Modelling Successful Self-Management in Adults With Cystic Fibrosis: Vicarious Self-Efficacy From Videos of 'People Like Me'.

Background Self-efficacy is an important determinant of treatment adherence, and peer modelling of success can provide vicarious self-efficacy. A series of patient stories ('talking heads' videos) were developed with people with cystic fibrosis (CF) as part of the CFHealthHub multi-component adherence intervention, aiming to demonstrate success with daily therapy in 'people like me'. Methodology One-to-one semi-structured interviews exploring patients' experiences, barriers and facilitators of nebuliser adherence were audio and video-recorded between October 2015 and August 2016. Interview transcripts were reviewed to identify descriptions of problem-solving and sustained treatment success. Positive stories potentially providing vicarious descriptions of success were selected as video clips. Results In total, 14 adults with CF were recruited from five UK CF centres. Each participant contributed a median of five (interquartile range: 3-6) video clips, and a total of 57 unique clips were uploaded onto the CFHealthHub digital platform. Nine of those clips spanned two categories, hence, there were 66 clips across 16 categories. Conclusions The videos were well received though some adults were concerned that comparisons with peers might create anxiety by highlighting the possibility of future decline or current relative underperformance. It is important to sensitively support choice when providing resources aiming to increase vicarious self-efficacy. Our experience may guide the development of similar videos for people with other long-term conditions.

Objective Nebuliser Adherence Data as "Proof" of Adherence in the Management of Cystic Fibrosis: A Qualitative Interview Study.

Purpose: Low adherence to medication via nebulisers is linked to poor clinical outcomes for people with Cystic Fibrosis (PWCF). Advances in technology allow electronic monitoring of nebuliser usage and feedback of objective adherence data to PWCF and clinical teams caring for them. CFHealthHub is a new intervention that collects and displays objective adherence data in easy-to-read formats with the aim of improving nebuliser adherence and health. There is little understanding of how objective adherence data is perceived by PWCF and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Patients and Methods: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 22 PWCF and 31 HCPs who had used the CFHealthHub intervention. Results: Objective adherence data was welcomed by the majority of PWCF in the sample, and HCP delivering the intervention, because the data allowed PWCF to reflect on patterns of adherence or non-adherence. Ease of use and characteristics of data display were important, particularly the use of a "traffic light" system to allow PWCF to easily see if they were meeting their adherence targets. For PWCF objective adherence data was used as "proof to self", offering reassurance to high adherers, and a wake-up call to those with lower levels of adherence. It could also provide 'proof to others' where PWCF had higher levels of adherence than HCP or family members believed. The data could sometimes change HCP perceptions of PWCF's identities as poor adherers. Where adherence was not high, data was used to facilitate honest discussions between PWCF and HCPs about how to increase adherence. HCPs perceived that it was important to use the data positively to motivate, rather than criticise, PWCF. Conclusion: Objective nebuliser adherence data in CFHealthHub can offer proof of adherence to PWCF and HCPs. It is important to use it constructively to facilitate discussions on how to improve adherence.

Self-management intervention to reduce pulmonary exacerbations by supporting treatment adherence in adults with cystic fibrosis: a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Recurrent pulmonary exacerbations lead to progressive lung damage in cystic fibrosis (CF). Inhaled medications (mucoactive agents and antibiotics) help prevent exacerbations, but objectively measured adherence is low. We investigated whether a multi-component (complex) self-management intervention to support adherence would reduce exacerbation rates over 12 months. METHODS: Between October 2017 and May 2018, adults with CF (aged ≥16 years; 19 UK centres) were randomised to the intervention (data-logging nebulisers, a digital platform and behavioural change sessions with trained clinical interventionists) or usual care (data-logging nebulisers). Outcomes included pulmonary exacerbations (primary outcome), objectively measured adherence, body mass index (BMI), lung function (FEV1) and Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R). Analyses were by intent to treat over 12 months. RESULTS: Among intervention (n=304) and usual care (n=303) participants (51% female, median age 31 years), 88% completed 12-month follow-up. Mean exacerbation rate was 1.63/year with intervention and 1.77/year with usual care (adjusted ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; p=0.64). Adjusted mean differences (95% CI) were in favour of the intervention versus usual care for objectively measured adherence (9.5% (8.6% to 10.4%)) and BMI (0.3 (0.1 to 0.6) kg/m2), with no difference for %FEV1 (1.4 (-0.2 to 3.0)). Seven CFQ-R subscales showed no between-group difference, but treatment burden reduced for the intervention (3.9 (1.2 to 6.7) points). No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: While pulmonary exacerbations and FEV1 did not show statistically significant differences, the intervention achieved higher objectively measured adherence versus usual care. The adherence difference might be inadequate to influence exacerbations, though higher BMI and lower perceived CF treatment burden were observed.

