A study protocol of qualitative data sharing practices in clinical trials in the UK and Ireland: towards the production of good practice guidance [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

BACKGROUND: Data sharing enables researchers to conduct novel research with previously collected data sets, thus maximising scientific findings and cost effectiveness, and reducing research waste. The value of sharing anonymised data from clinical trials is well recognised with a moderated access approach recommended. While substantial challenges to data sharing remain, there are additional challenges for qualitative data. Qualitative data including videos, interviews, and observations are often more readily identifiable than quantitative data. Existing guidance from UK Economic and Social Research Council applies to sharing qualitative data but does not address the additional challenges related to sharing qualitative data collected within trials, including the need to incorporate the necessary information and consent into already complex recruitment processes, with the additional sensitive nature of health-related data. METHODS: Work package 1 will involve separate focus group interviews with members of each stakeholder group: trial managers, clinical trialists, qualitative researchers, members of research funding bodies and trial participants who have been involved in qualitative research. Data will be analysed using thematic analysis and managed within QSR NVivo to enhance transparency. Work package 2 will involve a documentary analysis of current consent procedures for qualitative data collected as part of the conduct of clinical trials. We will include documents such as participant information leaflets and consent forms for the qualitative components in trials. We will extract data such as whether specific clauses for data sharing are included in the consent form. Content analysis will be used to analyse whether and how consent is being obtained for qualitative data sharing. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide insight into the existing practice of sharing of qualitative data in clinical trials and the current issues and opportunities, to help shape future research and development of guidance to encourage maximum learning to be gained from this valuable dat

Outcomes of interventions in neonatal sepsis:A systematic review of qualitative research

BackgroundWhile a systematic review exists detailing neonatal sepsis outcomes from clinical trials, there remains an absence of a qualitative systematic review capturing the perspectives of key stakeholders.ObjectivesOur aim is to identify outcomes from qualitative research on any intervention to prevent or improve the outcomes of neonatal sepsis that are important to parents, other family members, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers as a part of the development of a core outcome set (COS) for neonatal sepsis.Search StrategyA literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases.Selection CriteriaPublications describing qualitative data relating to neonatal sepsis outcomes were included.Data Collection and AnalysisDrawing on the concepts of thematic synthesis, texts related to outcomes were coded and grouped. These outcomes were then mapped to the domain headings of an existing model.Main ResultsOut of 6777 records screened, six studies were included. Overall, 19 outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The most frequently reported outcomes were those in the domains related to parents, healthcare workers and individual organ systemas such as gastrointestinal system. The remaining outcomes were classified under the headings of general outcomes, miscellaneous outcomes, survival, and infection.ConclusionsThe outcomes identified in this review are different from those reported in neonatal sepsis clinical trials, thus highlighting the importance of incorporating qualitative studies into COS development to encapsulate all relevant stakeholders' perspectives.This study reviews outcomes considered important in neonatal sepsis by stakeholders such as parents and healthcare providers, aiding in developing a core outcome set (COS)

What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study

Background One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders. Methods This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials. Results A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The ‘Top 10’ of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was ’What motivates a participant’s decision to complete a clinical trial?’ The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie. Conclusion The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials

A QuESt for speed: rapid qualitative evidence syntheses as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has created a sense of urgency in the research community in their bid to contribute to the evidence required for healthcare policy decisions. With such urgency, researchers experience methodological challenges to maintain the rigour and transparency of their work. With this in mind, we offer reflections on our recent experience of undertaking a rapid Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis (QES). Methods This process paper, using a reflexive approach, describes a rapid QES prepared during, and in response to, the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings This paper reports the methodological decisions we made and the process we undertook. We place our decisions in the context of guidance offered in relation to rapid reviews and previously conducted QESs. We highlight some of the challenges we encountered in finding the balance between the time needed for thoughtfulness and comprehensiveness whilst providing a rapid response to an urgent request for evidence. Conclusion The need for more guidance on rapid QES remains, but such guidance needs to be based on actual worked examples and case studies. This paper and the reflections offered may provide a useful framework for others to use and further develop

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for neonatal sepsis (NESCOS).

Neonatal sepsis is a serious public health problem; however, there is substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in research evaluating the effectiveness of the treatments. Therefore, we aim to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for studies evaluating the effectiveness of treatments for neonatal sepsis. Since a systematic review of key outcomes from randomised trials of therapeutic interventions in neonatal sepsis was published recently, we will complement this with a qualitative systematic review of the key outcomes of neonatal sepsis identified by parents, other family members, parent representatives, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers. We will interpret the outcomes of both studies using a previously established framework. Stakeholders across three different groups i.e., (1) researchers, (2) healthcare providers, and (3) patients' parents/family members and parent representatives will rate the importance of the outcomes in an online Real-Time Delphi Survey. Afterwards, consensus meetings will be held to agree on the final COS through online discussions with key stakeholders. This COS is expected to minimize outcome heterogeneity in measurements and publications, improve comparability and synthesis, and decrease research waste

Outcomes of interventions in neonatal sepsis: A systematic review of qualitative research.

