Current usage of explainer animations in trials: a survey of the UKCRC registered clinical trial units in the UK

Background: Explainer animations are a means to communicate aspects of clinical trials to participants in a more engaging and accessible way. Delivered well these have the potential to enhance recruitment and retention. The range of media technology used to deliver this material is expanding rapidly but is highly fragmented. Usage of explainer animations across the UK is unknown, the aim of this research was to determine current usage across the 52 registered UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) to understand the current landscape and any barriers that could be preventing wider uptake of this functionality. Methods: A survey link was emailed to all UKCRC CTU Directors and Trial Management Leads to ascertain current usage of explainer animations within their CTU. The survey ran between 01 February 2023 and 07 March 2023. Results: Responses were received from 35 CTUs—representing a response rate of 67%. 24 CTUs (69%) reported that they had created/used at least one explainer animation within their unit, although the usage, cost, length and production activities varied among the units. Conclusions: The survey showed that a high proportion of the UKCRC CTUs have used explainer animations to provide information to participants about clinical studies. For those not using the technology yet, the most common reasons cited were a lack of expertise, lack of resources and costs to produce them. One of the desired outcomes of this project is the creation of a free-to-use library of animations to encourage wider uptake and avoid duplication

Physiotherapy Rehabilitation Post Patellar Dislocation (PRePPeD)-protocol for an external pilot randomised controlled trial and qualitative study comparing supervised versus self-managed rehabilitation for people after acute patellar dislocation

Background Patellar dislocations mainly affect adolescents and young adults. After this injury, patients are usually referred to physiotherapy for exercise-based rehabilitation. Currently, limited high-quality evidence exists to guide rehabilitation practice and treatment outcomes vary. A full-scale trial comparing different rehabilitation approaches would provide high-quality evidence to inform rehabilitation practice. Whether this full-scale trial is feasible is uncertain: the only previous trial that compared exercise-based programmes in this patient population had high loss to follow-up. This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a future full-scale trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two different rehabilitation approaches for people with an acute patellar dislocation. Methods Two-arm parallel external pilot randomised controlled trial and qualitative study. We aim to recruit at least 50 participants aged ≥ 14 years with an acute first-time or recurrent patellar dislocation from at least three English National Health Service hospitals. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to supervised rehabilitation (four to six, one-to-one, physiotherapy sessions of advice and prescription of tailored progressive home exercise over a maximum of 6 months) or self-managed rehabilitation (one physiotherapy session of self-management advice, exercise, and provision of self-management materials). Pilot objectives are (1) willingness to be randomised, (2) recruitment rate, (3) retention, (4) intervention adherence, and (5) intervention and follow-up method acceptability to participants assessed through one-to-one semi-structured interviews (maximum 20 participants). Follow-up data will be collected 3, 6, and 9 months after randomisation. Quantitative pilot and clinical outcomes will be numerically summarised, with 95% confidence intervals generated for the pilot outcomes using Wilson’s and exact Poisson methods as appropriate. Discussion This study will assess the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial comparing supervised versus self-managed rehabilitation for people after acute first-time or recurrent patellar dislocation. This full-scale trial’s results would provide high-quality evidence to guide rehabilitation provision for patients with this injury. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN14235231. Registered on 09 August 2022

Randomized feasibility study of an autologous protein solution versus corticosteroids injection for treating subacromial pain in the primary care setting - the SPiRIT trial

AimsThe primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of recruiting and retaining patients to a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing corticosteroid injection (CSI) to autologous protein solution (APS) injection for the treatment of subacromial shoulder pain in a community care setting. The study focused on recruitment rates and retention of participants throughout, and collected data on the interventions' safety and efficacy.MethodsParticipants were recruited from two community musculoskeletal treatment centres in the UK. Patients were eligible if aged 18 years or older, and had a clinical diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome which the treating clinician thought was suitable for treatment with a subacromial injection. Consenting patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to a patient-blinded subacromial injection of CSI (standard care) or APS. The primary outcome measures of this study relate to rates of recruitment, retention, and compliance with intervention and follow-up to determine feasibility. Secondary outcome measures relate to the safety and efficacy of the interventions.ResultsA total of 53 patients were deemed eligible, and 50 patients (94%) recruited between April 2022 and October 2022. Overall, 49 patients (98%) complied with treatment. Outcome data were collected in 100% of participants at three months and 94% at six months. There were no significant adverse events. Both groups demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcome measures over the six-month period.ConclusionOur study shows that it is feasible to recruit to a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing APS and CSI for subacromial pain in terms of clinical outcomes and health-resource use in the UK. Safety and efficacy data are presented

