Monitoring adverse social and medical events in public health trials: assessing predictors and interpretation against a proposed model of adverse event reporting

Background Although adverse event (AE) monitoring in trials focusses on medical events, social outcomes may be important in public or social care trials. We describe our approach to reporting and categorising medical and other AE reports, using a case study trial. We explore predictors of medical and social AEs, and develop a model for conceptualising safety monitoring. Methods The Building Blocks randomised controlled trial of specialist home visiting recruited 1618 first-time mothers aged 19 years or under at 18 English sites. Event reports collected during follow-up were independently reviewed and categorised as either Medical (standard Good Clinical Practice definition), or Social (trial-specific definition). A retrospectively developed system was created to classify AEs. Univariate analyses explored the association between baseline participant and study characteristics and the subsequent reporting of events. Factors significantly associated at this stage were progressed to binary logistic regressions to assess independent predictors. Results A classification system was derived for reported AEs that distinguished between Medical or Social AEs. One thousand, three hundred and fifteen event reports were obtained for mothers or their babies (1033 Medical, 257 Social). Allocation to the trial intervention arm was associated with increased likelihood of Medical rather than Social AE reporting. Poorer baseline psycho-social status predicted both Medical and Social events, and poorer psycho-social status better predicted Social rather than Medical events. Baseline predictors of Social AEs included being younger at recruitment (OR = 0.78 (CI = 0.67 to 0.90), p = 0.001), receiving benefits (OR = 1.60 (CI = 1.09 to 2.35), p = 0.016), and having a higher antisocial behaviour score (OR = 1.22 (CI = 1.09 to 1.36), p < 0.001). Baseline predictors of Medical AEs included having a limiting long-term illness (OR = 1.37 (CI = 1.01 to 1.88), p = 0.046), poorer mental health (OR = 1.03 (CI = 1.01 to 1.05), p = 0.004), and being in the intervention arm of the trial (OR = 1.34 (CI = 1.07 to 1.70), p = 0.012). Conclusions Continuity between baseline and subsequent adverse experiences was expected despite potentially beneficial intervention impact. We hypothesise that excess events reported for intervention-arm participants is likely attributable to surveillance bias. We interpreted our findings against a new model that explicates processes that may drive event occurrence, presentation and reporting. Focussing only upon Medical events may miss the well-being and social circumstances that are important for interpreting intervention safety and participant management

Implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership programme in England: experiences of key health professionals explored through trial parallel process evaluation

Background The Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) programme was introduced to support young first-time mothers. A randomised trial found FNP added little short-term benefit compared to usual care. The study included a comprehensive parallel process evaluation, including focus groups, conducted to aid understanding of the introduction of the programme into a new service and social context. The aim of the focus groups was to investigate views of key health professionals towards the integration and delivery of FNP programme in England. Methods Focus groups were conducted separately with Family Nurses, Health Visitors and Midwives at trial sites during 2011–2012. Transcripts from audio-recordings were analysed thematically. Results A total of 122 professionals participated in one of 19 focus groups. Family Nurses were confident in the effectiveness of FNP, although they experienced practical difficulties meeting programme fidelity targets and considered that programme goals did not sufficiently reflect client or community priorities. Health Visitors and Midwives regarded FNP as well-resourced and beneficial to clients, describing their own services as undervalued and struggling. They wished to work closely with Family Nurses, but felt excluded from doing so by practical barriers and programme protection. Conclusion FNP was described as well-resourced and delivered by highly motivated and well supported Family Nurses. FNP eligibility, content and outcomes conflicted with individual client and community priorities. These factors may have restricted the potential effectiveness of a programme developed and previously tested in a different social milieu. Building Blocks ISRCTN23019866 Registered 20/04/2009

Impact of a deferred recruitment model in a randomised controlled trial in primary care (CREAM study)

