"We are not invited": Australian focus group results on how to improve ethnic diversity in trials.

OBJECTIVE: Lack of ethnic diversity in trials may contribute to health disparities and to inequity in health outcomes. The primary objective was to investigate the experiences and perspectives of ethnically diverse populations about how to improve ethnic diversity in trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative data were collected via 16 focus groups with participants from 21 ethnically diverse communities in Australia. Data collection took place between August and September 2022 in community-based settings in six capital cities: Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, and Darwin and one rural town: Bordertown (South Australia). RESULTS: One hundred and fifty eight purposively sampled adults (aged 18-85, 49% women), participated in groups speaking Tamil, Greek, Punjabi, Italian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Karin, Vietnamese, Nepalese, and Arabic; or English-language groups (comprising Fijian, Filipino, African, and 2 multicultural groups). Only 10 participants had previously taken part in medical research including three in trials. There was support for medical research, including trials, however, most participants had never been invited to participate. To increase ethnic diversity in trial populations, participants recommended recruitment via partnering with communities, translating trial materials and making them culturally accessible using audiovisual ways, promoting retention by minimizing participant burden, establishing trust and rapport between participants and researchers, and sharing individual results. Participants were reluctant to join studies on taboo topics in their communities (e.g., sexual health) or in which physical specimens (e.g., blood) were needed. Participants said these barriers could be mitigated by communicating about the topic in more culturally cognizant and safe ways, explaining how data would be securely stored, and reinforcing the benefit of medical research to humanity. CONCLUSION: Participants recognized the principal benefits of trials and other medical research, were prepared to take part, and offered suggestions on recruitment, consent, data collection mechanisms, and retention to enable this to occur. Researchers should consider these community insights when designing and conducting trials; and government, regulators, funders, and publishers should allow for greater innovation and flexibility in their processes to enable ethnic diversity in trials to improve.

Using the GRADE evidence to decision framework to reach recommendations together with ethnic minority community organizations: the example of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: To make recommendations regarding factors that affect COVID-19 vaccine uptake by ethnic minority individuals in the United Kingdom, together with strategies that could be used to increase uptake. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The results of two rapid systematic reviews-one identifying factors that affect respiratory vaccine uptake in ethnic minority adults and the other identifying experimental evaluations of strategies to increase vaccine uptake in ethnic minority adults-were put into Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision frameworks to support discussion with a panel of ethnic minority community organizations, community-focused small companies, and academics of the relevance of the review findings to the UK COVID context. Aided by the frameworks, the panel made recommendations for factors that need to be addressed to increase vaccine uptake, and for which strategies might be used to increase uptake. RESULTS: Our two reviews contained 31 relevant research studies published in English between 2016 and 2021, all of which were from the United Kingdom (8/31), the United States (20), and Australia (3). We identified six factors-two linked to trust, three linked to information, and one on accessibility-that affected uptake. Strategies that had been evaluated fell into three categories: using trusted messengers, tailoring the message, and increasing convenience. These were put into GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks and discussed over a series of meetings with individuals from nine ethnic minority community organizations and two community-focused small companies and academics. Community partners provided insight into why ethnic minority individuals in the United Kingdom had lower vaccine uptake, particularly with regard to the impact of nonhealth-related UK Government policy on individuals' heath decision-making. Recommendations included recognizing that trust will be low among some ethnic groups, thinking more broadly as to who messengers should be in a low-trust environment, ensuring that information is tailored to the information needs of specific ethnic groups and working to increase convenience. Our results are at https://www.collaborationforchange.co.uk. CONCLUSION: GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks could be used more widely to structure discussions of research evidence between researchers, community organizations, and other nonresearch partners.

Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme.

