'iteration', and 'initial condition' effects may occur in the two survey methods. METHODS: We recruited 269 participants (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers/academics) of which 222 were randomised to either the MRD or the RTD. We investigated the outcomes prioritised in each survey and the 'feedback', 'iteration', and 'initial condition' effects to identify differences between the two survey methods. RESULTS: In the RTD, n = 92 participants (83%) fully completed the survey. In the MRD, n = 60 participants (54%) completed all three rounds. Of the 92 outcomes presented, 26 (28%) were prioritised differently between the RTD and MRD. Significantly fewer participants amended their scores when shown stakeholder responses in the RTD compared to the MRD ('feedback effect'). The 'iteration effect' analysis found most experts appeared satisfied with their initial ratings in the RTD and did not amend their scores following stakeholder response feedback. Where they did amend their scores, ratings were amended substantially, suggesting greater convergence. Variance in scores reduced with subsequent rounds of the MRD ('iteration effect'). Whilst most participants did not change their initial scores in the RTD, of those that did, later recruits tended to align their final score more closely to the group mean final score than earlier recruits (an 'initial condition' effect). CONCLUSION: The feedback effect differed between the two Delphi methods but the magnitude of this difference was small and likely due to the large number of observations rather than because of a meaningfully large difference. It did not appear to be advantageous to require participants to engage in three rounds of a survey due to the low change in scores. Larger drop-out through successive rounds in the MRD, together with a lesser convergence of scores and longer time to completion, indicate considerable benefits of the RTD approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04471103. Registered on 14 July 2020.

Qualitative data sharing practices in clinical trials in the UK and Ireland: towards the production of good practice guidance.

Background: Data sharing enables researchers to conduct novel research with previously collected datasets, thus maximising scientific findings and cost effectiveness, and reducing research waste. The value of sharing, even de-identified, quantitative data from clinical trials is well recognised with a moderated access approach recommended. While substantial challenges to sharing quantitative data remain, there are additional challenges for sharing qualitative data in trials. Incorporating the necessary information about how qualitative data will be shared into already complex trial recruitment and consent processes proves challenging. The aim of this study was to explore whether and how trial teams share qualitative data collected as part of the design, conduct, analysis, or delivery of clinical trials. Methods: Phase 1 involved semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews and focus groups with key trial stakeholder groups including trial managers and clinical trialists (n=3), qualitative researchers in trials (n=9), members of research funding bodies (n=2) and trial participants (n=1). Data were analysed using thematic analysis. In Phase 2, we conducted a content analysis of 16 participant information leaflets (PIL) and consent forms (CF) for trials that collected qualitative data. Results: Three key themes were identified from our Phase 1 findings: ' Understanding and experiences of the potential benefits of sharing qualitative data from trials', 'Concerns about qualitative data sharing', and ' Future guidance and funding'. In phase 2, the PILs and CFs received revealed that the benefits of data sharing for participants were only explained in two of the study documents. Conclusions: The value of sharing qualitative data was acknowledged, but there are many uncertainties as to how, when, and where to share this data. In addition, there were ethical concerns in relation to the consent process required for qualitative data sharing in trials. This study provides insight into the existing practice of qualitative data sharing in trials.

VBAC or elective CS? An exploration of decision-making process employed by women on their mode of birth following a previous lower segment caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Part of the caseload of an Advanced Midwife Practitioner (AMP) service in a Northwest of Ireland maternity unit includes vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC) women. Despite evidence about VBAC being a safe option for women, the numbers attempting a VBAC remain small. This research was undertaken to give an insight into how VBAC eligible women opt for an elective repeat CS (ERCS) or VBAC birth. METHODS: Forty-four postnatal women with one previous CS who birthed between August 2021 and March 2022 were invited to participate in a qualitative study. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were undertaken in 2022. Thematic Analysis guided the analysis of the data and the findings are framed using the domains of the Socio-Ecological Model. FINDINGS: Decision making in relation to ERCS and VBAC is complex. Women want accurate VBAC information and time for discussions. Decisions are influenced by the woman's own confidence to birth naturally, family size, rite of passage to motherhood, control, previous birth experience, postnatal recovery and friends and family. DISCUSSION: Previous experience can influence but not predict the next mode of birth. However, there is no one script that healthcare professionals (HCP) can use for this decision making given the various factors that influence this. To meet women's individual needs, HCPs should discuss VBAC suitability postnatally, offer VBAC antenatal clinics and specific VBAC classes. CONCLUSION: Discussions about suitability for VBAC should occur following the primary CS. Continuity of care (COC), time for discussions and VBAC supportive HCP should be an option for all of this cohort.

Sharing space at the research table: exploring public and patient involvement in a methodology priority setting partnership.