Background Recruitment of participants is particularly challenging in primary care, with less than a third of randomised controlled trials (RCT) achieving their target within the original time frame. Participant identification, consent, randomisation and data collection can all be time-consuming. Trials recruiting an incident, as opposed to a prevalent, population may be particularly affected. This paper describes the impact of a deferred recruitment model in a RCT of antibiotics for children with infected eczema in primary care, which required the recruitment of cases presenting acutely. Methods Eligible children were identified by participating general practitioners (GPs) and referred to a study research nurse, who then visited them at home. This allowed the consent and recruitment processes to take place outside the general practice setting. Information was recorded about patients who were referred and recruited, or if not, the reasons for non-recruitment. Data on recruitment challenges were collected through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with a sample of participating GPs. Data were thematically analysed to identify key themes. Results Of the children referred to the study 34% (58/171) were not recruited – 48% (28/58) because of difficulties arranging a baseline visit within the defined time frame, 31% (18/58) did not meet the study inclusion criteria at the time of nurse assessment, and 21% (12/58) declined participation. GPs had positive views about the recruitment process, reporting that parents valued and benefitted from additional contact with a nurse. GPs felt that the deferred recruitment model did not negatively impact on the study. Conclusions GPs and parents recognised the benefits of deferred recruitment, but these did not translate into enhanced recruitment of participants. The model resulted in the loss of a third of children who were identified by the GP as eligible, but not subsequently recruited to the study. If the potential for improving outcomes in primary care through complex studies is to be realised, new approaches to recruitment into primary care trials need to be developed and evaluated

Guided, internet based, cognitive behavioural therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder: pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (RAPID)

Objective To determine if guided internet based cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus (CBT-TF) is non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to one traumatic event. Design Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (RAPID). Setting Primary and secondary mental health settings across the UK’s NHS. Participants 196 adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate PTSD were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to one of two interventions, with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% retention at 52 weeks. 19 participants and 10 therapists were purposively sampled and interviewed for evaluation of the process. Interventions Up to 12 face-to-face, manual based, individual CBT-TF sessions, each lasting 60-90 minutes; or guided internet based CBT-TF with an eight step online programme, with up to three hours of contact with a therapist and four brief telephone calls or email contacts between sessions. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) at 16 weeks after randomisation (diagnosis of PTSD based on the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, DSM-5). Secondary outcomes included severity of PTSD symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression and anxiety, use of alcohol, and perceived social support at 16 and 52 weeks after randomisation. Results Non-inferiority was found at the primary endpoint of 16 weeks on the CAPS-5 (mean difference 1.01, one sided 95% confidence interval −∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority P=0.012). Improvements in CAPS-5 score of more than 60% in the two groups were maintained at 52 weeks, but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of face-to-face CBT-TF at this time point (3.20, −∞ to 6.00, P=0.15). Guided internet based CBT-TF was significantly (P<0.001) cheaper than face-to-face CBT-TF and seemed to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. The main themes of the qualitative analysis were facilitators and barriers to engagement with guided internet based CBT-TF, treatment outcomes, and considerations for its future implementation. Conclusions Guided internet based CBT-TF for mild to moderate PTSD to one traumatic event was non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF and should be considered a first line treatment for people with this condition

Protocol for a double-blind placebo controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in reducing antibiotics for infection in care home residents - the Probiotics to Reduce Infections iN CarE home reSidentS (PRINCESS) Trial

INTRODUCTION:Care home residents are at increased risk of infections and antibiotic prescription. Reduced antibiotic use from fewer infections would improve quality of life. The Probiotics to Reduce Infections iN CarE home residents (PRINCESS) trial aims to determine the efficacy and investigate mechanisms of daily probiotics on antibiotic use and incidence of infections in care home residents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:PRINCESS is a double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial that will assess the effect of a daily oral probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus, GG (LGG) and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis, BB-12 (BB-12) on cumulative antibiotic administration days (CAADs) (primary outcome) for infection in up to 330 care home residents aged and#8805;65 years over up to 12and#8201;months. Secondary outcomes include: Infection: Total number of days of antibiotic administration for each infection type (respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, gastrointestinal infection, unexplained fever and other); number, site, duration of infection; estimation of incidence and duration of diarrhoea and antibiotic-associated diarrhoea; Stool microbiology: Clostridium difficile infection; Gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae and vancomycin-resistant enterococci; LGG and BB-12. Oral microbiology: Candida spp. Health and well-being: Self and/or proxy health-related quality of life EQ5D (5and#8201;L); self-and/or proxy-reported ICEpop CAPability measure for older people. Hospitalisations: number and duration of all-cause hospital stays. Mortality: deaths. Mechanistic immunology outcomes: influenza vaccine efficacy (haemagglutination inhibition assay and antibody titres); full blood count and immune cell phenotypes, plasma cytokines and chemokines; cytokine and chemokine response in whole blood stimulated ex vivo by toll-like receptor 2 and 4 agonists; monocyte and neutrophil phagocytosis of Escherichia coli; serum vitamin D. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval is from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 3. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences; results will be of interest to patient and policy stakeholders