How do pilot and feasibility studies inform randomised placebo-controlled trials in surgery? : A systematic review

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Impact of question order on prioritisation of outcomes in the development of a core outcome set:A randomised controlled trial

Abstract Background Core outcome set (COS) developers increasingly employ Delphi surveys to elicit stakeholders’ opinions of which outcomes to measure and report in trials of a particular condition or intervention. Research outside of Delphi surveys and COS development demonstrates that question order can affect response rates and lead to ‘context effects’, where prior questions determine an item’s meaning and influence responses. This study examined the impact of question order within a Delphi survey for a COS for oesophageal cancer surgery. Methods A randomised controlled trial was nested within the Delphi survey. Patients and health professionals were randomised to receive a survey including clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the PRO section appeared first or last. Participants rated (1–9) the importance of 68 items for inclusion in a COS (ratings 7–9 considered ‘essential’). Analyses considered the impact of question order on: (1) survey response rates; (2) participants’ responses; and (3) items retained at end of the survey. Results In total, 116 patients and 71 professionals returned completed surveys. Question order did not affect response rates among patients, but fewer professionals responded when clinical items appeared first (difference = 31.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.6–48.9%, P = 0.001). Question order led to different context effects within patients and professionals. While patients rated clinical items highly, irrespective of question order, more PROs were rated essential when appearing last rather than first (difference = 23.7%, 95% CI = 10.5–40.8%). Among professionals, the greatest impact was on clinical items; a higher percentage rated essential when appearing last (difference = 11.6%, 95% CI = 0.0–23.3%). An interaction between question order and the percentage of PRO/clinical items rated essential was observed for patients (P = 0.025) but not professionals (P = 0.357). Items retained for further consideration at the end of the survey were dependent on question order, with discordant items (retained by one question order group only) observed in patients (18/68 [26%]) and professionals (20/68 [29%]). Conclusions In the development of a COS, participants’ ratings of potential outcomes within a Delphi survey depend on the context (order) in which the outcomes are asked, consequently impacting on the final COS. Initial piloting is recommended with consideration of the randomisation of items in the survey to reduce potential bias. Trial registration The randomised controlled trial reported within this paper was nested within the development of a core outcome set to investigate processes in core outcome set development. Outcomes were not health-related and trial registration was not therefore applicable

Reporting of key methodological issues in placebo-controlled trials of surgery needs improvement:a systematic review

OBJECTIVES:To examine key methodological considerations for using a placebo intervention in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating invasive procedures, including surgery. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:RCTs comparing an invasive procedure with a placebo were included in this systematic review. Articles published from database inception to December 31, 2017, were retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and CENTRAL electronic databases, by handsearching references and expert knowledge. Data on trial characteristics (clinical area, nature of invasive procedure, number of patients and centers) and key methodological (rationale for using placebos, minimization of risk, information provision, offering the treatment intervention to patients randomized to placebo, delivery of cointerventions, and intervention standardization and fidelity) were extracted and summarized descriptively. RESULTS:One hundred thirteen articles reporting 96 RCTs were identified. Most were conducted in gastrointestinal surgery (n = 40, 42%) and evaluated minimally invasive procedures (n = 44, 46%). Over two-thirds randomized fewer than 100 patients (n = 65, 68%) and a third were single center (n = 31, 32%). A third (n = 33, 34%) did not report a rationale for using a placebo. Most common strategies to minimize patient risk were operator skill (n = 22, 23%) and independent data monitoring (n = 28, 29%). Provision of patient information regarding placebo use was infrequently reported (n = 11, 11%). Treatment interventions were offered to patients randomized to placebo in 43 trials (45%). Cointerventions were inconsistently reported, but 64 trials (67%) stated that anesthesia was matched between groups. Attempts to standardize interventions and monitor their delivery were reported in n = 7, (7%) and n = 4, (4%) trials, respectively. CONCLUSION:Most placebo-controlled trials in surgery evaluate minor surgical procedures and currently there is inconsistent reporting of key trial methods. There is a need for guidance to optimize the transparency of trial reporting in this area

Supporting families managing childhood eczema:Developing and optimising Eczema Care Online using qualitative research

Background: childhood eczema is often poorly controlled due to under-use of emollients and topical corticosteroids. Parents/carers report practical and psychosocial barriers to managing their child’s eczema, including child resistance. Online interventions could potentially support parents/carers; however, rigorous research developing such interventions has been limited. Aim: to develop an online behavioural intervention to help parents/carers manage and co-manage their child’s eczema. Design and setting: Intervention development using a theory-, evidence- and Person-Based Approach with qualitative research. Methods: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis (32 studies) and interviews with parents/carers (N=30) were used to identify barriers and facilitators to effective eczema management, and a prototype intervention was developed. Think-aloud interviews with parents/carers (N=25) were then used to optimise the intervention to increase its acceptability and feasibility. Results: qualitative research identified that parents/carers had concerns about using emollients and topical corticosteroids; incomplete knowledge and skills around managing eczema; and reluctance to transitioning to co-managing eczema with their child. Think-aloud interviews highlighted that while experienced parents/carers felt they knew how to manage eczema, some information about how to use treatments was still new. Techniques for addressing barriers included: providing a rationale explaining how emollients and topical corticosteroids work; demonstrating how to use treatments; and highlighting that the intervention provided new, up-to-date information. Conclusions: parents/carers need support in effectively managing and co-managing their child’s eczema. The key output of this research is Eczema Care Online (ECO) for Families; an online intervention for parents/carers of children with eczema, which is being evaluated in a randomised trial

