Systematic techniques for assisting recruitment to trials (START): study protocol for embedded, randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials play a central role in evidence-based practice, but recruitment of participants, and retention of them once in the trial, is challenging. Moreover, there is a dearth of evidence that research teams can use to inform the development of their recruitment and retention strategies. As with other healthcare initiatives, the fairest test of the effectiveness of a recruitment strategy is a trial comparing alternatives, which for recruitment would mean embedding a recruitment trial within an ongoing host trial. Systematic reviews indicate that such studies are rare. Embedded trials are largely delivered in an ad hoc way, with interventions almost always developed in isolation and tested in the context of a single host trial, limiting their ability to contribute to a body of evidence with regard to a single recruitment intervention and to researchers working in different contexts. METHODS/DESIGN: The Systematic Techniques for Assisting Recruitment to Trials (START) program is funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC) Methodology Research Programme to support the routine adoption of embedded trials to test standardized recruitment interventions across ongoing host trials. To achieve this aim, the program involves three interrelated work packages: (1) methodology - to develop guidelines for the design, analysis and reporting of embedded recruitment studies; (2) interventions - to develop effective and useful recruitment interventions; and (3) implementation - to recruit host trials and test interventions through embedded studies. DISCUSSION: Successful completion of the START program will provide a model for a platform for the wider trials community to use to evaluate recruitment interventions or, potentially, other types of intervention linked to trial conduct. It will also increase the evidence base for two types of recruitment intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The START protocol covers the methodology for embedded trials. Each embedded trial is registered separately or as a substudy of the host trial

Improving recruitment to a study of telehealth management for long-term conditions in primary care: two embedded, randomised controlled trials of optimised patient information materials

Background: Patient understanding of study information is fundamental to gaining informed consent to take part in a randomised controlled trial. In order to meet the requirements of research ethics committees, patient information materials can be long and need to communicate complex messages. There is concern that standard approaches to providing patient information may deter potential participants from taking part in trials. The Systematic Techniques for Assisting Recruitment to Trials (MRC-START) research programme aims to test interventions to improve trial recruitment. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect on recruitment of optimised patient information materials (with improved readability and ease of comprehension) compared with standard materials. The study was embedded within two primary care trials involving patients with long-term conditions. Methods: The Healthlines Study involves two linked trials evaluating a telehealth intervention in patients with depression (Healthlines Depression) or raised cardiovascular disease risk (Healthlines CVD). We conducted two trials of a recruitment intervention, embedded within the Healthlines host trials. Patients identified as potentially eligible in each of the Healthlines trials were randomised to receive either the original patient information materials or optimised versions of these materials. Primary outcomes were the proportion of participants randomised (Healthlines Depression) and the proportion expressing interest in taking part (Healthlines CVD). Results: In Healthlines Depression (n = 1364), 6.3 % of patients receiving the optimised patient information materials were randomised into the study compared to 4.0 % in those receiving standard materials (OR = 1.63, 95 % CI = 1.00 to 2.67). In Healthlines CVD (n = 671) 24.0 % of those receiving optimised patient information materials responded positively to the invitation to participate, compared to 21.9 % in those receiving standard materials (OR = 1.12, 95 % CI = 0.78 to 1.61). Conclusions: Evidence from these two embedded trials suggests limited benefits of optimised patient information materials on recruitment rates, which may only be apparent in some patient populations, with no effects on other outcomes. Further embedded trials are needed to provide a more precise estimate of effect, and to explore further how effects vary by trial context, intervention, and patient population

Association between systolic blood pressure and cardiovascular inpatient cost moderated by peer-support intervention among adult patients with type 2 diabetes : a 2-cohort study

Objectives People with type 2 diabetes and increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) are at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this study, we aimed to investigate the association between CVD-related hospital payments and SBP and tested whether this association is influenced by diabetes peer support. Methods Two cohorts comprising people with type 2 diabetes were included in the study. The first cohort comprised 4,704 patients with type 2 diabetes assessed between 2008 and 2009 from 18 general practices in Cambridgeshire and followed up to 2009–2011. The second cohort comprised 1,121 patients with type 2 diabetes from post-trial follow-up data, recruited between 2011 and 2012 and followed up to 2015. SBP was measured at baseline. Inpatient payments for CVD hospitalization within 2 years since baseline was the main outcome. The impact of 1:1, group or combined diabetes peer support and usual care were investigated in the second cohort. Adjusted mean CVD inpatient payments per person were estimated using a 2-part model after adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results A “hockey-stick” relationship between baseline SBP and estimated CVD inpatient payment was identified in both cohorts, with a threshold at 133 to 141 mmHg, suggesting increased payments for patients with SBP below and above the threshold. The combined peer-support intervention altered the aforementioned association, with no increased payment with SBP above the threshold, and payment slightly decreased with SBP beyond the threshold. Conclusions SBP maintained between 133 and 141 mmHg is associated with the lowest CVD disease management costs for patients with type 2 diabetes. Combined peer-support intervention could significantly decrease CVD-related hospital payments