Background: Randomised controlled trials ('trials') are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted. Objectives: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial. Design: A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Setting: Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible. Participants: Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom. Interventions: Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial. Main outcome measures: Number of host trials funded. Results: Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials. Limitations: The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed (n = 2) or prematurely terminated (n = 3). Conclusions: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial. Future work: Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice. Study registration: All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

A Study Within A Trial is a research study nested inside a larger 'host trial', promoting the use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to do Study Within A Trial routine practice in clinical trial units by funding and supporting at least 25 Studies Within A Trial. The best way to test health and social care treatments is to do a randomised controlled trial ('trial'), where some patients get the treatment being tested and some do not. The results of different groups are compared to see if the treatment improves care. Recruiting patients and keeping them involved in trials is often very difficult. Research teams often do not know how best to recruit and keep patients engaged as the methods have not been tested to see if they work. The best way to test these methods is by doing a Study Within A Trial. We test a programme of Studies Within A Trial for recruiting and keeping patients engaged in trials. Trial teams were able to apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from Promoting the use of Study Within A Trial team to do Studies Within A Trial. We used our experience of doing Studies Within A Trial to outline lessons learnt for doing Studies Within A Trial. We funded 42 Studies Within A Trial and gave teams necessary advice to do them. We significantly increased the knowledge for both recruitment and retention strategies, and found 'pre-notifying' before sending questionnaires, sending pens and personalised text messages were all effective for increasing responses by participants. We tested Studies Within A Trial across several different trials at the same time to find out more quickly whether their methods worked. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others doing Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient partners; picking the right strategy to test; getting ethical approvals; how to do and report Studies Within A Trial. Promoting the use of studies within a trial was successful and supported more Studies Within A Trial than planned. We hope our experience will support those doing Studies Within A Trial in the future.

Improving the inclusion of an under-served group in trials: development and implementation of the INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework.

BACKGROUND: For the potential benefits of trials to reach all that they should, trials must be designed to ensure that those taking part reflect the population who will receive the intervention. However, adults with impaired capacity to consent are frequently excluded from trials - partly because researchers are unfamiliar with the legal and ethical frameworks and lack the necessary methodological expertise. Researchers identified a need for guidance on designing more inclusive trials. Building on the NIHR INCLUDE initiative, we developed the INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework to help researchers design inclusive trials. METHODS: The framework was developed over five phases: (1) establishing the scope and content of the framework and adapting the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework for this population; (2) scoping the relevance of the framework to different populations and piloting in a range of trials; (3) consulting people living with impairing conditions and carers to explore their views about the framework and identify missing content areas; (4) refining the framework; and (5) the development of an implementation toolkit of resources to support researchers using the framework. RESULTS: The framework has two parts: a set of four key questions to help researchers identify who should be included in their trial, and a series of worksheets covering intervention design, recruitment and consent processes, data collection and analysis, and public involvement and dissemination. It is supported by a summary of the ethical and legal frameworks and a website of resources on capacity and consent. Implementation resources include infographics and animations, a library of completed frameworks, and facilitated workshops for researchers. The framework and toolkit were launched at a webinar (November 2022), with polling demonstrating an increase in attendees' awareness about research involving adults lacking capacity. A post-webinar survey found that stakeholders viewed the framework and toolkit as valuable tools to facilitate greater inclusion of this under-served population in trials. The framework is available online: https://www.capacityconsentresearch.com/include-impaired-capacity-to-consent-framework.html . CONCLUSIONS: The INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework and implementation toolkit can support researchers to design more inclusive trials and other types of research studies. Further engagement, including with funders who are key to ensuring uptake, and evaluation is needed.

Tailoring CONSORT-SPI to improve the reporting of smoking cessation intervention trials: An expert consensus study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inadequate reporting of smoking cessation intervention trials is common and leads to significant challenges for researchers. The aim of this study was to tailor CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials)-SPI (Social and Psychological Interventions) guidelines to improve reporting of trials of behavioural interventions to promote smoking cessation. METHOD: Informed by missing data from the IC-SMOKE (Intervention and Comparison group support provided in SMOKing cEssation) systematic review project, this study used a multi-stage Delphi process to examine which items could be added or modified to improve the reporting of smoking cessation trials. The first stage involved an on-line survey of 17 international experts in smoking cessation and trial methodology voting on the importance of items for inclusion in the updated guidelines. This was followed by a face-to-face expert consensus meeting attended by 15 of these experts, where the final inclusion and exclusion of new items and modifications were agreed upon. A nine-point Likert scale was used to establish consensus, with suggested modifications requiring agreement of 75% or more. Disagreements in the first stage were presented again at the second stage for discussion and a second round of voting. Only items which reached the threshold for agreement were included. RESULTS: The experts agreed on the inclusion of 10 new items and the specification of 12 existing items. This included modifications that could apply to trials more widely (e.g. the rationale for the comparator), but also modifications that were very specific to smoking cessation trials (e.g. the reporting of smoking cessation outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: A Delphi study has developed a modified CONSORT-SPI guideline (CONSORT-SPI-SMOKE) to improve the reporting of trials of behavioural interventions to promote smoking cessation.