Constellations of pain: a qualitative study of the complexity of women's endometriosis-related pain.

INTRODUCTION: Prior research into endometriosis-related pain has focused on specific aspects of the pain experience such as cyclical pain, emotional aspects of pain and certain types of pain such as dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia. However, research has paid less attention to the diversity and complexity of women's pain experiences, which can lead to failure to recognise some symptoms as part of endometriosis and poor symptom management. METHODS: We conducted qualitative semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 20 women in the United Kingdom recruited from an endometriosis self-help group with a diagnosis of endometriosis via laparoscopy. A topic guide framed questions around experiences of pain. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Women experienced multiple types of pain that they felt were caused by endometriosis and affected many different parts of the body including bowel, bladder, lungs, kidneys, nerves, upper body, lower limbs and head. These pains consisted of different conceptual categories: type, pattern and intensity. These categories came together to create a complex, interrelated experience for each individual that we termed 'constellations of pain' because each woman had a complex set of pain categories and no two individuals appeared to have the same pain experience. CONCLUSION: The complexity and diversity of endometriosis-related pain found in this study has implications for improving diagnosis, medical and non-medical pain management and improving the clinical encounter between women and healthcare professionals.

Feasibility study for supporting medication adherence for adults with cystic fibrosis: mixed-methods process evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To undertake a process evaluation of an adherence support intervention for people with cystic fibrosis (PWCF), to assess its feasibility and acceptability. SETTING: Two UK cystic fibrosis (CF) units. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen adult PWCF; three professionals delivering adherence support ('interventionists'); five multi-disciplinary CF team members. INTERVENTIONS: Nebuliser with data recording and transfer capability, linked to a software platform, and strategies to support adherence to nebulised treatments facilitated by interventionists over 5 months (± 1 month). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MEASURES: Feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, assessed through semistructured interviews, questionnaires, fidelity assessments and click analytics. RESULTS: Interventionists were complimentary about the intervention and training. Key barriers to intervention feasibility and acceptability were identified. Interventionists had difficulty finding clinic space and time in normal working hours to conduct review visits. As a result, fewer than expected intervention visits were conducted and interviews indicated this may explain low adherence in some intervention arm participants. Adherence levels appeared to be >100% for some patients, due to inaccurate prescription data, particularly in patients with complex treatment regimens. Flatlines in adherence data at the start of the study were linked to device connectivity problems. Content and delivery quality fidelity were 100% and 60%-92%, respectively, indicating that interventionists needed to focus more on intervention 'active ingredients' during sessions. CONCLUSIONS: The process evaluation led to 14 key changes to intervention procedures to overcome barriers to intervention success. With the identified changes, it is feasible and acceptable to support medication adherence with this intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13076797; Results.

