The role of public involvement in the design of the first SARS-CoV-2 human challenge study during an evolving pandemic.

High quality health care research must involve patients and the public. This ensures research is important, relevant and acceptable to those it is designed to benefit. The world's first human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 undertook detailed public involvement to inform study design despite the urgency to review and establish the study. The work was integral to the UK Research Ethics Committee review and approval of the study. Discussion with individuals from ethnic minorities within the UK population supported decision-making around the study exclusion criteria. Public review of study materials for consent processes led to the addition of new information, comparisons and visual aids to help volunteers consider the practicalities and risks involved in participating. A discussion exploring the acceptability of a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 taking place in the UK, given the current context of the pandemic, identified overall support for the study. Public concern for the wellbeing of trial participants, as a consequence of isolation, was identified. We outline our approach to public involvement and its impact on study design.

Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study.

Background: Human challenge studies involve the deliberate exposure of healthy volunteers to an infectious micro-organism in a highly controlled and monitored way. They are used to understand infectious diseases and have contributed to the development of vaccines. In early 2020, the UK started exploring the feasibility of establishing a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2. Given the significant public interest and the complexity of the potential risks and benefits, it is vital that public views are considered in the design and approval of any such study and that investigators and ethics boards remain accountable to the public. Methods: Mixed methods study comprising online surveys conducted with 2,441 UK adults and in-depth virtual focus groups with 57 UK adults during October 2020 to explore the public's attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 taking place in the UK. Results: There was overall agreement across the surveys and focus groups that a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 should take place in the UK. Transparency of information, trust and the necessity to provide clear information on potential risks to study human challenge study participants were important. The perceived risks of taking part included the risk of developing long-term effects from COVID, impact on personal commitments and mental health implications of isolation. There were a number of practical realities to taking part that would influence a volunteer's ability to participate (e.g. Wi-Fi, access to exercise, outside space and work, family and pet commitments). Conclusions: The results identified practical considerations for teams designing human challenge studies. Recommendations were grouped: 1) messaging to potential study participants, 2) review of the protocol and organisation of the study, and 3) more broadly, making the study more inclusive and relevant. This study highlights the value of public consultation in research, particularly in fields attracting public interest and scrutiny .

Patient and public involvement in palliative care research: What works, and why? A qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement is increasingly considered a prerequisite for high-quality research. However, involvement in palliative care is impeded by limited evidence on the best approaches for populations affected by life-limiting illness. AIM: To evaluate a strategy for public involvement in palliative care and rehabilitation research, to identify successful approaches and areas for improvement. DESIGN: Co-produced qualitative evaluation using focus groups and interviews. Thematic analysis undertaken by research team comprising public contributors and researchers. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Researchers and public members from a palliative care and rehabilitation research institute, UK. RESULTS: Seven public members and 19 researchers participated. Building and maintaining relationships, taking a flexible approach and finding the 'right' people were important for successful public involvement. Relationship building created a safe environment for discussing sensitive topics, although public members felt greater consideration of emotional support was needed. Flexibility supported involvement alongside unpredictable circumstances of chronic and life-limiting illness, and was facilitated by responsive communication, and opportunities for in-person and virtual involvement at a project- and institution-level. However, more opportunities for two-way feedback throughout projects was suggested. Finding the 'right' people was crucial given the diverse population served by palliative care, and participants suggested more care needed to be taken to identify public members with experience relevant to specific projects. CONCLUSION: Within palliative care research, it is important for involvement to focus on building and maintaining relationships, working flexibly, and identifying those with relevant experience. Taking a strategic approach and developing adequate infrastructure and networks can facilitate public involvement within this field.

Implementation of a complex intervention to improve care for patients whose situations are clinically uncertain in hospital settings: A multi-method study using normalisation process theory.

PURPOSE: To examine the use of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to establish if, and in what ways, the AMBER care bundle can be successfully normalised into acute hospital practice, and to identify necessary modifications to optimise its implementation. METHOD: Multi-method process evaluation embedded within a mixed-method feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in two district general hospitals in England. Data were collected using (i) focus groups with health professionals (HPs), (ii) semi-structured interviews with patients and/or carers, (iii) non-participant observations of multi-disciplinary team meetings and (iv) patient clinical note review. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics, with interpretation guided by NPT components (coherence; cognitive participation; collective action; reflexive monitoring). Data triangulated across sources. RESULTS: Two focus groups (26 HPs), nine non-participant observations, 12 interviews (two patients, 10 relatives), 29 clinical note reviews were conducted. While coherence was evident, with HPs recognising the value of the AMBER care bundle, cognitive participation and collective action presented challenges. Specifically: (1) HPs were unable and unwilling to operationalise the concept of 'risk of dying' intervention eligibility criteria (2) integration relied on a 'champion' to drive participation and ensure sustainability; and (3) differing skills and confidence led to variable engagement with difficult conversations with patients and families about, for example, nearness to end of life. Opportunities for reflexive monitoring were not routinely embedded within the intervention. Reflections on the use of the AMBER care bundle from HPs and patients and families, including recommended modifications became evident through this NPT-driven analysis. CONCLUSION: To be successfully normalised, new clinical practices, such as the AMBER care bundle, must be studied within the wider context in which they operate. NPT can be used to the aid identification of practical strategies to assist in normalisation of complex interventions where the focus of care is on clinical uncertainty in acute hospital settings.