Can we achieve better trial recruitment by presenting patient information through multimedia? Meta-analysis of 'studies within a trial' (SWATs).

BACKGROUND: People need high-quality information to make decisions about research participation. Providing information in written format alone is conventional but may not be the most effective and acceptable approach. We developed a structure for the presentation of information using multimedia which included generic and trial-specific content. Our aim was to embed 'Studies Within A Trial' (SWATs) across multiple ongoing trials to test whether multimedia presentation of patient information led to better rates of recruitment. METHODS: Five trials included a SWAT and randomised their participants to receive a multimedia presentation alongside standard information, or standard written information alone. We collected data on trial recruitment, acceptance and retention and analysed the pooled results using random effects meta-analysis, with the primary outcome defined as the proportion of participants randomised following an invitation to take part. RESULTS: Five SWATs provided data on the primary outcome of proportion of participants randomised. Multimedia alongside written information results in little or no difference in recruitment rates (pooled odds ratio = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.17, p-value = 0.671, I2 = 0%). There was no effect on any other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Multimedia alongside written information did not improve trial recruitment rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71952900, ISRCTN 06710391, ISRCTN 17160087, ISRCTN05926847, ISRCTN62869767.

Cost consequence analysis of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) for urinary incontinence in care home residents alongside a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) is prevalent in more than half of residents of nursing and residential care homes and can have a detrimental impact on dignity and quality of life. Care homes predominantly use absorbent pads to contain UI rather than actively treat the condition. Transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) is a non-invasive, safe, low-cost intervention with demonstrated effectiveness for reducing UI in adults. We examined the costs and consequences of delivering TTNS to care home residents in comparison to sham (inactive) electrical stimulation. METHODS: A cost consequence analysis approach was used to assemble and present the resource use and outcome data for the ELECTRIC trial which randomised 406 residents with UI from 37 care homes in the United Kingdom to receive 12 sessions of 30 min of either TTNS or sham (inactive) TTNS. TTNS was administered by care home staff over 6 weeks. Health state utility was measured using DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-PROXY-U at baseline, 6 weeks and 18 weeks follow-up. Staff completed a resource use questionnaire at baseline, 6 weeks and 18 weeks follow-up, which also assessed use of absorbent pads. RESULTS: HRQoL did not change significantly in either randomised group. Delivery of TTNS was estimated to cost £81.20 per participant, plus training and support costs of £121.03 per staff member. 85% of participants needed toilet assistance as routine, on average requiring one or two staff members to be involved 4 or 5 times in each 24 h. Daily use of mobility aids and other assistive devices to use the toilet were reported. The value of staff time to assist residents to use the toilet (assuming an average of 5 min per resident per visit) was estimated as £19.17 (SD 13.22) for TTNS and £17.30 (SD 13.33) for sham (per resident in a 24-hour period). CONCLUSIONS: Use of TTNS to treat UI in care home residents did not lead to changes in resource use, particularly any reduction in the use of absorbent pads and no cost benefits for TTNS were shown. Managing continence in care homes is labour intensive, requiring both high levels of staff time and use of equipment aids. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN98415244, registered 25/04/2018. NCT03248362 (Clinical trial.gov number), registered 14/08//2017.