Mechanisms of Action of a Web-Based Intervention With Health Professional Support to Increase Adherence to Nebulizer Treatments in Adults With Cystic Fibrosis: Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to nebulizer treatments in adults with cystic fibrosis (CF) is often low. A new complex intervention to help adults with CF increase their adherence to nebulizer treatments was tested in a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2 UK CF centers. Patients used a nebulizer with electronic monitoring capabilities that transferred data automatically to a digital platform (CFHealthHub) to monitor adherence over time and to a tailored website to display graphs of adherence data and educational and problem-solving information about adherence. A trained interventionist helped patients identify ways to increase their adherence. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the mechanisms of action underpinning the intervention. METHODS: A qualitative interview study was conducted concurrently with a pilot RCT. In total, 25 semistructured interviews were conducted with 3 interventionists at 2 time points, 14 patients in the intervention arm of the trial, and 5 members of the multidisciplinary teams offering wider care to patients. A framework approach was used for the analysis. RESULTS: The intervention was informed by a theoretical framework of behavior change. There was evidence of the expected behavior change mechanisms of action. There was also evidence of additional mechanisms of action associated with effective telehealth interventions for self-management support: relationships, visibility, and fit. Patients described how building a relationship with the interventionist through face-to-face visits with someone who cared about them and their progress helped them to consider ways of increasing adherence to medication. Rather than seeing the visibility of adherence data to clinicians as problematic, patients found this motivating, particularly if they received praise about progress made. The intervention was tailored to individuals, but there were challenges in how the intervention fitted into some patients' busy lives when delivered through a desktop computer. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanisms of action associated with effective telehealth interventions for self-management operated within this new intervention. The intervention was modified to strengthen mechanisms of action based on these findings, for example, delivery through an app accessed via mobile phones and then tested in an RCT in 19 UK CF centers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number 13076797; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13076797.

When Is Forgetting Not Forgetting? A Discursive Analysis of Differences in Forgetting Talk Between Adults With Cystic Fibrosis With Different Levels of Adherence to Nebulizer Treatments.

Forgetting is often cited as a reason why people struggle to adhere to treatments for chronic conditions. Interventions have tried to improve forgetting behavior using reminders. We used a discursive psychological approach to explore differences in how high and low adherers constructed forgetting their nebulizer treatments for cystic fibrosis. Interviews were conducted with 18 adults from a cystic fibrosis center in the United Kingdom. High adherers constructed forgetting treatments as occasional lapses in automaticity and temporary lapses in memory that they found easy to repair. Low adherers utilized forgetting to normalize more consistent nonadherence to treatments. However, it is important to contextualize forgetting as a discursive resource that helped these participants to negotiate moral discourses around adherence to treatment that reminder interventions cannot address; we therefore recommend a more behavioral, patient-focused, theory-driven approach to intervention development.

Beyond interviews and focus groups: a framework for integrating innovative qualitative methods into randomised controlled trials of complex public health interventions.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely used for establishing evidence of the effectiveness of interventions, yet public health interventions are often complex, posing specific challenges for RCTs. Although there is increasing recognition that qualitative methods can and should be integrated into RCTs, few frameworks and practical guidance highlight which qualitative methods should be integrated and for what purposes. As a result, qualitative methods are often poorly or haphazardly integrated into existing trials, and researchers rely heavily on interviews and focus group discussions. To improve current practice, we propose a framework for innovative qualitative research methods that can help address the challenges of RCTs for complex public health interventions. METHODS: We used a stepped approach to develop a practical framework for researchers. This consisted of (1) a systematic review of the innovative qualitative methods mentioned in the health literature, (2) in-depth interviews with 23 academics from different methodological backgrounds working on RCTs of public health interventions in 11 different countries, and (3) a framework development and group consensus-building process. RESULTS: The findings are presented in accordance with the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement categories for ease of use. We identify the main challenges of RCTs for public health interventions alongside each of the CONSORT categories, and potential innovative qualitative methods that overcome each challenge are listed as part of a Framework for the Integration of Innovative Qualitative Methods into RCTs of Complex Health Interventions. Innovative qualitative methods described in the interviews include rapid ethnographic appraisals, document analysis, diary methods, interactive voice responses and short message service, community mapping, spiral walks, pair interviews and visual participatory analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study point to the usefulness of observational and participatory methods for trials of complex public health interventions, offering a novel contribution to the broader literature about the need for mixed methods approaches. Integrating a diverse toolkit of qualitative methods can enable appropriate adjustments to the intervention or process (or both) of data collection during RCTs, which in turn can create more sustainable and effective interventions. However, such integration will require a cultural shift towards the adoption of method-neutral research approaches, transdisciplinary collaborations, and publishing regimes.