Recruiting to a large-scale physical activity randomised controlled trial – experiences with the gift of hindsight

Background: Recruitment issues continue to impact a large number of trials. Sharing recruitment information is vital to support researchers to accurately predict recruitment and to manage the risk of poor recruitment during study design and implementation. The purpose of this paper is to build on the knowledge available to researchers on recruiting to community based trials. Methods: A critical commentary of the recruitment challenges encountered during the ‘Booster’ Study, a randomised controlled trial which investigated the effectiveness of a Motivational Interviewing style intervention on the maintenance of physical activity. An overview of recruitment is provided, as well as strategies employed to recruit prospective participants and possible barriers to recruitment. Results: Two hundred and eighty two people, 47% of the original target, were recruited through mail-outs with secondary recruitment pathways yielding no additional participants. The research team encountered problems re-contacting interested participants and providing study materials in non-English languages. A lower response rate to the mail-out and a greater number of non-contactable participants in the full study compared to the pilot study resulted in a smaller pool of eligible participants from the brief intervention eligible for recruitment into the RCT. Conclusion: Despite utilising widely accepted recruitment strategies and incorporating new recruitment tactics in response to challenges, the ‘Booster’ study failed to randomise a sufficient number of participants. Recruitment to community based, behavioural interventions may face different challenges than trials based in clinical or primary care pathways. Specific challenges posed by the complexity of the study design and problems with staffing and resources were exacerbated by the need to revise upwards the number of mailed invitations as a result of the pilot study. Researchers should ensure study design is facilitative to recruitment and consider the implications of changing recruitment on the operational aspects of the trial. Where possible the impact of new strategies should be measured, and recruitment successes and challenges shared with those planning similar studies. The study was a registered controlled trial (ISRCTN56495859 12 Feb 2009; NCT00836459 03 Feb 2009) KEYWORDS: Recruitment, Physical Activity, mail-outs, BOOSTER, behaviour maintenance

The effects of integrated care: a systematic review of UK and international evidence

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems around the world have been responding to the demand for better integrated models of service delivery. However, there is a need for further clarity regarding the effects of these new models of integration, and exploration regarding whether models introduced in other care systems may achieve similar outcomes in a UK national health service context. METHODS: The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of the effects of integration or co-ordination between healthcare services, or between health and social care on service delivery outcomes including effectiveness, efficiency and quality of care. Electronic databases including MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Science and Social Science Citation Indices; and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature published between 2006 to March 2017. Online sources were searched for UK grey literature, and citation searching, and manual reference list screening were also carried out. Quantitative primary studies and systematic reviews, reporting actual or perceived effects on service delivery following the introduction of models of integration or co-ordination, in healthcare or health and social care settings in developed countries were eligible for inclusion. Strength of evidence for each outcome reported was analysed and synthesised using a four point comparative rating system of stronger, weaker, inconsistent or limited evidence. RESULTS: One hundred sixty seven studies were eligible for inclusion. Analysis indicated evidence of perceived improved quality of care, evidence of increased patient satisfaction, and evidence of improved access to care. Evidence was rated as either inconsistent or limited regarding all other outcomes reported, including system-wide impacts on primary care, secondary care, and health care costs. There were limited differences between outcomes reported by UK and international studies, and overall the literature had a limited consideration of effects on service users. CONCLUSIONS: Models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction, increase perceived quality of care, and enable access to services, although the evidence for other outcomes including service costs remains unclear. Indications of improved access may have important implications for services struggling to cope with increasing demand. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero registration number: 42016037725

Does electronic monitoring influence adherence to medication? Randomized controlled trial of measurement reactivity.

BACKGROUND: Electronic monitoring is recommended for accurate measurement of medication adherence but a possible limitation is that it may influence adherence. PURPOSE: To test the reactive effect of electronic monitoring in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 226 adults with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol were randomized to receiving their main oral glucose lowering medication in electronic containers or standard packaging. The primary outcomes were self-reported adherence measured with the MARS (Medication Adherence Report Scale; range 5-25) and HbA1c at 8 weeks. RESULTS: Non-significantly higher adherence and lower HbA1c were observed in the electronic container group (differences in means, adjusting for baseline value: MARS, 0.4 [95 % CI -0.1 to 0.8, p = 0.11]; HbA1c (mmol/mol), -1.02 [-2.73 to 0.71, p = 0.25]). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic containers may lead to a small increase in adherence but this potential limitation is outweighed by their advantages. Our findings support electronic monitoring as the method of choice in research on medication adherence. (Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCT N30522359)

Derivation and external validation of risk algorithms for cerebrovascular (re)hospitalisation in patients with type 2 diabetes: Two cohorts study