Exploring the perspectives of selectors and collecters of trial outcome data: an international qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Selecting and collecting data to support appropriate primary and secondary outcomes is a critical step in designing trials that can change clinical practice. In this study, we aimed to investigate who contributes to the process of selecting and collecting trial outcomes, and how these people are involved. This work serves two main purposes: (1) it provides the trials community with evidence to demonstrate how outcomes are currently selected and collected, and (2) it allows people involved in trial design and conduct to pick apart these processes to consider how efficiencies and improvements can be made. METHODS: One-with-one semi-structured interviews, supported by a topic guide to ensure coverage of key content. The Framework approach was used for thematic analysis of data, and themes were linked through constant comparison of data both within and across participant groups. Interviews took place between July 2020 and January 2021. Participants were twenty-nine international trialists from various contributor groups, working primarily on designing and/or delivering phase III pragmatic effectiveness trials. Their experience spanned various funders, trial settings, clinical specialties, intervention types, and participant populations. RESULTS: We identified three descriptive themes encompassing the process of primary and secondary outcome selection, collection, and the publication of outcome data. Within these themes, participants raised issues around the following: 1) Outcome selection: clarity of the research question; confidence in selecting trial outcomes and how confidence decreases with increased experience; interplay between different interested parties; how patients and the public are involved in outcome selection; perceived impact of poor outcome selection including poor recruitment and/or retention; and use of core outcome sets. 2) Outcome collection: disconnect between decisions made by outcome selectors and the practical work done by outcome collectors; potential impact of outcome measures on trial participants; potential impact on trial staff workload; and use of routinely collected data. 3) Publication of outcome data: difficulties in finding time to write and revise manuscripts for publication due to time and funding constraints. Participants overwhelmingly focused on the process of outcome selection, a topic they talked about unprompted. When prompted, participants do discuss outcome collection, but poor communication between selectors and collectors at the trial design stage means that outcome selection is rarely linked with the data collection workload it generates. DISCUSSION: People involved in the design and conduct of trials fail to connect decisions around outcome selection with data collection workload. Publication of outcome data and effective dissemination of trial results are hindered due to the project-based culture of some academic clinical trial research.

A protocol for a systematic review of randomised evaluations of strategies to improve recruitment of rural participants to randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: People living rurally face health inequities fuelled by social exclusion, access to and awareness of health services, and poor transport links. In order to improve the acceptability, accessibility and applicability of health and care interventions, it is important that clinical trial participant populations include people living rurally. Identifying strategies that improve recruitment of rural participants to trials will support trialists, reduce research waste and contribute to alleviating health inequalities experienced by rural patients. The objective of the review is to quantify the effects of randomised evaluations of strategies to recruit rural participants to randomised controlled trials. METHODS: The following databases will be searched for relevant studies: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science All, EBSCO CINAHL, Proquest, ERIC, IngentaConnect, Web of Science SSCI and AHCI, and Scopus. Any randomised evaluation of a recruitment intervention aiming to improve recruitment of rural participants to a randomised trial will be included. We will not apply any restriction on publication date, language or journal. The primary, and only, outcome of our review will be the proportion of participants recruited to a randomised controlled trial. Two reviewers will independently screen abstracts and titles for eligible studies, and then full texts of relevant records will be reviewed by the same two reviewers. Where disagreements cannot be resolved through discussion, a third reviewer will adjudicate. RESULTS: We will assess the methodological quality of individual studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the GRADE approach will be applied to determine the certainty of the evidence within each comparison. CONCLUSION: This systematic review will quantify the effects of randomised evaluations of strategies to recruit rural participants to trials. Our findings will contribute to the evidence base to support trial teams to recruit a participant population that represents society as a whole, informing future research and playing a part to alleviate health inequalities between rural and urban populations.

Evidencing the impacts of health research: Insights from trials reported in the 2018 Australian Engagement and Impact Assessment.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: While definitions of impact may vary, they often refer to the wider benefits of research evidenced beyond academia. We evaluated case studies featuring randomised trials from the 2018 Engagement and Impact Assessment to better understand how the impacts of health research are evidenced and assessed within Australia. METHODS: We collated and evaluated 'high' scoring case studies submitted by higher education institutions with a focus on randomised trials across all areas of health research. A qualitative coding system was used for manual content analysis to assess the key characteristics of trials reported, subsequent impacts and the methods used to evidence impacts. RESULTS: A total of 14 case studies were identified citing 35 clinical trials. The majority of interventions were behavioural with a focus on mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders. Most trials were phase III, focused on the treatment of the indication and were funded by industry. Contribution to clinical guidelines was the highest cited research impact. While there was evidence of researchers seeking to maximise trial impact, case studies lacked details on the role of trial participants and other beneficiaries in generating impact. CONCLUSIONS: The impacts of health research can be improved through a better understanding of the priorities and agendas of funders, providing evidence of tangible impact rather than information that is contextual or predictive, and through the early development of impact strategies involving both researchers and beneficiaries. SO WHAT?: Large-scale impact exercises intended for a broad range of disciplines may not be reflective of the depth and scope of health sciences research including trials.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in outcome selection in breast cancer and nephrology trials.

