A realist evaluation of a normal birth programme

Background. Complex programmes are characterised by multiple components, acting independently and interdependently, at multiple levels, within diverse and dynamic systems. High-quality evaluation of such programmes is imperative for optimising their development, implementation and effectiveness, but is often challenging. There is debate about whether the traditional outcome-focused approaches are feasible or appropriate for evaluations of large-scale, complex programmes as they often fall short of explaining how and why they do or do not work. Theory-driven approaches offer a more appropriate alternative as they attempt to uncover the black-box between the programme's inputs and the resulting complex pattern of outcomes. Aim. This paper illustrates drawing upon a realist evaluation to assess a complex programme to support normal birth. Method. Firstly, the programme theories - the ideas about how the programme would bring about change - were elicited from programme developers and key stakeholders. Secondly, these initial hypotheses were tested out by collecting data on how the programme worked in different contexts, using a multiple case study design. Thirdly, the data were analysed and interpreted to refine the programme theories in light of evidence on how the programme unfolded in practice. Findings. Described in detail are the process of conducting a realist evaluation, methods used, steps in data analyses, challenges encountered and the approach adopted to overcome them. The usefulness of this approach and some limitations are discussed

The Penicillin for the Emergency Department Outpatient treatment of CELLulitis (PEDOCELL) trial: update to the study protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan (SAP)

Background: Cellulitis is a painful, potentially serious, infectious process of the dermal and subdermal tissues and represents a significant disease burden. The statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the Penicillin for the Emergency Department Outpatient treatment of CELLulitis (PEDOCELL) trial is described here. The PEDOCELL trial is a multicentre, randomised, parallel-arm, double-blinded, non-inferiority clinical trial comparing the efficacy of flucloxacillin (monotherapy) with combination flucloxacillin/phenoxymethylpenicillin (dual therapy) for the outpatient treatment of cellulitis in the emergency department (ED) setting. To prevent outcome reporting bias, selective reporting and data-driven results, the a priori-defined, detailed SAP is presented here. Methods/design: Patients will be randomised to either orally administered flucloxacillin 500 mg four times daily and placebo or orally administered 500 mg of flucloxacillin four times daily and phenoxymethylpenicillin 500 mg four times daily. The trial consists of a 7-day intervention period and a 2-week follow-up period. Study measurements will be taken at four specific time points: at patient enrolment, day 2-3 after enrolment and commencing treatment (early clinical response (ECR) visit), day 8-10 after enrolment (end-of-treatment (EOT) visit) and day 14-21 after enrolment (test-of-cure (TOC) visit). The primary outcome measure is investigator-determined clinical response measured at the TOC visit. The secondary outcomes are as follows: lesion size at ECR, clinical treatment failure at each follow-up visit, adherence and persistence of trial patients with orally administered antibiotic therapy at EOT, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pharmacoeconomic assessments. The plan for the presentation and comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes is described in this paper. Discussion: This trial aims to establish the non-inferiority of orally administered flucloxacillin monotherapy with orally administered flucloxacillin/phenoxymethylpenicillin dual therapy for the ED-directed outpatient treatment of cellulitis. In doing so, this trial will bridge a knowledge gap in this understudied and common condition and will be relevant to clinicians across several different disciplines. The SAP for the PEDOCELL trial was developed a priori in order to minimise analysis bias

Cervical ripening at home or in-hospital-prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study: a protocol.

IntroductionThe aim of the cervical ripening at home or in-hospital-prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study is to compare home versus in-hospital cervical ripening to determine whether home cervical ripening is safe (for the primary outcome of neonatal unit (NNU) admission), acceptable to women and cost-effective from the perspective of both women and the National Health Service (NHS).Methods and analysisWe will perform a prospective multicentre observational cohort study with an internal pilot phase. We will obtain data from electronic health records from at least 14 maternity units offering only in-hospital cervical ripening and 12 offering dinoprostone home cervical ripening. We will also conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and a mixed methods study to evaluate processes and women/partner experiences. Our primary sample size is 8533 women with singleton pregnancies undergoing induction of labour (IOL) at 39+0 weeks' gestation or more. To achieve this and contextualise our findings, we will collect data relating to a cohort of approximately 41 000 women undergoing IOL after 37 weeks. We will use mixed effects logistic regression for the non-inferiority comparison of NNU admission and propensity score matched adjustment to control for treatment indication bias. The economic analysis will be undertaken from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) and the pregnant woman. It will include a within-study cost-effectiveness analysis and a lifetime cost-utility analysis to account for any long-term impacts of the cervical ripening strategies. Outcomes will be reported as incremental cost per NNU admission avoided and incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gained.Research ethics approval and disseminationCHOICE has been funded and approved by the National Institute of Healthcare Research Health Technology and Assessment, and the results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN32652461

Indicators of pulmonary exacerbation in cystic fibrosis: A Delphi survey of patients and health professionals

Background: There is uncertainty about the most important indicators of pulmonary exacerbations in CF. Methods: Two parallel Delphi surveys in 13 CF centres (UK and Ireland). Delphi 1: 31 adults with CF, ≥ one exacerbation over 12 months. Delphi 2: 38 CF health professionals. Rounds 1 and 2 participants rated their level of agreement with statements relating to indicators of exacerbation; Round 3 participants rated the importance of statements which were subsequently placed in rank order. Results: Objective measurements were of higher importance to health professionals. Feelings of increased debility were rated most important by adults with CF. Conclusions: There were clear differences in perspectives between the two groups as to the most important indicators of an exacerbation. This highlights that CF health professionals should take more cognisance of specific signs and symptoms reported by adults with CF, especially since these may be a precursor to an exacerbation

Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

Background Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19

Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p<0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p<0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p<0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP >5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification

A meta-synthesis of women’s perceptions and experiences of breastfeeding support

Breastfeeding conveys significant health benefits to infants and mothers yet in many affluent nations breastfeeding rates continue to decline across the early months following birth. Both peer and professional support have been identified as important to the success of breastfeeding. What is not known are the key components or elements of support that are effective in increasing the duration of breastfeeding? The aim of this meta-synthesis was to examine women’s perceptions and experiences of breastfeeding support, either professional or peer, in order to illuminate the components of support that they deem ‘supportive’. A secondary aim was to describe any differences between components of Peer and Professional support