Supporting medication adherence for adults with cystic fibrosis: a randomised feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Preventative medication reduces hospitalisations in people with cystic fibrosis (PWCF) but adherence is poor. We assessed the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention, which combines display of real time adherence data and behaviour change techniques. METHODS: Design: Pilot, open-label, parallel-group RCT with concurrent semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: PWCF at two Cystic Fibrosis (CF) units. Eligible: aged 16 or older; on the CF registry. Ineligible: post-lung transplant or on the active list; unable to consent; using dry powder inhalers. INTERVENTIONS: Central randomisation on a 1:1 allocation to: (1) intervention, linking nebuliser use with data recording and transfer capability to a software platform, and behavioural strategies to support self-management delivered by trained interventionists (n = 32); or, (2) control, typically face-to-face meetings every 3 months with CF team (n = 32). OUTCOMES: RCT feasibility defined as: recruitment of ≥ 48 participants (75% of target) in four months (pilot primary outcome); valid exacerbation data available for ≥ 85% of those randomised (future RCT primary outcome); change in % medication adherence; FEV1 percent predicted (key secondaries in future RCT); and perceptions of trial procedures, in semi-structured interviews with intervention (n = 14) and control (n = 5) participants, interventionists (n = 3) and CF team members (n = 5). RESULTS: The pilot trial recruited to target, randomising 33 to intervention and 31 to control in the four-month period, June-September 2016. At study completion (30th April 2017), 60 (94%; Intervention = 32, Control =28) participants contributed good quality exacerbation data (intervention: 35 exacerbations; control: 25 exacerbation). The mean change in adherence and baseline-adjusted FEV1 percent predicted were higher in the intervention arm by 10% (95% CI: -5.2 to 25.2) and 5% (95% CI -2 to 12%) respectively. Five serious adverse events occurred, none related to the intervention. The mean change in adherence was 10% (95% CI: -5.2 to 25.2), greater in the intervention arm. Interventionists delivered insufficient numbers of review sessions due to concentration on participant recruitment. This left interventionists insufficient time for key intervention procedures. A total of 10 key changes that were made to RCT procedures are summarised. CONCLUSIONS: With improved research processes and lower monthly participant recruitment targets, a full-scale trial is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13076797 . Prospectively registered on 07/06/2016.

Implementing street triage: a qualitative study of collaboration between police and mental health services.

BACKGROUND: Street Triage is a collaborative service between mental health workers and police which aims to improve the emergency response to individuals experiencing crisis, but peer reviewed evidence of the effectiveness of these services is limited. We examined the design and potential impact of two services, along with factors that hindered and facilitated the implementation of the services. METHODS: We conducted 14 semi-structured interviews with mental health and police stakeholders with experience of a Street Triage service in two locations of the UK. Framework analysis identified themes related to key aspects of the Street Triage service, perceived benefits of Street Triage, and ways in which the service could be developed in the future. RESULTS: Stakeholders endorsed the Street Triage services which utilised different operating models. These models had several components including a joint response vehicle or a mental health worker in a police control room. Operating models were developed with consideration of the local geographical and population density. The ability to make referrals to the existing mental health service was perceived as key to the success of the service yet there was evidence to suggest Street Triage had the potential to increase pressure on already stretched mental health and police services. Identifying staff with skills and experience for Street Triage work was important, and their joint response resulted in shared decision making which was less risk averse for the police and regarded as in the interest of patient care by mental health professionals. Collaboration during Street Triage improved the understanding of roles and responsibilities in the 'other' agency and led to the development of local information sharing agreements. Views about the future direction of the service focused on expansion of Street Triage to address other shared priorities such as frequent users of police and mental health services, and a reduction in the police involvement in crisis response. CONCLUSION: The Street Triage service received strong support from stakeholders involved in it. Referral to existing health services is a key function of Street Triage, and its impact on referral behaviour requires rigorous evaluation. Street Triage may result in improvement to collaborative working but competing demands for resources within mental health and police services presented challenges for implementation.