BACKGROUND: Public and patient involvement aims to improve research quality, relevance, and appropriateness. Despite an increasing evidence base on the influence of public involvement in health research, the role of involvement in methodology research (i.e. research that aims to enhance the quality and rigour of research) is less clear. Using a qualitative case study, we explored public involvement in a research priority-setting partnership in rapid review methodology (Priority III) to give practical insights to inform public involvement in priority-setting for future methodological research. METHODS: Participant observation, documentary analysis, interviews and focus groups were used to explore the processes of Priority III and identify the views and experiences of the participants of a steering group (n = 26) regarding public involvement in Priority III. We used a case study research design and conducted two focus groups with five public partners; one focus group with four researchers; and seven one-to-one interviews with researchers and public partners. Nine episodes of participant observation of meetings were conducted. All data were analysed using template analysis. RESULTS: The findings of this case study present three themes and six subthemes: Theme 1 We all bring unique qualities to the table. Subtheme 1.1-Coming from different perspectives towards shared-decision making; Subtheme 1.2-Public partners bring pragmatism and grounding in reality; Theme 2 We need support and space at the table. Subtheme 2.1-Define and develop support needed for meaningful involvement; Subtheme 2.2-Creating safe space to listen, challenge and learn; Theme 3 We all benefit from working together. Subtheme 3.1-Reciprocity in mutual learning and capacity building; Subtheme 3.2-Relationships as partners in research, with a feeling of togetherness. Communication and trust, as inclusive ways of working, underpinned the partnership approach to involvement. CONCLUSIONS: This case study contributes to knowledge on public involvement in research by explaining the supportive strategies, spaces, attitudes and behaviours that enabled a productive working partnership to develop between a team of researchers and public partners in this research context.

Public and patient involvement is well known in research where patients share their lived experience for a health-related study. However, the role of public and patients in methodology research (research that aims to improve the quality of research) is not clear.A priority-setting partnership brings patients, carers, clinicians and other stakeholders together to jointly identify priorities for research. We looked at public involvement in a priority-setting partnership in how we plan, do, and share the results of rapid reviews­the Priority III project. We wanted to do this to better support public involvement in future research.We explored the processes of Priority III and asked the members of the Priority III steering group for their views and experiences of public involvement in the project. We found three themes:1: We all bring unique qualities to the table.2: We need support and space at the table.3: We all benefit from working together.Communication and trust were found to be important across all themes. Even though public partners felt outside of their comfort zones when starting the project, they significantly helped the project, brought unique views, ideas and practical solutions. Support and safe spaces were needed to help overcome challenges due to the complex methodological concepts. Researchers and public partners learned from one another, and developed relationships with a feeling of being "partners in research". Our findings offer insight into what helped public involvement in this research context. We give examples of practical actions and suggestions for future research.

Development of a co-designed behaviour change intervention aimed at healthcare professionals recruiting to clinical trials in maternity care.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on what strategies can improve recruitment to clinical trials in maternity care is lacking. As trial recruiters, maternity healthcare professionals (MHCPs) perform behaviours (e.g. talking about trials with potential participants, distributing trial information) they may not ordinarily do outside of the trial. Most trial recruitment interventions do not provide any theoretical basis for the potential effect (on behaviour) or describe if stakeholders were involved during development. The study aim was to use behavioural theory in a co-design process to develop an intervention for MHCPs tasked with approaching all eligible potential participants and inviting them to join a maternity trial and to assess the acceptability and feasibility of such an intervention. METHODS: This study applied a step-wise sequential mixed-methods approach. Key stages were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Techniques (BCT) Taxonomy to map the accounts of MHCPs, with regard to challenges to trial recruitment, to theoretically informed behaviour change strategies. Our recruitment intervention was co-designed during workshops with MHCPs and maternity service users. Acceptability and feasibility of our intervention was assessed using an online questionnaire based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) and involved a range of trial stakeholders. RESULTS: Two co-design workshops, with a total of nine participants (n = 7 MHCP, n = 2 maternity service users), discussed thirteen BCTs as potential solutions. Ten BCTs, broadly covering Consequences and Reframing, progressed to intervention development. Forty-five trial stakeholders (clinical midwives, research midwives/nurses, doctors, allied health professionals and trial team members) participated in the online TFA questionnaire. The intervention was perceived effective, coherent, and not burdensome to engage with. Core areas for future refinement included Anticipated opportunity and Self-efficacy. CONCLUSION: We developed a behaviour change recruitment intervention which is based on the accounts of MHCP trial recruiters and developed in a co-design process. Overall, the intervention was deemed acceptable. Future evaluation of the intervention will establish its effectiveness in enabling MHCPs to invite all eligible people to participate in a maternity care trial, and determine whether this translates into an increase in maternity trial recruitment rates.