We recently reported that according to patients and healthcare professionals in breast cancer and nephrology trials, teams conducting the trials got their choice of primary outcome wrong (72% of the time) more often than they got it right (28% of the time). A Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representative, co-author of this letter, asked (on Twitter) whether PPI contributors had been involved in the design of the original trials and by extension the outcome selection. The purpose of this study was to answer this question.

Response to a novel, weight self-awareness plan used in a multi-component lifestyle intervention programme to reduce breast cancer risk factors in older women-Secondary analysis from the ActWELL trial.

BACKGROUND: The ActWELL randomised controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of a weight management programme delivered by volunteer lifestyle coaches (LCs) in women attending breast clinics. The intervention focused on caloric intake and physical activity, utilising behavioural change techniques including a weight awareness plan (WAP). The current work is a secondary analysis of the ActWELL data and aims to examine the response to the weight self-awareness plan (used as part of the intervention programme). METHODS: The LCs invited participants (n = 279) to undertake an implementation intention discussion to formulate a self-weighing (SW) plan. Bodyweight scales were offered, and recording books provided. The physical activity component of the intervention focused on a walking plan assessed by accelerometers. The LCs contacted participants by telephone monthly and provided personalised feedback. Mann-Whitney tests and chi-squared analysis were used to examine the effect of SW on weight change. A qualitative evaluation utilising semi-structured interviews was also undertaken. RESULTS: Most participants (96.4%) agreed to set a weekly SW goal and 76 (27%) requested scales. At 12 months, 226 (81%) returned for follow up. The median (interquartile range) weight change for those who self- reported at least one weight (n = 211) was -2.3 kg (-5.0 to 0.0) compared to -1.2 kg (-5.0 to 0.03) in those who did not (n = 14). Participants who reported weights on more than eight occasions (39%) were significantly more likely (p = 0.012) to achieve 5% weight loss compared to those who weighed less often. Low numbers of accelerometers were returned that did not allow for significance testing. Qualitative data (n = 24) indicated that many participants found the WAP helpful and motivating. CONCLUSIONS: Greater adherence to the WAP initiated by volunteer coaches is associated with achieving 5% weight loss.

Reducing patient delay in acute coronary syndrome: Randomized controlled trial testing effect of behaviour change intervention on intentions to seek help.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a behaviour change intervention to reduce patient delay with symptoms of acute coronary syndrome. DESIGN: A 3-arm web-based, parallel randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The intervention comprised 12 behaviour change techniques (BCTs) embedded in a text-only or text+visual narrative (the techniques were systematically identified through systematic review and a consensus exercise). Between February and November 2017, n = 145 people who had recently experienced acute coronary syndrome were randomly allocated to intervention ('text+visual' or 'text-only') or control. Intentions to phone an ambulance immediately for acute coronary syndrome symptoms were assessed before and after the intervention using symptom scenarios, and the change in intention was compared across the three groups. RESULTS: Significant increases in intention to phone an ambulance immediately for ACS symptoms were seen following the 'text+visual' intervention but not following 'text-only' or control. However, the study was underpowered to detect any significant changes in intention between the 3 groups. There were no unintended effects on intentions for non-urgent symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: A 'text+visual' BCT-based intervention may significantly increase intention to phone an ambulance with symptoms of ACS. Further testing of the effect of the intervention on actual behaviour is required.

Addressing health inequalities in diabetes through research: Recommendations from Diabetes UK's 2022 health inequalities in diabetes workshop.

AIMS: To develop a position statement which identifies research priorities to address health inequalities in diabetes and provides recommendations to researchers and research funders on how best to conduct research in these areas. METHODS: A two-day research workshop was conducted bringing together research experts in diabetes, research experts in health inequalities, healthcare professionals and people living with diabetes. RESULTS: The following key areas were identified as needing increased focus: How can we improve patient and public involvement and engagement to make diabetes research more inclusive of and relevant to diverse communities? How can we improve research design so that the people who could benefit most are represented? How can we use theories from implementation science to facilitate the uptake of research findings into routine practice to reach the populations with highest need? How can we collate and evaluate local innovation projects and disseminate best practice around tackling health inequalities in diabetes? How can we best collect and use data to address health inequalities in diabetes, including the harnessing of real-world and routinely collected data? How could research funders allocate funds to best address health inequalities in diabetes? How do we ensure the research community is representative of the general population? CONCLUSIONS: This position statement outlines recommendations to address the urgent need to tackle health inequalities in diabetes through research and calls on the diabetes research community to act upon these recommendations to ensure future research works to eliminate unfair and avoidable disparities in health.