Aims Cerebrovascular disease is one of more typical reasons for hospitalisation and re-hospitalisation in people with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to derive and externally validate two risk prediction algorithms for cerebrovascular hospitalisation and re-hospitalisation. Methods Two independent cohorts were used to derive and externally validate the two risk scores. The development cohort comprises 4704 patients with type 2 diabetes registered in 18 general practices across Cambridgeshire. The validation cohort includes 1121 type 2 patients from a post-trial cohort data. Outcomes were cerebrovascular hospitalisation within two years and cerebrovascular re-hospitalisation within ninety days of the previous cerebrovascular hospitalisation. Logistic regression was applied to derive the two risk scores for cerebrovascular hospitalisation and re-hospitalisation from development cohort, which were externally validated in the validation cohort. Results The incidence of cerebrovascular hospitalisation and re-hospitalisation was 3.76% and 1.46% in the development cohort, and 4.99% and 1.87% in the external validation cohort. Age, gender, body mass index, blood pressures, and lipid profiles were included in the final model. Model discrimination was similar in both cohorts, with all C-statistics > 0.70, and very good calibration of observed and predicted individual risks. Conclusion Two new risk scores that quantify individual risks of cerebrovascular hospitalisation and re-hospitalisation have been well derived and externally validated. Both scores are on the basis of a few of clinical measurements that are commonly available for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care settings and could work as tools to identify individuals at high risk of cerebrovascular hospitalisation and re-hospitalisation

Development and external validation of risk scores for cardiovascular hospitalization and rehospitalization in patients with diabetes

Context Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a common and costly reason for hospitalisation and re-hospitalisation among patients with type 2 diabetes. Objective This study aimed to develop and externally validate two risk prediction models for cardiovascular hospitalisation and cardiovascular re-hospitalisation. Design Two independent prospective cohorts. Setting The derivation cohort includes 4,704 patients with type 2 diabetes from 18 general practices in Cambridgeshire. The validation cohort comprises 1,121 patients with type 2 diabetes from post-trial follow-up data. Main Outcome Measure Cardiovascular hospitalisation over 2 years and cardiovascular re-hospitalisation after 90 days of the prior CVD hospitalisation. Results The absolute rate of cardiovascular hospitalisation and re-hospitalisation was 12.5% and 6.7% in the derivation cohort, and 16.3% and 7.0% in the validation cohort. Discrimination of the models was similar in both cohorts, with C statistics above 0.70, and excellent calibration of observed and predicted risks. Conclusion Two new prediction models that quantify risks of cardiovascular hospitalisation and re-hospitalisation have been developed and externally validated. They are based on a small number of clinical measurements that are available for patients with type 2 diabetes in many developed countries in primary care settings and could serve as the tools to screen the population at high risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation and re-hospitalisation

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tailored intensive liaison between primary and secondary care to identify individuals at risk of a first psychotic illness (the LEGs study):a cluster-randomised controlled trial

BackgroundGeneral practitioners are usually the first health professionals to be contacted by people with early signs of psychosis. We aimed to assess whether increased liaison between primary and secondary care improves the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of detection of people with, or at high risk of developing, a first psychotic illness.MethodsOur Liaison and Education in General Practices (LEGs) study was a cluster-randomised controlled trial of primary care practices (clusters) in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, UK. Consenting practices were randomly allocated (1:1) to a 2 year low-intensity intervention (a postal campaign, consisting of biannual guidelines to help identify and refer individuals with early signs of psychosis) or a high-intensity intervention, which additionally included a specialist mental health professional who liaised with every practice and a theory-based educational package. Practices were not masked to group allocation. Practices that did not consent to be randomly assigned comprised a practice-as-usual (PAU) group. The primary outcome was number of referrals of patients at high risk of developing psychosis to the early intervention service per practice site. New referrals were assessed clinically and stratified into those who met criteria for high risk or first-episode psychotic illness (FEP; together: psychosis true positives), and those who did not fulfil such criteria for psychosis (false positives). Referrals from PAU practices were also analysed. We assessed cost-effectiveness with decision analytic modelling in terms of the incremental cost per additional true positive identified. The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN70185866.FindingsBetween Dec 22, 2009, and Sept 7, 2010, 54 of 104 eligible practices provided consent and between Feb 16, 2010, and Feb 11, 2011, these practices were randomly allocated to interventions (28 to low intensity and 26 to high intensity); the remaining 50 practices comprised the PAU group. Two high-intensity practices were excluded from the analysis. In the 2 year intervention period, high-intensity practices referred more FEP cases than did low-intensity practices (mean 1·25 [SD 1·2] for high intensity vs 0·7 [0·9] for low intensity; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1·9, 95% CI 1·05–3·4, p=0·04), although the difference was not statistically significant for individuals at high risk of psychosis (0·9 [1·0] vs 0·5 [1·0]; 2·2, 0·9–5·1, p=0·08). For high risk and FEP combined, high-intensity practices referred both more true-positive (2·2 [1·7] vs 1·1 [1·7]; 2·0, 1·1–3·6, p=0·02) and false-positive (2·3 [2·4] vs 0·9 [1·2]; 2·6, 1·3–5·0, p=0·005) cases. Referral patterns did not differ between low-intensity and PAU practices. Total cost per true-positive referral in the 2 year follow-up was £26 785 in high-intensity practices, £27 840 in low-intensity practices, and £30 007 in PAU practices.InterpretationThis intensive intervention to improve liaison between primary and secondary care for people with early signs of psychosis was clinically and cost effective.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research