Implementation of the CHIldren with acute COugh (CHICO) intervention to improve antibiotics management: a qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Childhood respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are common and can lead to unnecessary antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance. The CHIldren with COugh (CHICO) intervention incorporates a clinician-focused algorithm (STARWAVe) to predict future hospitalisation risk, elicitation of carer concerns, and a carer-focused personalised leaflet recording treatment decisions and safety-netting information. AIM: To examine the implementation of the CHICO intervention by primary care clinicians. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study with primary care clinicians in England taking part in the CHICO randomised controlled trial. METHOD: Interviews explored the CHICO intervention's acceptability and use. Clinicians from a range of practices with high and low antibiotic dispensing rates were recruited. Normalisation process theory underpinned data collection and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most clinicians liked the intervention because it was quick and easy to use, it helped elicit carer concerns, and reassured clinicians and carers of the appropriateness of treatment decisions. However, clinicians used it as a supportive aid for treatment decisions rather than as a tool for behaviour change. The accompanying advice leaflet helped explain treatment decisions and support self-care. The intervention did not always align with clinicians' usual processes, which could affect use. Increased familiarisation with the algorithm led to reduced intervention use, which was further reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of changes to practice and remote consultations. CONCLUSION: Clinicians found the CHICO intervention useful to support decision making around antibiotic prescribing and it helped discussions with carers about concerns and treatment decisions. The intervention may need to be adapted to align more with clinicians' consultation flow and remote consultations.

How surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives achieve success: a mixed methods study to develop trainee engagement strategies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand the role of surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives (TRCs) in conducting randomised controlled trials and identify strategies to enhance trainee engagement in trials. DESIGN: This is a mixed methods study. We used observation of TRC meetings, semi-structured interviews and an online survey to explore trainees' motivations for engagement in trials and TRCs, including barriers and facilitators. Interviews were analysed thematically, alongside observation field notes. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Strategies to enhance TRCs were developed at a workshop by 13 trial methodologists, surgical trainees, consultants and research nurses. SETTING: This study was conducted within a secondary care setting in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to registered UK surgical trainees. TRC members and linked stakeholders across surgical specialties and UK regions were purposefully sampled for interviews. RESULTS: We observed 5 TRC meetings, conducted 32 semi-structured interviews and analysed 73 survey responses. TRCs can mobilise trainees thus gaining wider access to patients. Trainees engaged with TRCs to improve patient care, surgical evidence and to help progress their careers. Trainees valued the TRC infrastructure, research expertise and mentoring. Challenges for trainees included clinical and other priorities, limited time and confidence, and recognition, especially by authorship. Key TRC strategies were consultant support, initial simple rapid studies, transparency of involvement and recognition for trainees (including authorship policies) and working with Clinical Trials Units and research nurses. A 6 min digital story on YouTube disseminated these strategies. CONCLUSION: Trainee surgeons are mostly motivated to engage with trials and TRCs. Trainee engagement in TRCs can be enhanced through building relationships with key stakeholders, maximising multi-disciplinary working and offering training and career development opportunities.

Multi-faceted intervention to improve management of antibiotics for children presenting to primary care with acute cough and respiratory tract infection (CHICO): efficient cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether an easy-to-use multifaceted intervention for children presenting to primary care with respiratory tract infections would reduce antibiotic dispensing, without increasing hospital admissions for respiratory tract infection. DESIGN: Two arm randomised controlled trial clustered by general practice, using routine outcome data, with qualitative and economic evaluations. SETTING: English primary care practices using the EMIS electronic medical record system. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 0-9 years presenting with respiratory tract infection at 294 general practices, before and during the covid-19 pandemic. INTERVENTION: Elicitation of parental concerns during consultation; a clinician focused prognostic algorithm to identify children at very low, normal, or elevated 30 day risk of hospital admission accompanied by antibiotic prescribing guidance; and a leaflet for carers including safety netting advice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of dispensed amoxicillin and macrolide antibiotics (superiority comparison) and hospital admissions for respiratory tract infection (non-inferiority comparison) for children aged 0-9 years over 12 months (same age practice list size as denominator). RESULTS: Of 310 practices needed, 294 (95%) were randomised (144 intervention and 150 controls) representing 5% of all registered 0-9 year olds in England. Of these, 12 (4%) subsequently withdrew (six owing to the pandemic). Median intervention use per practice was 70 (by a median of 9 clinicians). No evidence was found that antibiotic dispensing differed between intervention practices (155 (95% confidence interval 138 to 174) items/year/1000 children) and control practices (157 (140 to 176) items/year/1000 children) (rate ratio 1.011, 95% confidence interval 0.992 to 1.029; P=0.25). Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggested reduced dispensing in intervention practices with fewer prescribing nurses, in single site (compared with multisite) practices, and in practices located in areas of lower socioeconomic deprivation, which may warrant future investigation. Pre-specified sensitivity analysis suggested reduced dispensing among older children in the intervention arm (P=0.03). A post hoc sensitivity analysis suggested less dispensing in intervention practices before the pandemic (rate ratio 0.967, 0.946 to 0.989; P=0.003). The rate of hospital admission for respiratory tract infections in the intervention practices (13 (95% confidence interval 10 to 18) admissions/1000 children) was non-inferior compared with control practices (15 (12 to 20) admissions/1000 children) (rate ratio 0.952, 0.905 to 1.003). CONCLUSIONS: This multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention for children with respiratory tract infections did not reduce overall antibiotic dispensing or increase respiratory tract infection related hospital admissions. Evidence suggested that in some subgroups and situations (for example, under non-pandemic conditions) the intervention slightly reduced prescribing rates but not in a clinically relevant way. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11405239ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11405239.