A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials.

BACKGROUND: Data collection is a substantial part of trial workload for participants and staff alike. How these hours of work are spent is important because stakeholders are more interested in some outcomes than others. The ORINOCO study compared the time spent collecting primary outcome data to the time spent collecting secondary outcome data in a cohort of trials. METHODS: We searched PubMed for phase III trials indexed between 2015 and 2019. From these, we randomly selected 120 trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention plus an additional random selection of 20 trials evaluating a public health intervention. We also added eligible trials from a cohort of 189 trials in rheumatology that had used the same core outcome set. We then obtained the time taken to collect primary and secondary outcomes in each trial. We used a hierarchy of methods that included data in trial reports, contacting the trial team and approaching individuals with experience of using the identified outcome measures. We calculated the primary to secondary data collection time ratio and notional data collection cost for each included trial. RESULTS: We included 161 trials (120 phase III; 21 core outcome set; 20 public health), which together collected 230 primary and 688 secondary outcomes. Full primary and secondary timing data were obtained for 134 trials (100 phase III; 17 core outcome set; 17 public health). The median time spent on primaries was 56.1 h (range: 0.0-10,746.7, IQR: 226.89) and the median time spent on secondaries was 190.7 hours (range: 0.0-1,356,832.9, IQR: 617.6). The median primary to secondary data collection time ratio was 1.0:3.0 (i.e. for every minute spent on primary outcomes, 3.0 were spent on secondaries). The ratio varied by trial type: phase III trials were 1.0:3.1, core outcome set 1.0:3.4 and public health trials 1.0:2.2. The median notional overall data collection cost was £8015.73 (range: £52.90-£31,899,140.70, IQR: £20,096.64). CONCLUSIONS: Depending on trial type, between two and three times as much time is spent collecting secondary outcome data than collecting primary outcome data. Trial teams should explicitly consider how long it will take to collect the data for an outcome and decide whether that time is worth it given importance of the outcome to the trial.

Developing principles for sharing information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms with patients: report of a modified Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: The way information about potential harms of trial intervention is shared within participant information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and can cause subjective 'nocebo' harms. This study aimed to develop principles to improve the composition of information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms within PILs so that variability and avoidable harms are reduced. METHODS: We conducted a two-round modified online Delphi survey, followed by a consensus meeting. For the first round of the survey, 27 statements were developed based on previous research and relevant guidance from the UK, the USA and the World Health Organization. Participants included members from each of the following stakeholder groups: patient and public representatives, research ethics committee members, industry representatives, medico-legal experts, psychologists and trial managers. Each participant was asked to rate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. In the second round, participants were invited to reappraise their ratings after reviewing the results of the first round. Finally, two members from each stakeholder group participated in a meeting to confirm those statements for which there was agreement. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty participants completed round 1, and 201 participants completed round 2. In round 1, consensus was reached for 16 statements. In round 2, consensus was reached for an additional three statements. The consensus meeting confirmed the survey results and consolidated the statements. This process resulted in seven principles: (1) all potential harms of a given intervention should be listed, (2) all potential harms should be separated into serious and less serious, (3) it must be made explicit that not all potential harms are known, (4) all potential benefits should be listed, (5) all potential benefits and harms need to be compared with what would happen if the participant did not take part in the trial, (6) suitable visual representations should be added where appropriate and (7) information regarding potential benefits and harms should not be presented apart by one or more pages. CONCLUSIONS: Our modified Delphi process successfully generated seven principles that can and should be used to guide how information is conveyed to patients in information leaflets regarding potential trial benefits and harms.