Understanding usual care in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions: A multi-method approach.

BACKGROUND: Evaluations of complex interventions compared to usual care provided in palliative care are increasing. Not describing usual care may affect the interpretation of an intervention's effectiveness, yet how it can be described remains unclear. AIM: To demonstrate the feasibility of using multi-methods to describe usual care provided in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions, shown within a feasibility cluster RCT. DESIGN: Multi-method approach comprising usual care questionnaires, baseline case note review and focus groups with ward staff completed at study end. Thematic analysis of qualitative data, descriptive statistics of quantitative data, followed by methodological triangulation to appraise approach in relation to study aim. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Four general medical wards chosen from UK hospitals. Purposive sampling of healthcare professionals for usual care questionnaires, and focus groups. Review of 20 patients' notes from each ward who died during admission or within 100 days of discharge. RESULTS: Twenty-three usual care questionnaires at baseline, two focus groups comprising 20 healthcare professionals and 80 case note reviews. Triangulation of findings resulted in understanding the usual care provided to the targeted population in terms of context, structures, processes and outcomes for patients, families and healthcare professionals. Usual care was described, highlighting (1) similarities and embedded practices, (2) heterogeneity and (3) subtle changes in care during the trial within and across sites. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a feasible approach to defining usual care that can be practically adopted in different settings. Understanding usual care enhances the reliability of tested complex interventions, and informs research and policy priorities.

Population-Based Quality Indicators for End-of-Life Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.

IMPORTANCE: Improving the quality of cancer care is an international priority. Population-based quality indicators (QIs) are key to this process yet remain almost exclusively used for evaluating care during the early, often curative, stages of disease. OBJECTIVES: To identify all existing QIs for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life and to evaluate each indicator's measurement properties and appropriateness for use. EVIDENCE REVIEW: For this systematic review, 5 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception through February 4, 2019, for studies describing the development, review, and/or testing of QIs for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life. For each QI identified, descriptive information was extracted and 6 measurement properties (acceptability, evidence base, definition, feasibility, reliability, and validity) were assessed using previously established criteria, with 4 possible ratings: positive, intermediate, negative, and unknown. Ratings were collated and each QI classified as appropriate for use, inappropriate for use, or of limited testing. Among the QIs determined as appropriate for use, a recommended shortlist was generated by excluding those that were specific to patient subgroups and/or care settings; related QIs were identified, and the indicator with the highest rating was retained. FINDINGS: The search yielded 7231 references, 35 of which (from 28 individual studies) met the eligibility criteria. Of 288 QIs extracted (260 unique), 103 (35.8%) evaluated physical aspects of care and 109 (37.8%) evaluated processes of care. Quality indicators relevant to psychosocial (18 [6.3%]) or spiritual and cultural (3 [1.0%]) care domains were limited. Eighty QIs (27.8%) were determined to be appropriate for use, 116 (40.3%) inappropriate for use, and 92 (31.9%) of limited testing. The measurement properties with the fewest positive assessments were acceptability (38 [13.2%]) and validity (63 [21.9%]). Benchmarking data were reported for only 16 QIs (5.6%). The final 15 recommended QIs came from 6 studies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings suggest that only a small proportion of QIs developed for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life have received adequate testing and/or are appropriate for use. Further testing may be needed, as is research to establish benchmarking data and to expand QIs relevant to psychosocial, cultural, and spiritual care domains.