Standardizing Cranioplasty Outcomes Following Stroke or Traumatic Brain Injury: Protocol for the Development of a Core Outcome Set.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COSs) are important and necessary as they help standardize reporting in research studies. Cranioplasty following traumatic brain injury (TBI) or stroke is becoming increasingly common, leading to an ever-growing clinical and research interest, especially regarding the optimal material, cost-effectiveness, and timing of cranioplasty concerning neurological recovery and complications. Consequently, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes from such diverse studies has led to limited meta-analysis ability and an ongoing risk of outcome reporting bias. This study aims to define a standardized COS for reporting in all future TBI and stroke cranioplasty studies. OBJECTIVE: This study has four aims: (1) undertake a systematic review to collate the most current outcome measures used within the cranioplasty literature; (2) undertake a qualitative study to understand better the views of clinicians, patients' relatives, and allied health professionals regarding clinical outcomes following cranioplasty; (3) undertake a Delphi survey as part of the process of gaining consensus for the COS; and (4) finalize consensus through a consensus meeting resulting in the COS. METHODS: An international steering committee has been formed to guide the development of the COS. In addition, recommendations from other clinical initiatives such as COMET (Core Outcomes and Effectiveness Trials) and OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) have been adhered to. Phase 1 is data collection through a systematic review and qualitative study. Phase 2 is the COS development through a Delphi survey and consensus meetings with consensus definitions decided and agreed upon before the Delphi survey begins to avoid bias. RESULTS: Phase 1 started at the end of 2019, following ethical approval in December 2019, and the project completion date is planned for the end of 2022 or beginning of 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study should result in a consensus on a COS for cranioplasty, following TBI or stroke, to help standardize outcome reporting for future studies, which can be applied to future research and clinical services, help align future studies, build an increased understanding of cranioplasty and its impact on a patient's function and recovery, and help standardize the evidence base. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37442.

A multifaceted intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing among CHIldren with acute COugh and respiratory tract infection: the CHICO cluster RCT.

Background: Clinical uncertainty in primary care regarding the prognosis of children with respiratory tract infections contributes to the unnecessary use of antibiotics. Improved identification of children at low risk of future hospitalisation might reduce clinical uncertainty. A National Institute for Health and Care Research-funded 5-year programme (RP-PG-0608-10018) was used to develop and feasibility test an intervention. Objectives: The aim of the children with acute cough randomised controlled trial was to reduce antibiotic prescribing among children presenting with acute cough and respiratory tract infection without increasing hospital admission. Design: An efficient, pragmatic open-label, two-arm trial (with embedded qualitative and health economic analyses) using practice-level randomisation using routinely collected data as the primary outcome. Setting: General practitioner practices in England. Participants: General practitioner practices using the Egton Medical Information Systems® patient-record system for children aged 0-9 years presenting with a cough or upper respiratory tract infection. Recruited by Clinical Research Networks and Clinical Commissioning Groups. Intervention: Comprised: (1) elicitation of parental concerns during consultation; (2) a clinician-focused prognostic algorithm to identify children with acute cough and respiratory tract infection at low, average or elevated risk of hospitalisation in the next 30 days accompanied by prescribing guidance, (3) provision of a printout for carers including safety-netting advice. Main outcome measures: Co-primaries using the practice list-size for children aged 0-9 years as the denominator: rate of dispensed amoxicillin and macrolide items at each practice (superiority comparison) from NHS Business Services Authority ePACT2 and rate of hospital admission for respiratory tract infection (non-inferiority comparison) from Clinical Commissioning Groups, both routinely collected over 12 months. Results: Of the 310 practices required, 294 (95%) were recruited (144 intervention and 150 controls) with 336,496 registered 0-9-year-olds (5% of all 0-9-year-old children in England) from 47 Clinical Commissioning Groups. Included practices were slightly larger than those not included, had slightly lower baseline dispensing rates and were located in more deprived areas (reflecting the distribution for practice postcodes nationally). Twelve practices (4%) subsequently withdrew (six related to the pandemic). The median number of times the intervention was used was 70 per practice (by a median of 9 clinicians) over 12 months. There was no evidence that the antibiotic dispensing rate in the intervention practices [0.155 (95% confidence interval 0.135 to 0.179)] differed to controls [0.154 (95% confidence interval 0.130 to 0.182), relative risk= 1.011 (95% confidence interval 0.992 to 1.029); p = 0.253]. There was, overall, a reduction in dispensing levels and intervention usage during the pandemic. The rate of hospitalisation for respiratory tract infection in the intervention practices [0.019 (95% confidence interval 0.014 to 0.026)] compared to the controls [0.021 (95% confidence interval 0.014 to 0.029)] was non-inferior [relative risk = 0.952 (95% confidence interval 0.905 to 1.003)]. The qualitative evaluation found the clinicians liked the intervention, used it as a supportive aid, especially with borderline cases but that it, did not always integrate well within the consultation flow and was used less over time. The economic evaluation found no evidence of a difference in mean National Health Service costs between arms; mean difference -£1999 (95% confidence interval -£6627 to 2630). Conclusions: The intervention was feasible and subjectively useful to practitioners, with no evidence of harm in terms of hospitalisations, but did not impact on antibiotic prescribing rates. Future work and limitations: Although the intervention does not appear to change prescribing behaviour, elements of the approach may be used in the design of future interventions. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11405239 (date assigned 20 April 2018) at www.controlled-trials.com (accessed 5 September 2022). Version 4.0 of the protocol is available at: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/ (accessed 5 September 2022). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (NIHR award ref: 16/31/98) programme and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 32. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Coughs and colds (also known as respiratory tract infections) are the most common reason that children are taken to family doctors and nurses in primary care. These clinicians are not always sure how best to treat them and often use antibiotics 'just in case'. There are now concerns that clinicians are using antibiotics too often, and that this is increasing the number of resistant bugs (bacteria that cannot be killed by antibiotics). We wanted to see if using a scoring system of symptoms and signs of illness to help clinicians identify children very unlikely to need hospital care as well as listening to parents' concerns and giving them a personalised leaflet with care and safety advice, reduced antibiotic use. We recruited practices rather than patients, so did not need individual patient consent. The two main outcomes were the rate of antibiotics dispensed for children and number of children admitted to hospital for respiratory tract infections, using routinely collected data for 0­9-year-olds. We recruited 294 general practitioner practices, which was 95% of the total needed; 144 were asked to use the intervention and 150 to continue providing usual care (controls); only 12 practices subsequently withdrew (6 related to the pandemic). The average number of times the intervention was used was 70 per practice (by an average of 9 clinicians) over 12 months. There was no evidence that the antibiotic dispensing rate in the intervention practices differed from control practices. Further analyses showed an overall reduction in dispensing levels and intervention usage during the pandemic. The rate of hospitalisation for respiratory tract infection in the intervention practices was similar to the control practices. In the interviews, we found that clinicians liked the intervention and used it as a supportive aid during consultations, especially for borderline cases, rather than a tool to change prescribing behaviour.

