Sertraline for anxiety in adults with a diagnosis of autism (STRATA): study protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are commonly prescribed to manage anxiety in adults with an autism diagnosis. However, their effectiveness and adverse effect profile in the autistic population are not well known. This trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SSRI sertraline in reducing symptoms of anxiety and improving quality of life in adults with a diagnosis of autism compared with placebo and to quantify any adverse effects. METHODS: STRATA is a two-parallel group, multi-centre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial with allocation at the level of the individual. It will be delivered through recruiting sites with autism services in 4 regional centres in the United Kingdom (UK) and 1 in Australia. Adults with an autism diagnosis and a Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) score ≥ 10 at screening will be randomised 1:1 to either 25 mg sertraline or placebo, with subsequent flexible dose titration up to 200 mg. The primary outcome is GAD-7 scores at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, proportionate change in GAD-7 scores including 50% reduction, social anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, panic attacks, repetitive behaviours, meltdowns, depressive symptoms, composite depression and anxiety, functioning and disability and quality of life. Carer burden will be assessed in a linked carer sub-study. Outcome data will be collected using online/paper methods via video call, face-to-face or telephone according to participant preference at 16, 24 and 52 weeks post-randomisation, with brief safety checks and data collection at 1-2, 4, 8, 12 and 36 weeks. An economic evaluation to study the cost-effectiveness of sertraline vs placebo and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment and informed consent are embedded within the trial. Qualitative interviews at various times during the study will explore experiences of participating and taking the trial medication. DISCUSSION: Results from this study should help autistic adults and their clinicians make evidence-based decisions on the use of sertraline for managing anxiety in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15984604 . Registered on 08 February 2021. EudraCT 2019-004312-66. ANZCTR ACTRN12621000801819. Registered on 07 April 2021.

Lockdown Experiences and Views on Future Research Participation of Autistic Adults in the UK During the First 6 Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in large-scale public health restrictions and lockdowns across many countries. There is an increasing literature on the varied impact of such lockdowns in autistic adults. However, there is very little research on how the pandemic and related public health measures may impact the willingness of autistic people in engaging and taking part in research. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore autistic adults' experiences of the COVID-19 lockdown and how the pandemic may affect future research participation. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 31 autistic adults between March and July 2020. Transcripts were analyzed thematically within a critical realism framework. Results: Participants identified positive aspects of lockdown such as enjoying the lack of social pressures and using their well-developed skills for dealing with uncertainty. Autistic people also shared challenges of adjusting to lockdown, for example, rapid change in daily routines. While hopeful about the freedom gained from easing restrictions, participants were concerned about the inconsistent communication and application of rules during the transition out of lockdown. This may have exacerbated already rising mental health issues among autistic people. The participants viewed research participation and engagement with increased relevance during the pandemic and welcomed efforts to conduct research using online methods of communication. Conclusion: The COVID-19 lockdown had a varied effect in the lives and routines of autistic people. However, health care providers and researchers need to be mindful of rising mental health issues in the aftermath of the pandemic, especially for people who were already vulnerable. The response to the pandemic may have offered opportunities for innovation in research processes enabling more autistic people to engage with research and making studies more inclusive.

Why is this an important issue?: We did not know how the pandemic and the strict restrictions that followed would affect autistic people's well-being and mental health.Also, there was a worry that the pandemic would affect the number of volunteers taking part in research that matters the most to autistic people. Thus, it was important to understand any implications for the way we conduct research with the autistic community after the pandemic. What was the purpose of this study?: We explored the experiences of autistic people living through the first 6 months of the COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom. We were particularly interested in autistic people's views on how the pandemic may affect them taking part in research. What did the researchers do?: We co-produced this interview study to answer our research questions. We carried out in-depth interviews with 31 autistic people. We looked for patterns or themes in what the participants said. What were the results of the study?: Autistic people we interviewed reported being able to enjoy a quieter pace of life. They felt less anxious early in the lockdown. But they also faced great challenges adjusting to changes in their daily routines. Inconsistent public health communication caused worry during the transition out of lockdown. Unnecessary stress might have led to worsening of mental health issues in some people. Our participants held positive views on taking part in and engage with research, despite the pandemic. We identified opportunities that could make research more inclusive for autistic people, for example, online methods for taking consent and taking part in research remotely. What do these findings add to what was already known?: Our study adds to the evidence of the varied responses of autistic people to the pandemic and the public health measures that it led to. One important strength of our work is our focus on the impact of the pandemic on research and implications of future research. We learnt that autistic people welcome and value the use of online technology to reach study participants. Wider use of remote technology can make research more inclusive and participatory. What are potential weaknesses in the study?: Many of our participants were already had experience participating in research. Also most had relatively high education levels. We did not include autistic people with intellectual disabilities. We did not collect information on ethnicity. Our sample is likely to have little ethnic diversity. How will these findings help autistic adults now or in the future?: We describe the experiences of autistic people in the face of unprecedented circumstances. We found the need for clear public health communication to avoid unnecessary stress. The pandemic has provided the opportunity for a wider use of remote methods of research, even in areas where this was not done in the past (e.g., clinical trials). Our study found that such approaches would make research more inclusive.