The AMBER care bundle for hospital inpatients with uncertain recovery nearing the end of life: the ImproveCare feasibility cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to hospital with a terminal illness and uncertain recovery often receive inconsistent care and do not have the opportunity to die in their preferred place of death. Previous end-of-life care packages, such as the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient, have sometimes been badly implemented. The AMBER (Assessment; Management; Best practice; Engagement; Recovery uncertain) care bundle was developed to remedy this. It has not been evaluated in a randomised trial, but a definitive trial would face many hurdles. OBJECTIVE: To optimise the design of and determine the feasibility of a pragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial of the AMBER care bundle compared with best standard care. DESIGN: A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial including semistructured interviews with patients and relatives, focus groups with health-care professionals, non-participant observations of multidisciplinary team meetings, a standard care survey, heat maps and case note reviews. Retrospective data were collected from the family or close friends of deceased patients via a bereavement survey. SETTING: Four general medical wards at district general hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: There were 65 participants (control, n = 36; intervention, n = 29). There were 24 interviews, four focus groups, 15 non-participant meeting observations, six case note reviews and three heat maps, and 15 of out 23 bereavement, standard care surveys were completed. INTERVENTION: The AMBER care bundle is implemented by a nurse facilitator. It includes the development and documentation of a medical plan, consideration of outcomes, resuscitation and escalation status and daily plan revisiting. The AMBER care bundle encourages staff, patients and families to talk openly about their preferences and priorities should the worst happen. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two 'candidate' primary outcomes were selected to be evaluated for a future definitive trial: Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale patient/family anxiety and communication subscale and 'howRwe'. The secondary outcome measures were Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale symptoms, Australian-modified Karnofsky Performance Status scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, Client Service Receipt Inventory, recruitment rate, intervention fidelity and intervention acceptability. RESULTS: Data were collected for 65 patients. This trial was not powered to measure clinical effectiveness, but variance and changes observed in the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale indicated that this measure would probably detect differences within a definitive trial. It was feasible to collect data on health, social and informal care service use and on quality of life at two time points. The AMBER care bundle was broadly acceptable to all stakeholders and was delivered as planned. The emphasis on 'clinical uncertainty' prompted health-care professional awareness of often-overlooked patients. Reviewing patients' AMBER care bundle status was integrated into routine practice. Refinements included simplifying the inclusion criteria and improving health-care professional communication training. Improvements to trial procedures included extending the time devoted to recruitment and simplifying consent procedures. There was also a recommendation to reduce data collected from patients and relatives to minimise burden. LIMITATIONS: The recruitment rate was lower than anticipated. The inclusion criteria for the trial were difficult to interpret. Information sheets and consent procedures were too detailed and lengthy for the target population. Health-care professionals' enthusiasm and specialty were not considered while picking trial wards. Participant recruitment took place later during hospital admission and the majority of participants were lost to follow-up because they had been discharged. Those who participated may have different characteristics from those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility trial has demonstrated that an evaluation of the AMBER care bundle among an acutely unwell patient population, although technically possible, is not practical or feasible. The intervention requires optimisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36040085. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio registration number 32682. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Unwell hospital patients who are approaching the end of their lives and may die at any moment receive inconsistent care and often do not have opportunities to discuss their future care preferences. The AMBER (Assessment; Management; Best practice; Engagement; Recovery uncertain) care bundle was developed to help identify such patients, train health-care professionals to better communicate their concerns with them and their families and, where possible, to realise their preferences for place of care and death. The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient, previously used across England, was designed to provide the best possible quality of care to those at the end of life. However, an independent review identified that it often was not used appropriately, leading to poor patient outcomes. A number of the criticisms of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient, such as reports of quickened deaths from the withdrawal of hydration/nutrition, as well as poor communication with patients and families, may have been identified earlier if it had been thoroughly evaluated. The AMBER care bundle, developed at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, aims to provide better outcomes for patients with clinically uncertain recovery and their families. It is important that the AMBER care bundle is properly investigated before wider use. A bigger study of the AMBER care bundle would be complex and expensive, so we examined whether or not this would be possible and acceptable to patients cared for in four wards across four hospitals, before deciding whether or not to go ahead with this bigger study. Two wards used the care bundle and two did not. We interviewed participants, their families and staff, and examined participants' clinical notes. We found that the AMBER care bundle was largely acceptable to patients, relatives and staff, and generally delivered as intended. We successfully collected information from 65 unwell patients at the beginning of the trial and again 3­5 and 10­15 days later. However, a limited number of data were collected at the final time point (10­15 days) due to many participants being discharged from the hospital. Group discussions with staff and interviews with participants and relatives identified important changes required to improve the AMBER care bundle and views on how the trial was conducted. These included simplifying the type of patients who may be appropriate for the AMBER care bundle and improving communication training for staff. Although we identified that a further study was technically possible, it is currently impractical. Future solutions that would require further testing include focusing on clinical need rather than trying to guess how the patient's condition will develop to identify potential trial participants and using questions completed by the patients as part of their routine care as a source of information. In the meantime, the AMBER care bundle continues to be used in over 40 hospitals in England.

Understanding the minds of others: A neuroimaging meta-analysis.

Theory of mind (ToM) is an important skill that refers broadly to the capacity to understand the mental states of others. A large number of neuroimaging studies have focused on identifying the functional brain regions involved in ToM, but many important questions remain with respect to the neural networks implicated in specific types of ToM tasks. In the present study, we conducted a series of activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analyses on 144 datasets (involving 3150 participants) to address these questions. The ALE results revealed common regions shared across all ToM tasks and broader task parameters, but also some important dissociations. In terms of commonalities, consistent activation was identified in the medial prefrontal cortex and bilateral temporoparietal junction. On the other hand, ALE contrast analyses on our dataset, as well as meta-analytic connectivity modelling (MACM) analyses on the BrainMap database, indicated that different types of ToM tasks reliably elicit activity in unique brain areas. Our findings provide the most accurate picture to date of the neural networks that underpin ToM function.