Can primary care research be conducted more efficiently using routinely reported practice-level data: a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in England?

OBJECTIVES: Conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care is challenging; recruiting patients during time-limited or remote consultations can increase selection bias and physical access to patients' notes is costly and time-consuming. We investigated barriers and facilitators to running a more efficient design. DESIGN: An RCT aiming to reduce antibiotic prescribing among children presenting with acute cough and a respiratory tract infection (RTI) with a clinician-focused intervention, embedded at the practice level. By using aggregate level, routinely collected data for the coprimary outcomes, we removed the need to recruit individual participants. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Baseline data from general practitioner practices and interviews with individuals from Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) in England who helped recruit practices and Clinical Commission Groups (CCGs) who collected outcome data. INTERVENTION: The intervention included: (1) explicit elicitation of parental concerns, (2) a prognostic algorithm to identify children at low risk of hospitalisation and (3) provision of a printout for carers including safety-netting advice. COPRIMARY OUTCOMES: For 0-9 years old-(1) Dispensing data for amoxicillin and macrolide antibiotics and (2) hospital admission rate for RTI. RESULTS: We recruited 294 of the intended 310 practices (95%) representing 336 496 registered 0-9 years old (5% of all 0-9 years old children). Included practices were slightly larger, had slightly lower baseline prescribing rates and were located in more deprived areas reflecting the national distribution. Engagement with CCGs and their understanding of their role in this research was variable. Engagement with CRNs and installation of the intervention was straight-forward although the impact of updates to practice IT systems and lack of familiarity required extended support in some practices. Data on the coprimary outcomes were almost 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The infrastructure for trials at the practice level using routinely collected data for primary outcomes is viable in England and should be promoted for primary care research where appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11405239.

Exploring the experiences and challenges for patients undergoing cranioplasty: a mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Cranioplasty is a widely practised neurosurgical procedure aimed at reconstructing a skull defect, but its impact on a patient's rehabilitation following a traumatic brain injury (TBI) or stroke could be better understood. In addition, there are many issues that a TBI patient or the patient who had a stroke and their families may have to adapt to. Insight into some of the potential social barriers, including issues related to social engagement and cosmetic considerations, would be beneficial. Currently, little is known about how this procedure impacts a patient's recovery, the patient's perceptions of rehabilitation precranioplasty and postcranioplasty and the broader issues of cosmesis and social reintegration. This study hopes to understand some of these issues and therefore help inform clinicians of some of the difficulties and perceptions that patients and their relatives may have. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods study. Data will be collected through focus groups with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and semi-structured interviews with patients and their relatives, field notes, a researcher diary and a patient questionnaire. Different perspectives will be brought together through method triangulation. Patient and relative data will be analysed using interpretive phenomenological analysis, and HCPs data will be analysed thematically using deductive and inductive coding. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Wales REC 7 ethics committee (Rec ref: 19/WA/0315). There is limited literature regarding a patient's perception of the cranioplasty process, the potential impact on rehabilitation and how this may impact their reintegration into the community. The results of this study will be presented at national brain injury conferences and published in peer-reviewed, national and international journals.

Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure following mastectomy. IBBR techniques are evolving rapidly, with mesh-assisted subpectoral reconstruction becoming the standard of care and more recently, prepectoral techniques being introduced. These muscle-sparing techniques may reduce postoperative pain, avoid implant animation and improve cosmetic outcomes and have been widely adopted into practice. Although small observational studies have failed to demonstrate any differences in the clinical or patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction, high-quality comparative evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness is lacking. A well-designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare the techniques, but breast reconstruction RCTs are challenging. We, therefore, aim to undertake an external pilot RCT (Best-BRA) with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a trial comparing prepectoral and subpectoral techniques. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Best-BRA is a pragmatic, two-arm, external pilot RCT with an embedded QRI and economic scoping for resource use. Women who require a mastectomy for either breast cancer or risk reduction, elect to have an IBBR and are considered suitable for both prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction will be recruited and randomised 1:1 between the techniques.The QRI will be implemented in two phases: phase 1, in which sources of recruitment difficulties are rapidly investigated to inform the delivery in phase 2 of tailored interventions to optimise recruitment of patients.Primary outcomes will be (1) recruitment of patients, (2) adherence to trial allocation and (3) outcome completion rates. Outcomes will be reviewed at 12 months to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Wales REC 6 (20/WA/0338). Findings will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10081873.

Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials: a mixed-methods study of a clinical trials unit to identify good practice, barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: While patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials is beneficial and mandated by some funders, formal guidance on how to implement PPI is limited and challenges have been reported. We aimed to investigate how PPI is approached within a UK Clinical Trials Unit (CTU)'s portfolio of randomised controlled trials, perceived barriers to/facilitators of its successful implementation, and perspectives on the CTU's role in PPI. METHODS: A mixed-methods study design, involving (1) an online survey of 26 trial managers (TMs) and (2) Interviews with Trial Management Group members and public contributors from 8 case-study trials. Quantitative survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics and interview transcripts analysed thematically. Two public contributors advised throughout and are co-authors. RESULTS: (1) 21 TMs completed the survey; (2) 19 in-depth interviews were conducted with public contributors (n=8), TMs (n=5), chief investigators (n=3), PPI coordinators (n=2) and a researcher. 15/21 TMs surveyed reported that a public contributor was on the trial team, and 5 used another PPI method. 12/21 TMs reported that public contributors were paid (range £10-50/h). 5 TMs reported that training was provided for public contributors and few staff members had received any formal PPI training. The most commonly reported tasks undertaken by public contributors were the review of participant-facing materials/study documents and advising on recruitment/retention strategies. Public contributors wanted and valued feedback on changes made due to their input, but it was not always provided. Barriers to successful PPI included recruitment challenges, group dynamics, maintaining professional boundaries, negative attitudes to PPI amongst some researchers, a lack of continuity of trial staff, and the academic environment. Successful PPI required early and explicit planning, sharing of power and ownership of the trial with public contributors, building and maintaining relationships, and joint understanding and clarity about expectations/roles. CTUs have an important role to play in supporting recruitment, signposting and coordinating PPI. CONCLUSIONS: While highly valuable, PPI in trials is currently variable. PPI representatives are recruited informally, may not be provided with any training and are paid inconsistently across trials. Study findings can help optimise PPI in trials and ensure researchers and public contributors are adequately supported.

Protocol for an 'efficient design' cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate a complex intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing for CHIldren presenting to primary care with acute COugh and respiratory tract infection: the CHICO study.

INTRODUCTION: Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in children are common and present major resource implications for primary care. Unnecessary use of antibiotics is associated with the development and proliferation of antimicrobial resistance. In 2016, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded 'TARGET' programme developed a prognostic algorithm to identify children with acute cough and RTI at very low risk of 30-day hospitalisation and unlikely to need antibiotics. The intervention includes: (1) explicit elicitation of parental concerns, (2) the results of the prognostic algorithm accompanied by prescribing guidance and (3) provision of a printout for carers including safety netting advice. The CHIldren's COugh feasibility study suggested differential recruitment of healthier patients in control practices. This phase III 'efficiently designed' trial uses routinely collected data at the practice level, thus avoiding individual patient consent. The aim is to assess whether embedding a multifaceted intervention into general practitioner (GP) practice Information Technology (IT) systems will result in reductions of antibiotic prescribing without impacting on hospital attendance for RTI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The coprimary outcomes are (1) practice rate of dispensed amoxicillin and macrolide antibiotics, (2) hospital admission rate for RTI using routinely collected data by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). Data will be collected for children aged 0-9 years registered at 310 practices (155 intervention, 155 usual care) over a 12-month period. Recruitment and randomisation of practices (using the Egton Medical Information Systems web data management system) is conducted via each CCG stratified for children registered and baseline dispensing rates of each practice. Secondary outcomes will explore intervention effect modifiers. Qualitative interviews will explore intervention usage. The economic evaluation will be limited to a between-arm comparison in a cost-consequence analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval was given by London-Camden and Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee (ref:18/LO/0345). This manuscript refers to protocol V.4.0. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11405239.

Test-guided dietary management of eczema in children: A randomized controlled feasibility trial (TEST).