Being Human: A Qualitative Interview Study Exploring Why a Telehealth Intervention for Management of Chronic Conditions Had a Modest Effect.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of benefit for telehealth for chronic conditions is mixed. Two linked randomized controlled trials tested the Healthlines Service for 2 chronic conditions: depression and high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This new telehealth service consisted of regular telephone calls from nonclinical, trained health advisers who followed standardized scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors facilitated self-management by supporting participants to use Web-based resources and helped to optimize medication, improve treatment adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyles. Participants were recruited from primary care. The trials identified moderate (for depression) or partial (for CVD risk) effectiveness of the Healthlines Service. OBJECTIVE: An embedded qualitative study was undertaken to help explain the results of the 2 trials by exploring mechanisms of action, context, and implementation of the intervention. METHODS: Qualitative interview study of 21 staff providing usual health care or involved in the intervention and 24 patients receiving the intervention. RESULTS: Interviewees described improved outcomes in some patients, which they attributed to the intervention, describing how components of the model on which the intervention was based helped to achieve benefits. Implementation of the intervention occurred largely as planned. However, contextual issues in patients' lives and some problems with implementation may have reduced the size of effect of the intervention. For depression, patients' lives and preferences affected engagement with the intervention: these largely working-age patients had busy and complex lives, which affected their ability to engage, and some patients preferred a therapist-based approach to the cognitive behavioral therapy on offer. For CVD risk, patients' motivations adversely affected the intervention whereby some patients joined the trial for general health improvement or from altruism, rather than motivation to make lifestyle changes to address their specific risk factors. Implementation was not optimal in the early part of the CVD risk trial owing to technical difficulties and the need to adapt the intervention for use in practice. For both conditions, enthusiastic and motivated staff offering continuity of intervention delivery tailored to individual patients' needs were identified as important for patient engagement with telehealth; this was not delivered consistently, particularly in the early stages of the trials. Finally, there was a lack of active engagement from primary care. CONCLUSIONS: The conceptual model was supported and could be used to develop further telehealth interventions for chronic conditions. It may be possible to increase the effectiveness of this, and similar interventions, by attending to the human as well as the technical aspects of telehealth: offering it to patients actively wanting the intervention, ensuring continuity of delivery by enthusiastic and motivated staff, and encouraging active engagement from primary care staff.

Getting added value from using qualitative research with randomized controlled trials: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research is undertaken with randomized controlled trials of health interventions. Our aim was to explore the perceptions of researchers with experience of this endeavour to understand the added value of qualitative research to the trial in practice. METHODS: A telephone semi-structured interview study with 18 researchers with experience of undertaking the trial and/or the qualitative research. RESULTS: Interviewees described the added value of qualitative research for the trial, explaining how it solved problems at the pretrial stage, explained findings, and helped to increase the utility of the evidence generated by the trial. From the interviews, we identified three models of relationship of the qualitative research to the trial. In 'the peripheral' model, the trial was an opportunity to undertake qualitative research, with no intention that it would add value to the trial. In 'the add-on' model, the qualitative researcher understood the potential value of the qualitative research but it was viewed as a separate and complementary endeavour by the trial lead investigator and wider team. Interviewees described how this could limit the value of the qualitative research to the trial. Finally 'the integral' model played out in two ways. In 'integral-in-theory' studies, the lead investigator viewed the qualitative research as essential to the trial. However, in practice the qualitative research was under-resourced relative to the trial, potentially limiting its ability to add value to the trial. In 'integral-in-practice' studies, interviewees described how the qualitative research was planned from the beginning of the study, senior qualitative expertise was on the team from beginning to end, and staff and time were dedicated to the qualitative research. In these studies interviewees described the qualitative research adding value to the trial although this value was not necessarily visible beyond the original research team due to the challenges of publishing this research. CONCLUSIONS: Health researchers combining qualitative research and trials viewed this practice as strengthening evaluative research. Teams viewing the qualitative research as essential to the trial, and resourcing it in practice, may have a better chance of delivering its added value to the trial.