Core outcomes in neonatal encephalopathy: a qualitative study with parents.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the outcomes considered important to parents or caregivers of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia in high-income and low- to middle-income countries (LMiCs), as part of the outcome-identification process in developing a core outcome set (COS) for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. DESIGN: A qualitative study involving 25 semistructured interviews with parents or other family members (caregivers) of infants who were diagnosed with, and treated for, neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia. SETTING: Interviews were conducted in high-income countries (HiCs) (n=11) by Zoom video conferencing software and in LMiCs (n=14) by phone or face to face. FINDINGS: Parents identified 54 outcomes overall, which mapped to 16 outcome domains. The domains identified were neurological outcomes, respiratory outcomes, gastrointestinal outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, motor development, cognitive development, development (psychosocial), development (special senses), cognitive development, development (speech and social), other organ outcomes, survival/living outcomes, long-term disability, hospitalisation, parent-reported outcomes and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into the outcomes that parents of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy have identified as the most important, to be considered in the process of developing a COS for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. We also provide description of the processes employed to ensure the inclusion of participants from LMiCs as well as HiCs.

The People's Trial: supporting the public's understanding of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials are considered the gold standard in providing robust evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. However, there are relatively few initiatives to help increase public understanding of what randomised trials are and why they are important. This limits the overall acceptance of and public participation in clinical trials. The People's Trial aims to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims by actively involving them in all aspects of trial design. This was done by involving the public in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial. METHODS: Using a reflexive approach, we describe the processes of development, conduct, and dissemination of The People's Trial. RESULTS: Over 3000 members of the public, from 72 countries, participated in The People's Trial. Through a series of online surveys, the public designed a trial called The Reading Trial. They chose the question the trial would try to answer and decided the components of the trial question. In December 2019, 991 participants were recruited to a trial to answer the question identified and prioritised by the public, i.e. 'Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison with not reading a book in bed?' We report the processes of The People's Trial in seven phases, paralleling the steps of a randomised trial, i.e. question identification and prioritisation, recruitment, randomisation, trial conduct, data analysis, and sharing of findings. We describe the decisions we made, the processes we used, the challenges we encountered, and the lessons we learned. CONCLUSION: The People's Trial involved the public successfully in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial demonstrating the potential for such initiatives to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818 . Registered on 4 December 2019.

Theory-guided interviews identified behavioral barriers and enablers to healthcare professionals recruiting participants to maternity trials.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a behavioral investigation, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), to identify barriers and enablers to maternity healthcare professionals (HCP) inviting all eligible women to participate in a maternity care trial. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We invited HCP recruiters from maternity care trials in high priority research areas including, diabetes, preeclampsia and breastfeeding, from across Ireland and the UK, to take part in a semi-structured interview. Data collection was informed by the TDF, followed by inductive thematic analysis and deductive mapping to the TDF. RESULTS: Twenty-two recruiters including midwives, nurses, allied health professionals and doctors were interviewed online or by telephone phone. Thematic analysis generated four global themes; Availability and accessibility of resources, Navigating the recruitment pathway, Prioritising clinical responsibilities over research responsibilities and The influence of colleagues and peers. Themes were mapped to the TDF, identifying 13 domains relevant to the behaviour. CONCLUSION: This paper identifies the factors enabling or inhibiting maternity HCP recruiters to invite all eligible women to participate in a maternity care trial. The findings provide guidance for researchers designing trials for this population and the essential first step in developing a recruiter-focused behaviour change intervention to support recruitment to trials in maternity care.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomised controlled trials in diabetes and pregnancy: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic complication of pregnancy and its prevalence worldwide is rising. The number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) being conducted in people with diabetes is also increasing. Many studies preferentially publish findings on clinical endpoints and do not report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In studies that do include PROs, PRO reporting is often of poor quality. METHODS: We will conduct this systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Using a combination of medical subject headings and keywords (combined using Boolean operators), we will search web-based databases (PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE) for RCTs published in English between 2013 and 2021. Two reviewers will review titles and abstracts. We will review the full texts of any relevant abstracts and extract the following data: date of publication or recruitment period, journal of publication, country of study, multicentre or single centre, population and number of participants, type of intervention, frequency of PRO assessment and type of PRO (or PRO measurement) used. We will also record if the PRO was a primary, secondary or exploratory outcome. We will exclude reviews, observational studies, unpublished data for example, conference abstracts and trial protocols. Any published RCT that includes data on a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome will then be compared against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Patient-Reported Outcome extension checklist, a structured and approved framework for the publication of results of PROs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the ethics committee at Galway University Hospitals on 24 March 2021 (CA 2592). We aim to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present our findings at national and international conferences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered prospectively with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Registration number CRD42021234917.