BACKGROUND: Parents commonly ask about food allergy tests, to find a cause for their child's eczema, yet the value of routine testing is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a clinical trial comparing test-guided dietary advice versus usual care, for the management of eczema, is feasible. METHODS: Children (>3 months and <5 years) with mild-to-severe eczema, recruited via primary care, were individually randomized (1:1) to intervention or usual care. Intervention participants underwent structured allergy history and skin prick tests (SPT) with dietary advice for cow's milk, hen's egg, wheat, peanut, cashew and codfish. All participants were followed up for 24 weeks. A sample of doctors and parents was interviewed. Registration ISRCTN15397185. RESULTS: From 1059 invitation letters sent to carers of potentially eligible children, 84 were randomized (42 per group) with mean age of 32.4 months (SD 13.9) and POEM of 8.7 (4.8). Of the 42, 6 (14%) intervention participants were advised to exclude one or more foods, most commonly egg, peanut or milk. By participant, 1/6 had an oral food challenge (negative); 3/6 were told to exclude until review in allergy clinic; and 6/6 advised a home dietary trial (exclusion and reintroduction of food over 4-6 weeks) - with 1/6 partially completing it. Participant retention (four withdrawals) and data completeness (74%-100%) were acceptable and contamination low (two usual care participants had allergy tests). There were three minor SPT-related adverse events. During follow-up, 12 intervention and 8 usual care participants had minor, unrelated adverse events plus one unrelated hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to recruit, randomize and retain children with eczema from primary care into a trial of food allergy screening and to collect the outcomes of interest. Changes to recruitment and inclusion criteria are needed in a definitive trial, to ensure inclusion of younger children from more diverse backgrounds.

Treatment decision-making among men with lower urinary tract symptoms: A qualitative study of men's experiences with recommendations for patient-centred practice.

AIMS: To inform and guide patient-centred care for men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), by providing in-depth qualitative evidence regarding men's perspectives on treatment decision-making for LUTS. METHODS: An interview study of men recruited from 26 English urology departments. Purposive sampling captured surgical/nonsurgical treatment decisions, and diversity in demographics and symptom burden, in men who had urodynamics and those who did not. After diagnostic assessments, men were interviewed either pre-treatment or after LUTS surgery. Thematic analysis was conducted. Participants' descriptions of how LUTS treatment decisions were made were categorised as patient-led, doctor-led, or shared. RESULTS: A total of 41 men participated (25 pre-treatment, 16 post-surgery), ages 52-89. Twenty out of 41 described the treatment decision as shared with their consultant, 14 as doctor-led, and seven as patient-led. There was no obvious association between treatment decision-making style and patients' satisfaction with either clinicians' role in their decision or their treatment decision. Incomplete or rushed discussions and misperceptions of LUTS and its treatment were reported, indicating a risk of suboptimal decision-making support by clinicians. As well as clinician opinion, men's treatment decision-making was influenced by the results of urological assessments, comparing current symptoms with possible side-effects of surgery, and others' experiences and opinions. CONCLUSIONS: Men with LUTS report and prefer different kinds of decision-making support from their clinicians, who must tailor their input to patients' preferences and needs. Patients' treatment decision-making involves multiple factors and can be challenging, and areas of inadequate clinician support were identified. Recommendations for patient-centred consultations about LUTS treatment are presented.

Parents and GPs' understandings and beliefs about food allergy testing in children with eczema: qualitative interview study within the Trial of Eczema allergy Screening Tests (TEST) feasibility trial.

AIM: To explore parent and general practitioner (GP) understanding and beliefs about food allergy testing for children with eczema. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study in UK primary care within the Trial of Eczema allergy Screening Tests feasibility trial. PARTICIPANTS: Semi-structured interviews with parents of children with eczema taking part in the feasibility study and GPs at practices hosting the study. RESULTS: 21 parents and 11 GPs were interviewed. Parents discussed a range of potential causes for eczema, including a role for food allergy. They believed allergy testing to be beneficial as it could potentially identify a cure or help reduce symptoms and they found negative tests reassuring, suggesting to them that no dietary changes were needed. GPs reported limited experience and uncertainty regarding food allergy in children with eczema. While some GPs believed referral for allergy testing could be appropriate, most were unclear about its utility. They thought it should be reserved for children with severe eczema or complex problems but wanted more information to advise parents and help guide decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Parents' motivations for allergy testing are driven by the desire to improve their child's condition and exclude food allergy as a possible cause of symptoms. GPs are uncertain about the role of allergy testing and want more information about its usefulness to support parents and help inform decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15397185.