Maximising the value of combining qualitative research and randomised controlled trials in health research: the QUAlitative Research in Trials (QUART) study--a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Researchers sometimes undertake qualitative research with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of health interventions. OBJECTIVES: To systematically explore how qualitative research is being used with trials and identify ways of maximising its value to the trial aim of providing evidence of effectiveness of health interventions. DESIGN: A sequential mixed methods study with four components. METHODS: (1) Database search of peer-reviewed journals between January 2008 and September 2010 for articles reporting the qualitative research undertaken with specific trials, (2) systematic search of database of registered trials to identify studies combining qualitative research and trials, (3) survey of 200 lead investigators of trials with no apparent qualitative research and (4) semistructured telephone interviews with 18 researchers purposively sampled from the first three methods. RESULTS: Qualitative research was undertaken with at least 12% of trials. A large number of articles reporting qualitative research undertaken with trials (n=296) were published between 2008 and 2010. A total of 28% (82/296) of articles reported qualitative research undertaken at the pre-trial stage and around one-quarter concerned drugs or devices. The articles focused on 22 aspects of the trial within five broad categories. Some focused on more than one aspect of the trial, totalling 356 examples. The qualitative research focused on the intervention being trialled (71%, 254/356), the design and conduct of the trial (15%, 54/356), the outcomes of the trial (1%, 5/356), the measures used in the trial (3%, 10/356), and the health condition in the trial (9%, 33/356). The potential value of the qualitative research to the trial endeavour included improving the external validity of trials and facilitating interpretation of trial findings. This value could be maximised by using qualitative research more at the pre-trial stage and reporting findings with explicit attention to the implications for the trial endeavour. During interviews, three models of study were identified: qualitative research as peripheral to the trial, qualitative research as an 'add-on' to the trial and a study with qualitative research and trial as essential components, with the third model offering more opportunity to maximise the value of the qualitative research. Interviewees valued the use of qualitative research with trials and identified team structures and wider structural issues which gave more value to the trial than the qualitative research as barriers to maximising the value of the qualitative research. CONCLUSION: A large number of articles were published between 2008 and 2010, addressing a wide range of aspects of trials. There were examples of this research affecting the trial by facilitating interpretation of trial findings, developing and refining interventions for testing in the trial and changing the measures used in the trial. However, researchers were not necessarily maximising the value of qualitative research undertaken with trials to the endeavour of generating evidence of effectiveness of health interventions. Researchers can maximise value by promoting its use at the pre-trial stage to ensure that the intervention and trial conduct is optimised at the main trial stage, being explicit about the conclusions for the trial endeavour in peer-reviewed journal articles reporting the qualitative research and valuing the contribution of the qualitative research as much as the trial. Future recommendations for researchers include: plan the qualitative research, design and implement studies not trials, use qualitative research at the feasibility and pilot stage of trials, be explicit in publications about the impact of the qualitative research on the trial and implications for the trial endeavour, undertake in-depth qualitative research, allow qualitative research to take a challenging role and develop a learning environment around the use of qualitative research and trials. FUNDING: This project was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) as part of the MRC-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

Describing qualitative research undertaken with randomised controlled trials in grant proposals: a documentary analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition of the value of conducting qualitative research with trials in health research. It is timely to reflect on how this qualitative research is presented in grant proposals to identify lessons for researchers and research commissioners. As part of a larger study focusing on how to maximise the value of undertaking qualitative research with trials, we undertook a documentary analysis of proposals of funded studies. METHODS: Using the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) database we identified trials funded in the United Kingdom, ongoing between 2001 and 2010, and reporting the use of qualitative research. We requested copies of proposals from lead researchers. We extracted data from the proposals using closed and open questions, analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis respectively. RESULTS: 2% (89/3812) of trials in the mRCT database described the use of qualitative research undertaken with the trial. From these 89 trials, we received copies of 36 full proposals, of which 32 met our inclusion criteria. 25% used less than a single paragraph to describe the qualitative research. The aims of the qualitative research described in these proposals focused mainly on the intervention or trial conduct. Just over half (56%) of the proposals included an explicit rationale for conducting the qualitative research with the trial, the most frequent being to optimise implementation into clinical practice or to interpret trial findings. Key information about methods, expertise and resources was missing in a large minority of proposals, in particular sample size, type of analysis, and non-personnel resources. 28% specifically stated that qualitative researchers would conduct the qualitative research. CONCLUSIONS: Our review of proposals of successfully funded studies identified good practice but also identified limited space given to describing the qualitative research, with an associated lack of attention to the rationale for doing the qualitative research and important methodological details. Acknowledging the space restrictions faced by researchers writing grant proposals, we suggest a starting point for providing practical guidance to help researchers write proposals and research commissioners assess proposals of qualitative research with trials.