A study protocol of qualitative data sharing practices in clinical trials in the UK and Ireland: towards the production of good practice guidance.

Background: Data sharing enables researchers to conduct novel research with previously collected data sets, thus maximising scientific findings and cost effectiveness, and reducing research waste. The value of sharing anonymised data from clinical trials is well recognised with a moderated access approach recommended. While substantial challenges to data sharing remain, there are additional challenges for qualitative data. Qualitative data including videos, interviews, and observations are often more readily identifiable than quantitative data. Existing guidance from UK Economic and Social Research Council applies to sharing qualitative data but does not address the additional challenges related to sharing qualitative data collected within trials, including the need to incorporate the necessary information and consent into already complex recruitment processes, with the additional sensitive nature of health-related data. Methods: Work package 1 will involve separate focus group interviews with members of each stakeholder group: trial managers, clinical trialists, qualitative researchers, members of research funding bodies and trial participants who have been involved in qualitative research. Data will be analysed using thematic analysis and managed within QSR NVivo to enhance transparency. Work package 2 will involve a documentary analysis of current consent procedures for qualitative data collected as part of the conduct of clinical trials. We will include documents such as participant information leaflets and consent forms for the qualitative components in trials. We will extract data such as whether specific clauses for data sharing are included in the consent form. Content analysis will be used to analyse whether and how consent is being obtained for qualitative data sharing. Conclusions: This study will provide insight into the existing practice of sharing of qualitative data in clinical trials and the current issues and opportunities, to help shape future research and development of guidance to encourage maximum learning to be gained from this valuable data.

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.

COHESION: core outcomes in neonatal encephalopathy (protocol).

BACKGROUND: Neonatal encephalopathy is a complex syndrome in infants that predominantly affects the brain and other organs. The leading cause is a lack of oxygen in the blood reaching the brain. Neonatal encephalopathy can result in mortality or complications later in life, including seizures, movement disorders and cerebral palsy. Treatment options for neonatal encephalopathy are limited mainly to therapeutic hypothermia, although other potential treatments are emerging. However, evaluations of the effectiveness of treatments are challenging because of heterogeneity and inconsistency in outcomes measured and reported between trials. In this paper, we detail how we will develop a core outcome set to standardise outcomes measured and reported upon for interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. METHODS: We will systematically review the literature to identify outcomes reported previously in randomised trials and systematic reviews of randomised trials. We will identify outcomes important to parents or caregivers of infants diagnosed with and who have received treatment for neonatal encephalopathy. We will do this by conducting in person or by video teleconferencing interviews with parents or caregivers in high-income and low- to middle-income countries. Stakeholders with expertise in neonatal encephalopathy (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers) will rate the importance of identified outcomes in an online Delphi survey using either a three-round Delphi survey or a "Real-Time" Delphi survey to which stakeholders will be allocated at random. Consensus meetings will take place by video conference to allow for an international group of stakeholder representatives to discuss and vote on the outcomes to include in the final core outcome set (COS). DISCUSSION: More research is needed on treatments for neonatal encephalopathy. Standardising outcomes measured and reported in evaluations of the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy will improve evidence synthesis and improve results reported in systematic reviews and meta-analysis in this area. Overall, this COS will allow for improved treatments to be identified, heterogeneity in research to be reduced, and overall patient care to be enhanced. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered in the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness (COMET) database http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1270 .

Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi for consensus in core outcome set (COS) development: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The Delphi method is used in a wide variety of settings as a method of building consensus on important issues. Traditionally, the Delphi method uses multiple rounds of a survey to allow for feedback of other participants' survey responses in between rounds. By informing participants about how others answer a question or prioritise specific topics, it allows for diverse opinions to inform the consensus process. For this reason, the Delphi method is popular as a consensus building approach in developing core outcome sets (COS), i.e. the minimum agreed set of standardised outcomes that should be measured and reported in studies on a specific health condition. In a COS setting, participants prioritise the importance of outcomes for inclusion in a COS. This usually involves participating in multiple rounds of a survey that can span several weeks or months. Challenges with participant retention have been highlighted in previous COS. We will compare a three-round with a Real-Time Delphi approach on prioritised outcomes. This trial is embedded within the COHESION study which is developing a COS for interventions treating neonatal encephalopathy. METHODS: One hundred and eighty stakeholders (parents/caregivers of infants diagnosed and treated with neonatal encephalopathy, healthcare providers and researchers) will be randomised using stratified randomisation to take part in either the Multi-Round or Real-Time Delphi. Stakeholders will rate the importance of the same set of outcomes in both arms. We will compare the prioritised outcomes at the end of both surveys as well as other parameters such as feedback, initial condition and iteration effects. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence to inform decisions on the use of Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi survey methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04471103 . Registered on 14 July 2020.