Service availability and readiness for hip fracture care in low- and middle-income countries in South and Southeast Asia

Aims: The aim of this study was to describe the current pathways of care for patients with a fracture of the hip in five low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) in South Asia (Nepal and Sri Lanka) and Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines). Methods: The World Health Organization Service Availability and Readiness Assessment tool was used to collect data on the care of hip fractures in Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. Respondents were asked to provide details about the current pathway of care for patients with hip fracture, including pre-hospital transport, time to admission, time to surgery, and time to weightbearing, along with healthcare professionals involved at different stages of care, information on discharge, and patient follow-up. Results: Responses were received from 98 representative hospitals across the five countries. Most hospitals were publicly funded. There was consistency in clinical pathways of care within country, but considerable variation between countries. Patients mostly travel to hospital via ambulance (both publicly- and privately-funded) or private transport, with only half arriving at hospital within 12 hours of their injury. Access to surgery was variable and time to surgery ranged between one day and more than five days. The majority of hospitals mobilized patients on the first or second day after surgery, but there was notable variation in postoperative weightbearing protocols. Senior medical input was variable and specialist orthogeriatric expertise was unavailable in most hospitals. Conclusion: This study provides the first step in mapping care pathways for patients with hip fracture in LMIC in South Asia. The previous lack of data in these countries hampers efforts to identify quality standards (key performance indicators) that are relevant to each different healthcare system

A protocol for a nationwide multicentre, prospective surveillance cohort and nested-consented cohort to determine the incidence and clinical outcomes of slipped capital femoral epiphysis.

AimsSlipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) is one of the most common hip diseases of adolescence that can cause marked disability, yet there is little robust evidence to guide treatment. Fundamental aspects of the disease, such as frequency, are unknown and consequently the desire of clinicians to undertake robust intervention studies is somewhat prohibited by a lack of fundamental knowledge.MethodsThe study is an anonymized nationwide comprehensive cohort study with nested consented within the mechanism of the British Orthopaedic Surgery Surveillance (BOSS) Study. All relevant hospitals treating SCFE in England, Scotland, and Wales will contribute anonymized case details. Potential missing cases will be cross-checked against two independent external sources of data (the national administrative data and independent trainee data). Patients will be invited to enrich the data collected by supplementing anonymized case data with patient-reported outcome measures. In line with recommendations of the IDEAL Collaboration, the study will primarily seek to determine incidence, describe case mix and variations in surgical interventions, and explore the relationships between baseline factors (patients and types of interventions) and two-year outcomes.DiscussionThis is the first disease to be investigated using the BOSS Study infrastructure. It provides a robust method to determine the disease frequency, and a large unbiased sample of cases from which treatment strategies can be investigated. It may form the basis for definitive robust intervention studies or, where these are demonstrated not to be feasible, this may be the most robust cohort study

Does digital, multimedia information increase recruitment and retention in a children’s wrist fracture treatment trial, and what do people think of it? A randomised controlled Study Within A Trial (SWAT)

Objectives To evaluate digital, multimedia information (MMI) for its effects on trial recruitment, retention, decisions about participation and acceptability by patients, compared with printed information. Design Study Within A Trial using random cluster allocation within the Forearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) study. Setting Emergency departments in 23 UK hospitals. Participants 1409 children aged 4–16 years attending with a torus (buckle) fracture, and their parents/guardian. Children’s mean age was 9.2 years, 41.0% were female, 77.4% were ethnically White and 90.0% spoke English as a first language. Interventions Participants and their parents/guardian received trial information either via multimedia, including animated videos, talking head videos and text (revised for readability and age appropriateness when needed) on tablet computer (MMI group; n=681), or printed participant information sheet (PIS group; n=728). Outcome measures Primary outcome was recruitment rate to FORCE. Secondary outcomes were Decision Making Questionnaire (nine Likert items, analysed summatively and individually), three ‘free text’ questions (deriving subjective evaluations) and trial retention. Results MMI produced a small, not statistically significant increase in recruitment: 475 (69.8%) participants were recruited from the MMI group; 484 (66.5%) from the PIS group (OR=1.35; 95% CI 0.76 to 2.40, p=0.31). A total of 324 (23.0%) questionnaires were returned and analysed. There was no difference in total Decision-Making Questionnaire scores: adjusted mean difference 0.05 (95% CI −1.23 to 1.32, p=0.94). The MMI group was more likely to report the information ‘very easy’ to understand (89; 57.8% vs 67; 39.4%; Z=2.60, p=0.01) and identify information that was explained well (96; 62.3% vs 71; 41.8%). Almost all FORCE recruits were retained at the 6 weeks’ timepoint and there was no difference in retention rate between the information groups: MMI (473; 99.6%); PIS (481; 99.4%)