Evaluating a tool to improve engagement and recruitment of under-served groups in trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial awareness that certain groups (e.g. ethnic minorities) are under-represented and under-served in trials, limited progress has been made in addressing this. As well as a public service and ethical duty to recruit and engage under-served groups in relevant research, importantly, there are clear scientific benefits, for example, increased generalisability. The key aims of the current study were to explore the following: general barriers and facilitators to enhancing the recruitment of under-served groups into trials, the usability and value of a specific tool (INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework) to support engagement and recruitment of under-served groups, and ways of engaging diverse patient, public and community involvement and engagement (PCIE) groups. METHODS: Firstly, researchers completed a brief survey in relation to a specific trial in which they were involved (N = 182, 38% response rate). A second stage involved sampling survey respondents and asking them to complete the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework and then a remote semi-structured interview (N = 15). Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Finally, we conducted a consultation process with PCIE contributors primarily to develop guidelines for discussing the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework with PCIE representatives. RESULTS: Researchers recognised the importance of increasing engagement and recruitment of under-served groups within trials, but varied in their knowledge, ability and commitment to implementation in practice. The INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework was described by some as raising their awareness of how inclusion could be improved. Respondents highlighted a need for shared resources and wider structural change to facilitate such engagement. PCIE was identified, in the survey and interviews, as the most common method of trying to improve recruitment of under-served groups. However, researchers also commonly highlighted that PCIE groups were sometimes not very diverse. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for researchers to consider the funding and time resources required for diverse and inclusive recruitment to trials and for funders to enable this. The INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework can help to raise awareness of inclusion challenges. This study indicates that it is important to take proactive steps to involve relevant under-served groups in PCIE and practical suggestions are made to facilitate this.

The Achieving Self-directed Integrated Cancer Aftercare Intervention for Detection of Recurrent and Second Primary Melanoma in Survivors of Melanoma: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma is common with increasing incidence. Guidelines recommend monthly total skin self-examinations (TSSEs) by survivors to detect recurrent and new primary melanomas. TSSE is underperformed despite evidence of benefit. OBJECTIVE: This study compares the effect on psychological well-being and TSSE practice of a self-directed digital intervention with treatment as usual in patients treated for a first stage 0 to IIC primary cutaneous melanoma within the preceding 60 months. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 2 UK National Health Service hospitals (Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Grampian, and Addenbrooke's, Cambridge). Adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with a first 0 to IIC primary cutaneous melanoma were randomized to receive Achieving Self-directed Integrated Cancer Aftercare (ASICA), a tablet-based intervention prompting and supporting TSSE in survivors of melanoma, or to usual care. The hypothesis was that ASICA would increase TSSE practice in users affected by melanoma and compared with controls without affecting psychological well-being. The main primary outcomes were melanoma worry (Melanoma Worry Scale), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) as well as secondary outcomes collected using postal questionnaires 3, 6, and 12 months following randomization. RESULTS: A total of 240 recruits were randomized (1:1) into the ASICA (n=121, 50.4%) or control (n=119, 49.6%) groups. There were no significant differences between groups for melanoma worry at 12 months (mean difference: 0.12, 95% CI -0.6 to 0.84; P=.74), 3 months (0.23, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.78; P=.40), or 6 months (-0.1, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.51; P=.76). The ASICA group had lower anxiety scores at 12 months (-0.54, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.230; P=.17), 3 months (-0.13, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.54; P=.71), and significantly at 6 months (-1.00, 95% CI -1.74 to -0.26; P=.009). Depression scores were similar, being lower at 12 months (-0.44, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.23; P=.20) and 3 months (-0.24, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.35; P=.42) but only significantly lower at 6 months (-0.77, 95% CI -1.41 to -0.12; P=.02). The ASICA group had significantly higher quality of life scores at 12 months (0.044, 95% CI 0.003-0.085; P=.04) and 6 months (0.070, 95% CI 0.032-0.107; P<.001) and nonsignificantly at 3 months (0.024, 95% CI -0.006 to 0.054; P=.11). ASICA users reported significantly more regular (>5) TSSEs during the study year and significantly higher levels of self-efficacy in conducting TSSE. They also reported significantly higher levels of planning and intention to perform TSSE in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Using ASICA for 12 months does not increase melanoma worry, can reduce anxiety and depression, and may improve quality of life. ASICA has the potential to improve the well-being and vigilance of survivors of melanoma and enable the benefits of regular TSSE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03328247; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03328247. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-019-3453-x.