Urodynamics tests for the diagnosis and management of bladder outlet obstruction in men: the UPSTREAM non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men may indicate bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) or weakness, known as detrusor underactivity (DU). Severe bothersome LUTS are a common indication for surgery. The diagnostic tests may include urodynamics (UDS) to confirm whether BOO or DU is the cause, potentially reducing the number of people receiving (inappropriate) surgery. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine whether a care pathway including UDS is no worse for symptom outcome than one in which it is omitted, at 18 months after randomisation. Rates of surgery was the key secondary outcome. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm (unblinded) randomised controlled trial, incorporating a health economic analysis and qualitative research. SETTING: Urology departments of 26 NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men (aged ≥ 18 years) seeking further treatment, potentially including surgery, for bothersome LUTS. Exclusion criteria were as follows: unable to pass urine without a catheter, having a relevant neurological disease, currently undergoing treatment for prostate or bladder cancer, previously had prostate surgery, not medically fit for surgery and/or unwilling to be randomised. INTERVENTIONS: Men were randomised to a care pathway based on non-invasive routine tests (control) or routine care plus invasive UDS (intervention arm). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 18 months after randomisation and the key secondary outcome was rates of surgery. Additional secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), quality of life, urinary and sexual symptoms, UDS satisfaction, maximum urinary flow rate and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 820 men were randomised (UDS, 427; routine care, 393). Sixty-seven men withdrew before 18 months and 11 died (unrelated to trial procedures). UDS was non-inferior to routine care for IPSS 18 months after randomisation, with a confidence interval (CI) within the margin of 1 point (-0.33, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.80). A lower surgery rate in the UDS arm was not found (38% and 36% for UDS and routine care, respectively), with overall rates lower than expected. AEs were similar between the arms at 43-44%. There were more cases of acute urinary retention in the routine care arm. Patient-reported outcomes for LUTS improved in both arms and satisfaction with UDS was high in men who received it. UDS was more expensive than routine care. From a secondary care perspective, UDS cost an additional £216 over an 18-month time horizon. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar, with a QALY difference of 0.006 in favour of UDS over 18 months. It was established that UDS was acceptable to patients, and valued by both patients and clinicians for its perceived additional insight into the cause and probable best treatment of LUTS. LIMITATIONS: The trial met its predefined recruitment target, but surgery rates were lower than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of UDS in the diagnostic tests results in a symptom outcome that is non-inferior to a routine care pathway, but does not affect surgical rates for treating BOO. Results do not support the routine use of UDS in men undergoing investigation of LUTS. FUTURE WORK: Focus should be placed on indications for selective utilisation of UDS in individual cases and long-term outcomes of diagnosis and therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56164274. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

After hospital referral, men with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are assessed with standard tests. These include measurement of urine flow rate, bladder diaries and questionnaires, including the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). UPSTREAM (Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods) researched whether or not including an extra test, urodynamics (UDS), helps when considering treatment options. UDS is a more invasive test and measures pressure in the bladder to check whether or not the prostate is causing obstruction. It was presumed that, if there is no obstruction, surgery would not be offered, so that using UDS would reduce the number of prostate operations. Each man participating (820 in total) was assessed with the standard tests. Around half of them had no extra tests (the 'routine care' arm of the trial); the rest had the UDS tests (the 'UDS' arm). Men then went on to have treatment, which they chose having discussed their test results with a urologist. IPSS and other symptom scores were examined for each man 18 months after joining the trial. At 18 months, surgery outcomes were known for 792 men and IPSS was known for 669 men. We investigated if the two trial arms showed similar changes in the IPSS and if there were fewer operations done in the UDS arm. We identified similar reductions in the IPSS in both arms. However, UDS tests did not reduce the number of operations. Analysing all the costs, it was found that a pathway including UDS costs more than routine care. Interviews were conducted that showed that men found UDS acceptable, and that the additional information helped both the men and their doctors consider which treatment would be most appropriate. These results do not support the routine use of UDS in the assessment of every man considering prostate surgery for LUTS. Further exploration of the data may identify circumstances in which UDS could be helpful.

Increasing uptake of hepatitis C virus infection case-finding, testing, and treatment in primary care: evaluation of the HepCATT (Hepatitis C Assessment Through to Treatment) trial.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a key cause of liver disease but can be cured in more than 95% of patients. Around 70 000 people in England may have undiagnosed HCV infection and many more will not have been treated. Interventions to increase case-finding in primary care are likely to be cost-effective; however, evidence of effective interventions is lacking. The Hepatitis C Assessment Through to Treatment (HepCATT) trial assessed whether a complex intervention in primary care could increase case-finding, testing, and treatment of HCV. AIM: To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the HepCATT intervention. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study with primary care practice staff from practices in the south west of England taking part in the HepCATT trial. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with GPs, nurses, and practice staff to ascertain their views of the HepCATT intervention at least 1 month after implementing the intervention in their practice. Normalisation process theory, which outlines the social processes involved in intervention implementation, informed thematic data analysis. RESULTS: Participants appreciated the HepCATT intervention for increasing knowledge and awareness of HCV. Although some initial technical difficulties were reported, participants saw the benefits of using the audit tool to systematically identify patients with HCV infection risk factors and found it straightforward to use. Participants valued the opportunity to discuss HCV testing with patients, especially those who may not have been previously aware of HCV risk. Future implementation should consider fully integrating software systems and additional resources to screen patient lists and conduct tests. CONCLUSION: When supported by a complex intervention, primary care can play a crucial role in identifying and caring for patients with HCV infection, to help stem the HCV epidemic, and prevent HCV-related illness.