While a systematic review exists detailing neonatal sepsis outcomes from clinical trials, there remains an absence of a qualitative systematic review capturing the perspectives of key stakeholders. Our aim is to identify outcomes from qualitative research on any intervention to prevent or improve the outcomes of neonatal sepsis that are important to parents, other family members, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers as a part of the development of a core outcome set (COS) for neonatal sepsis. A literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases. Publications describing qualitative data relating to neonatal sepsis outcomes were included. Drawing on the concepts of thematic synthesis, texts related to outcomes were coded and grouped. These outcomes were then mapped to the domain headings of an existing model. Out of 6777 records screened, six studies were included. Overall, 19 outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The most frequently reported outcomes were those in the domains related to parents, healthcare workers and individual organ systemas such as gastrointestinal system. The remaining outcomes were classified under the headings of general outcomes, miscellaneous outcomes, survival, and infection. The outcomes identified in this review are different from those reported in neonatal sepsis clinical trials, thus highlighting the importance of incorporating qualitative studies into COS development to encapsulate all relevant stakeholders' perspectives

Metabolic follow-up at one year and beyond of women with gestational diabetes treated with insulin and/or oral hypoglycaemic agents: study protocol for the identification of a core outcomes set using a Delphi survey.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes (GDM) is associated with an increased lifetime risk for the development of glucose abnormalities, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, depression and tumours. Despite this high risk of additional comorbidities, there is no standardised approach to the long-term follow-up of women with a previous diagnosis of GDM. Also, there is no standardisation of outcome selection and reporting in studies involving this population. This increases the risk of reporting bias and reduces the possibility of meaningful comparisons between studies. The aim of this study is to develop a protocol for a core outcome set (COS) for the metabolic follow-up at 1 year and beyond of women with previous GDM treated with insulin and/or oral hypoglycaemic agents. METHODS/DESIGN: This protocol will describe the steps that will be taken in order to develop the COS. The study will consist of three parts: (1) A systematic review of the literature of the outcomes reported in previous randomised controlled trials of the follow-up at 1 year and beyond of women with GDM treated with insulin and/or oral hypoglycaemic agents; (2) A three-round, online Delphi survey with key stakeholders in order to prioritise these outcomes; and (3) A consensus meeting where the final COS will be decided. DISCUSSION: The proposed protocol is the first step in developing a COS that will bring consistency and uniformity to outcome selection and reporting in GDM women treated with insulin and/or oral hypoglycaemic agents

Follow-up at 1 year and beyond of women with gestational diabetes treated with insulin and/or oral glucose-lowering agents: a core outcome set using a Delphi survey.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is linked with a higher lifetime risk for the development of impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, type 2 diabetes, the metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, postpartum depression and tumours. Despite this, there is no consistency in the long-term follow-up of women with a previous diagnosis of GDM. Further, the outcomes selected and reported in the research involving this population are heterogeneous and lack standardisation. This amplifies the risk of reporting bias and diminishes the likelihood of significant comparisons between studies. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) for RCTs and other studies evaluating the long-term follow-up at 1 year and beyond of women with previous GDM treated with insulin and/oral glucose-lowering agents. METHODS: The study consisted of three work packages: (1) a systematic review of the outcomes reported in previous RCTs of the follow-up at 1 year and beyond of women with GDM treated with insulin and/or oral glucose-lowering agents; (2) a three-round online Delphi survey with key stakeholders to prioritise these outcomes; and (3) a consensus meeting where the final COS was decided. RESULTS: Of 3344 abstracts identified and evaluated, 62 papers were retrieved and 25/62 papers were included in this review. A total of 121 outcomes were identified and included in the Delphi survey. Delphi round 1 was emailed to 835 participants and 288 (34.5%) responded. In round 2, 190 of 288 (65.9%) participants responded and in round 3, 165 of 190 (86.8%) participants responded. In total, nine outcomes were selected and agreed for inclusion in the final COS: assessment of glycaemic status; diagnosis of type 2 diabetes since the index pregnancy; number of pregnancies since the index pregnancy; number of pregnancies with a diagnosis of GDM since the index pregnancy; diagnosis of prediabetes since the index pregnancy; BMI; post-pregnancy weight retention; resting blood pressure; and breastfeeding. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This study identified a COS that will help bring consistency and uniformity to outcome selection and reporting in clinical trials and other studies involving the follow-up at 1 year and beyond of women diagnosed with GDM treated with insulin and/or oral glucose-lowering agents during pregnancy