Developing generic clinical trial animated explainer videos in the UK: results of a survey and case study

BackgroundAnimated short videos used to explain a concept or project are often called animated explainer videos (AEVs). AEVs can supplement or provide an alternative to participant information sheets as a means of giving information about clinical research to potential participants. Current use of AEVs tends to focus on the specifics of a particular trial, yet there are many common aspects of clinical research regardless of the interventions being investigated that can be poorly covered in current trial materials. The EXPLAIN initiative aimed to determine the top generic clinical trial topics considered most important by different UK trial stakeholders. The top three topics were then turned into AEVs and have been made freely available for use.MethodA list of generic clinical trial topics which often need explaining to potential trial participants when they are approached to take part in research was developed. Using a two-round Delphi survey of stakeholder groups (trial participants, patients, members of the public, site staff and clinical trials unit staff) the list of topics was expanded and prioritised to identify the topics most in need of clear explanation. The top three topics formed the basis of three AEVs, co-developed with patient and public partners.Results228 responses were received to the first round of the Delphi survey and 167 of these respondents also completed the second round of the survey. The three topics prioritised for creation of animated explainer videos were 1) What is consent? 2) Who decides what treatment I get/What is randomisation? 3) Is it safe to take part in a trial/How do you know a trial is safe? Following virtual meetings with patient and public partners recruited from the Delphi respondents, a script for each AEV was co-produced before being developed into an AEV by a company specialising in animated video production.ConclusionThere are a wide range of generic concepts in which the use of animated explainer videos could be useful to improve participant understanding of clinical research. Via consensus survey across multiple stakeholders, we have determined a hierarchy of the importance of explaining these concepts. We envisage that the three AEVs created from this project will form the basis of a readily accessible library of animations to be utilised by trialists

A multicentre prospective randomized equivalence trial of a soft bandage and immediate discharge versus current treatment with rigid immobilization for torus fractures of the distal radius in children

Aims Torus fractures are the most common childhood fracture, accounting for 500,000 UK emergency attendances per year. UK treatment varies widely due to lack of scientific evidence. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled equivalence trial of ‘the offer of a soft bandage and immediate discharge’ versus ‘rigid immobilization and follow-up as per the protocol of the treating centre’ in the treatment of torus fractures. Methods Children aged four to 15-years-old inclusive who have sustained a torus/buckle fracture of the distal radius with/without an injury to the ulna are eligible to take part. Baseline pain as measured by the Wong Baker FACES pain scale, function using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper limb, and quality of life (QoL) assessed with the EuroQol EQ-5D-Y will be collected. Each patient will be randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre and age group (four to seven years and ≥ eight years) to either a regimen of the offer of a soft bandage and immediate discharge or rigid immobilization and follow-up as per the protocol of the treating centre. Results At day one, three, and seven, data on pain, function, QoL, immobilization, and analgesia will be collected. Three and six weeks after injury, the main outcomes plus data on complications, resource use, and school absence will be collected. The primary outcome is the Wong-Baker FACES pain scale at three days post-randomization. All data will be obtained through electronic questionnaires completed by the participants and/or parents/guardian

A protocol for the conduct of a multicentre, prospective, randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures: the HUmeral SHaft (HUSH) fracture study

Aims: Fractures of the humeral shaft represent 3% to 5% of all fractures. The most common treatment for isolated humeral diaphysis fractures in the UK is non-operative using functional bracing, which carries a low risk of complications, but is associated with a longer healing time and a greater risk of nonunion than surgery. There is an increasing trend to surgical treatment, which may lead to quicker functional recovery and lower rates of fracture nonunion than functional bracing. However, surgery carries inherent risk, including infection, bleeding, and nerve damage. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of functional bracing compared to surgical fixation for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Methods: The HUmeral SHaft (HUSH) fracture study is a multicentre, prospective randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures in adult patients. Participants will be randomized to receive either functional bracing or surgery. With 334 participants, the trial will have 90% power to detect a clinically important difference for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score, assuming 20% loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include function, pain, quality of life, complications, cost-effectiveness, time off work, and ability to drive. Discussion: The results of this trial will provide evidence regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness between surgical and non-surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Ethical approval has been obtained from East of England – Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee. Publication is anticipated to occur in 2024