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: further development and evaluation of the participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is an accepted ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet there is no standardised method of assessing patient understanding for informed consent. The participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure was developed for application to recruitment discussions to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding. Preliminary evaluation of the PIC indicated the need to improve inter-rater and intra-rater reliability ratings and conduct further psychometric evaluation. This paper describes the assessment, revision and evaluation of the PIC within the context of OPTiMISE, a pragmatic primary care-based trial. METHODS: This study used multiple methods across two phases. In phase one, one researcher applied the existing PIC measure to 18 audio-recorded recruitment discussions from the OPTiMISE study and made detailed observational notes about any uncertainties in application. Appointments were sampled to be maximally diverse for patient gender, study centre, recruiter and before and after an intervention to optimise information provision. Application uncertainties were reviewed by the study team, revisions made and a coding manual developed and agreed. In phase two, the coding manual was used to develop tailored guidelines for applying the PIC to appointments within the OPTiMISE trial. Two researchers then assessed 27 further appointments, purposively sampled as above, to evaluate inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, content validity and feasibility. RESULTS: Application of the PIC to 18 audio-recorded OPTiMISE recruitment discussions resulted in harmonisation of the scales rating recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding, minor amendments to clarify wording and the development of detailed generic coding guidelines for applying the measure within any trial. Application of the revised measure using these guidelines to 27 further recruitment discussions showed good feasibility (time to complete), content validity (completion rate) and reliability (inter- and intra-rater) of the measure. CONCLUSION: The PIC provides a means to evaluate the content of information provided by recruiters, patient participation in recruitment discussions and, to some extent, evidence of patient understanding. Future work will use the measure to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding both across and within trials.

Barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial comparing two surgical procedures for ankle arthritis : a qualitative study.

AIMS: A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial. METHODS: We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment. RESULTS: Recruiters faced four common obstacles when recruiting to a surgical orthopaedic trial: patient preferences for an intervention; a complex recruitment pathway; various logistical issues; and conflicting views on equipoise. Clinicians expressed concerns that the trial may not show significant differences in the treatments, validating their equipoise. However, they experienced role conflicts due to their own preference and perceived patient preference for an intervention arm. CONCLUSION: This study provided initial information about barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial. We shared these findings in an all-site investigators' meeting and encouraged researchers to find solutions to identified barriers; this led to the successful completion of recruitment. Complex trials may benefit for using of a mixed-methods approach to mitigate against recruitment failure, and to improve patient participation and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):631-637.

The development of a prototype measure of the co-production of health in routine consultations for people with long-term conditions.

OBJECTIVES: (i) To develop a prototype measure of co-production of health (CPH) in consultations for people with long-term conditions (LTCs); and (ii) to undertake initial validation of it, using a measure of patient-centred care, as defined by the Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS). METHODS: Mixed methods were applied. A qualitative study gathered 11 experts' views on what comprised CPH behaviours. These were operationalised and a prototype measure applied to a convenience sample of 50 video-recorded consultations involving clinicians trained in self-management support and patients with LTCs at health services in six UK locations. RESULTS: Twenty-two CPH behaviours were identified. High frequencies of CPH behaviours in consultations were associated with greater patient-centeredness, less clinician verbal dominance, and more patient communication control in comparison to consultations where CPH behaviours were less frequent. CONCLUSION: Although the CPH tool is promising, further testing is required in order to improve reliability and validity. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: In the future, the measure could be used to test interventions to promote patient participation in decision making about self-management.