Cost effectiveness of an intervention to increase uptake of hepatitis C virus testing and treatment (HepCATT): cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a complex intervention in primary care that aims to increase uptake of hepatitis C virus (HCV) case finding and treatment. DESIGN: Pragmatic, two armed, practice level, cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 45 general practices in South West England (22 randomised to intervention and 23 to control arm). Outcome data were collected from all intervention practices and 21/23 control practices. Total number of flagged patients was 24 473 (about 5% of practice list). INTERVENTION: Electronic algorithm and flag on practice systems identifying patients with HCV risk markers (such as history of opioid dependence or HCV tests with no evidence of referral to hepatology), staff educational training in HCV, and practice posters/leaflets to increase patients' awareness. Flagged patients were invited by letter for an HCV test (with one follow-up) and had on-screen pop-ups to encourage opportunistic testing. The intervention lasted one year, with practices recruited April to December 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: uptake of HCV testing. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: number of positive HCV tests and yield (proportion HCV positive); HCV treatment assessment at hepatology; cost effectiveness. RESULTS: Baseline HCV testing of flagged patients (six months before study start) was 608/13 097 (4.6%) in intervention practices and 380/11 376 (3.3%) in control practices. During the study 2071 (16%) of flagged patients in the intervention practices and 1163 (10%) in control practices were tested for HCV: overall intervention effect as an adjusted rate ratio of 1.59 (95% confidence interval 1.21 to 2.08; P<0.001). HCV antibodies were detected in 129 patients from intervention practices and 51 patients from control practices (adjusted rate ratio 2.24, 1.47 to 3.42) with weak evidence of an increase in yield (6.2% v 4.4%; adjusted risk ratio 1.40, 0.99 to 1.95). Referral and assessment increased in intervention practices compared with control practices (adjusted rate ratio 5.78, 1.6 to 21.6) with a risk difference of 1.3 per 1000 and a "number needed to help" of one extra HCV diagnosis, referral, and assessment per 792 (95% confidence interval 558 to 1883) patients flagged. The average cost of HCV case finding was £4.03 (95% confidence interval £2.27 to £5.80) per at risk patient and £3165 per additional patient assessed at hepatology. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was £6212 per quality adjusted life year (QALY), with 92.5% probability of being below £20 000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: HepCATT had a modest impact but is a low cost intervention that merits optimisation and implementation as part of an NHS strategy to increase HCV testing and treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN61788850.

Patient views about the impact of ulcerative colitis and its management with drug treatment and surgery: a nested qualitative study within the CONSTRUCT trial.

BACKGROUND: A nested qualitative interview study within the CONSTRUCT trial was conducted to explore experiences and perceptions of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis following treatment with infliximab or ciclosporin, surgery, or other medication. METHODS: Two hundred seventy patients with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis were randomised to either infliximab or ciclosporin. Interviews were conducted with 20 trial participants. Thirty-five data capture events took place in total, 20 interviews conducted 3 months after treatment and a further 15 interviews with the same cohort as second interviews at 12 months. RESULTS: Disease duration varied but similar stories emerged about how people adjusted to living with ulcerative colitis. Issues raised by patients included; the debilitating effect of the disease on quality of life, living with the unpredictability of symptoms and treatment, dealing with embarrassment and stigma and the desire to share knowledge of the disease with others to combat the private nature of this debilitating illness and bring greater visibility to patient experience of symptoms and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Patients were more positive about treatment with infliximab than ciclosporin, mainly due to the cumbersome intravenous regimen required for ciclosporin. Prompt diagnosis is required and early reporting of changes in symptoms is encouraged to ensure appropriate treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry; number ISRCTN22663589 . The date of registration was 16/05/2008.

Anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops to reduce antibiotic consumption in children with acute otitis media: the CEDAR RCT.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common reason for primary care consultations and antibiotic prescribing in children. Options for improved pain control may influence antibiotic prescribing and consumption. OBJECTIVE: The Children's Ear Pain Study (CEDAR) investigated whether or not providing anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops reduced antibiotic consumption in children with AOM. Secondary objectives included pain control and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, parallel-group (two-group initially, then three-group) trial. SETTING: Primary care practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 1- to 10-year-old children presenting within 1 week of suspected AOM onset with ear pain during the preceding 24 hours and not requiring immediate antibiotics. Participating children were logged into the study and allocated using a remote randomisation service. INTERVENTIONS: Two-group trial - unblinded comparison of anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops versus usual care. Three-group trial - blinded comparison of anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops versus placebo ear drops and unblinded comparison with usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was parent-reported antibiotic use by the child over 8 days following enrolment. Secondary measures included ear pain at day 2 and NHS and societal costs over 8 days. RESULTS: Owing to a delay in provision of the placebo drops, the recruitment period was shortened and most participants were randomly allocated to the two-group study (n = 74) rather than the three-group study (n = 32). Comparing active drops with usual care in the combined two-group and three-group studies, 1 out of 39 (3%) children allocated to the active drops group and 11 out of 38 (29%) children allocated to the usual-care group consumed antibiotics in the 8 days following enrolment [unadjusted odds ratio 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.55; p = 0.009; adjusted for delayed prescribing odds ratio 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.87; p = 0.035]. A total of 43% (3/7) of patients in the placebo drops group consumed antibiotics by day 8, compared with 0% (0/10) of the three-group study active drops groups (p = 0.051). The economic analysis of NHS costs (£12.66 for active drops and £11.36 for usual care) leads to an estimated cost of £5.19 per antibiotic prescription avoided, but with a high degree of uncertainty. A reduction in ear pain at day 2 in the placebo group (n = 7) compared with the active drops group (n = 10) (adjusted difference in means 0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 2.79; p = 0.51) is consistent with chance. No adverse events were reported in children receiving active drops. LIMITATIONS: Estimated treatment effects are imprecise because the sample size target was not met. It is not clear if delayed prescriptions of an antibiotic were written prior to randomisation. Few children received placebo drops, which hindered the investigation of ear pain. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that reduced antibiotic use can be achieved in children with AOM by combining a no or delayed antibiotic prescribing strategy with anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops. Whether or not the active drops relieved ear pain was not established. FUTURE WORK: The observed reduction in antibiotic consumption following the prescription of ear drops requires replication in a larger study. Future work should establish if the effect of ear drops is due to pain relief. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09599764. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Alastair D Hay was funded by a NIHR Research Professorship (funding identifier NIHR-RP-02-12-012).