A Core Outcome Set for the Benefits and Adverse Events of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery:the BARIACT project

BackgroundBariatric and metabolic surgery is used as a treatment for patients with severe and complex obesity. However, there is a need to improve outcome selection and reporting in bariatric surgery trials. A Core Outcome Set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a specific condition, may achieve this. Here, we present the development of a COS for BARIAtric and metabolic surgery Clinical Trials-the BARIACT Study.Methods and findingsOutcomes identified from systematic reviews and patient interviews informed a questionnaire survey. Patients and health professionals were surveyed three times and asked to rate the importance of each item on a 1-9 scale. Delphi methods provided anonymised feedback to participants. Items not meeting predefined criteria were discarded between rounds. Remaining items were discussed at consensus meetings, held separately with patients and professionals, where the COS was agreed. Data sources identified 2,990 outcomes, which were used to develop a 130-item questionnaire. Round 1 response rates were moderate but subsequently improved to above 75% for other rounds. After rounds 2 and 3, 81 and 14 items were discarded, respectively, leaving 35 items for discussion at consensus meetings. The final COS included nine items: "weight," "diabetes status," "cardiovascular risk," "overall quality of life (QOL)," "mortality," "technical complications of the specific operation," "any re-operation/re-intervention," "dysphagia/regurgitation," and "micronutrient status." The main limitation of this study was that it was based in the United Kingdom only.ConclusionsThe COS is recommended to be used as a minimum in all trials of bariatric and metabolic surgery. Adoption of the COS will improve data synthesis and the value of research data. Future work will establish methods for the measurement of the outcomes in the COS

Eczema Care Online: development and qualitative optimisation of an online behavioural intervention to support self-management in young people with eczema.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development of Eczema Care Online (ECO), an online behaviour change intervention for young people with eczema (phase I); and explore and optimise the acceptability of ECO among this target group using think-aloud interviews (phase II). METHODS: Theory-based, evidence-based and person-based approaches to intervention development were used. In phase I, a qualitative systematic review and qualitative interviews developed an in-depth understanding of the needs and challenges of young people with eczema. Guiding principles highlighted key intervention design objectives and features to address the needs of this target group to maximise user engagement. Behavioural analysis and logic modelling developed ECO's hypothesised programme theory. In phase II, qualitative think-aloud interviews were carried out with 28 young people with eczema and the intervention was optimised based on their feedback. RESULTS: The final intervention aimed to reduce eczema severity by supporting treatment use (emollients, topical corticosteroids/topical calcineurin inhibitors), management of irritants/triggers, emotional management and reducing scratching. Generally, young people expressed positive views of intervention content and design in think-aloud interviews. Quotes and stories from other young people with eczema and ECO's focus on living with eczema (not just topical treatments) were valuable for normalising eczema. Young people believed ECO addressed knowledge gaps they had from childhood and the safety information about topical corticosteroids was reassuring. Negative feedback was used to modify ECO. CONCLUSIONS: A prototype of the ECO intervention was developed using rigorous and complementary intervention development approaches. Subsequent think-aloud interviews helped optimise the intervention, demonstrated ECO is likely to be acceptable to this target group, and provided support for our guiding principles including key design objectives and features to consider when developing interventions for this population. A randomised controlled trial and process evaluation of the intervention is underway to assess effectiveness and explore user engagement with the intervention's behavioural goals

Supporting self-care for eczema: protocol for two randomised controlled trials of ECO (Eczema Care Online) interventions for young people and parents/carers

Introduction Eczema care requires management of triggers and various treatments. We developed two online behavioural interventions to support eczema care called ECO (Eczema Care Online) for young people and ECO for families. This protocol describes two randomised controlled trials aimed to evaluate clinical and cost effectiveness of the two interventions. Methods and analysis Design: Two independent, pragmatic, unmasked, parallel group randomised controlled trials with internal pilots and nested health economic and process evaluation studies. Setting: Participants will be recruited from GP practices in England. Participants: young people aged 13-25 years with eczema and parents / carers of children aged 0-12 years with eczema, excluding inactive or very mild eczema (5 or less on Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM)). Interventions: Participants will be randomised to online intervention plus usual care or to usual eczema care alone. Outcome measures: Primary outcome is eczema severity over 24 weeks measured by POEM. Secondary outcomes include: POEM 4-weekly for 52 weeks, quality of life, eczema control, itch intensity (young people only), patient enablement, health service and treatment use. Process measures include treatment adherence, barriers to adherence, and intervention usage. Our sample sizes of 303 participants per trial are powered to detect a group difference of 2.5 (SD 6.5) in monthly POEM scores over 24 weeks (significance 0.05, power 0.9), allowing for 20% loss to follow-up. Cost effectiveness analysis will be from an NHS and personal social service perspective. Qualitative and quantitative process evaluation will help understand mechanisms of action and participant experiences and inform implementation. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by South Central Oxford A Research Ethics Committee (19/SC/0351). Recruitment is ongoing, and follow-up will be completed by mid-2022. Findings will be disseminated to participants, the public, dermatology and primary care journals, and policymakers