Ear infections are common in children < 10 years of age, with 40% of these children suffering from an ear infection at least once per year. During the infection, germs multiply in the confined space of the middle ear, resulting in a build-up of pressure that pushes on and stretches the ear drum. This causes severe pain and distress to the child, which in turn leads to disrupted family life. Although there is world-class evidence showing that antibiotics do not help, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence advises against their use, > 85% of UK children with middle ear infections (acute otitis media) are prescribed an antibiotic, which is a higher percentage than for any other childhood infection. Antibiotics do not treat the child's pain and, in most cases, they do not help to treat the infection (because many ear infections are caused by viruses that do not respond to antibiotics), but they can cause side effects (such as diarrhoea) and increase the problem of antibiotic resistance, which is a major public health concern. The Children's Ear Pain Study (CEDAR) wanted to find out whether or not painkilling ear drops [benzocaine­phenazone otic solution (Auralgan^®) currently manufactured by Pfizer Consumer Healthcare(Pfizer Inc., New York, NY USA)] can, by treating children's ear pain, reduce the number of parents giving their children antibiotics for acute otitis media. Children were given the painkilling drops, placebo (dummy) drops or usual care. The study found that, if the children were given the painkilling drops, significantly fewer of them were given antibiotics. Unfortunately, there were not enough children who took part in the study to change advice on how doctors treat ear infections. However, these results suggest that ear drops help reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and should be investigated in a further larger study.

Challenges to and Facilitators of Recruitment to an Alzheimer's Disease Clinical Trial: A Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Low participation in clinical trials is a major challenge to advancing clinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and care. Factors influencing recruitment to AD trials are not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers to, and facilitators of, recruitment in a UK multi-center, secondary care AD trial (Reducing pathology in Alzheimer's Disease through Angiotensin TaRgeting (RADAR) trial) and implications for improving recruitment to AD trials. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with a purposive sample of 17 trial site staff explored the RADAR trial recruitment pathway and views and experiences of recruitment. Interviews were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Diagnostic and care pathways hindered identifying patients with mild-moderate AD, with a lack of up-to-date patient records and data access problems affecting screening. Research is not routinely embedded in AD care but facilitated recruitment when it was. Clinicians' and patients' favorable view of the trial purpose facilitated recruitment, although the complexity of participant information sheets and requirement for study companion created challenges. CONCLUSION: These findings have important implications for the design of future AD trials and for planning how to best interface with clinical commitments to ensure sufficient and timely recruitment. Challenges to AD trial recruitment can occur at care pathway, clinician, and patient and companion levels. Recruitment can be facilitated by: improving diagnostic processes and systems for recording and sharing patient information, embedding research into routine patient care, collaborating with a range of services to identify and approach eligible patients, training and engaging trial staff, and providing patients with clear and concise study information.

TEST (Trial of Eczema allergy Screening Tests): protocol for feasibility randomised controlled trial of allergy tests in children with eczema, including economic scoping and nested qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Early onset eczema is associated with food allergy, and allergic reactions to foods can cause acute exacerbations of eczema. Parents often pursue dietary restrictions as a way of managing eczema and seek allergy testing for their children to guide dietary management. However, it is unclear whether test-guided dietary management improves eczema symptoms, and whether the practice causes harm through reduced use of conventional eczema treatment or unnecessary dietary restrictions. The aim of the Trial of Eczema allergy Screening Tests Study is to determine the feasibility of conducting a trial comparing food allergy testing and dietary advice versus usual care, for the management of eczema in children. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Design: A single centre, two-group, individually randomised, feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) with economic scoping and a nested qualitative study. SETTING: General Practioner (GP) surgeries in the west of England. PARTICIPANTS: children aged over 3 months and less than 5 years with mild to severe eczema. INTERVENTIONS: allergy testing (structured allergy history and skin prick tests) or usual care. Sample size and outcome measures: we aim to recruit 80 participants and follow them up using 4-weekly questionnaires for 24 weeks. Nested qualitative study: We will conduct ~20 interviews with parents of participating children, 5-8 interviews with parents who decline or withdraw from the trial and ~10 interviews with participating GPs. Economic scoping: We will gather data on key costs and outcomes to assess the feasibility of carrying out a cost-effectiveness analysis in a future definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been reviewed by the Health Research Authority and given a favourable opinion by the NHS REC (West Midlands - South Birmingham Research Ethics Committee, Reference Number 18/WM/0124). Findings will be submitted for presentation at conferences and written up for publication in peer-reviewed journals, which may include mixed-method triangulation and integration of the quantitative and qualitative findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15397185; Pre-results.