Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials:the development and implementation of the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI)

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered essential to determine effective interventions for routine clinical practice, but many fail to recruit participants efficiently, and some really important RCTs are not undertaken because recruitment is thought to be too difficult. The ‘QuinteT Recruitment Intervention’ (QRI) aims to facilitate informed decision making by patients about RCT participation and to increase recruitment. This paper presents the development and implementation of the QRI. METHODS: The QRI developed iteratively as a complex intervention. It emerged from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ProtecT trial and has been developed further in 13 RCTs. The final version of the QRI uses a combination of standard and innovative qualitative research methods with some simple quantification to understand recruitment and identify sources of difficulties. RESULTS: The QRI has two major phases: understanding recruitment as it happens and then developing a plan of action to address identified difficulties and optimise informed consent in collaboration with the RCT chief investigator (CI) and the Clinical Trials Unit (CTU). The plan of action usually includes RCT-specific, as well as generic, aspects. The QRI can be used in two ways: it can be integrated into the feasibility/pilot or main phase of an RCT to prevent difficulties developing and optimise recruitment from the start, or it can be applied to an ongoing RCT experiencing recruitment shortfalls, with a view to rapidly improving recruitment and informed consent or gathering evidence to justify RCT closure. CONCLUSIONS: The QRI provides a flexible way of understanding recruitment difficulties and producing a plan to address them while ensuring engaged and well-informed decision making by patients. It can facilitate recruitment to the most controversial and important RCTs. QRIs are likely to be of interest to the CIs and CTUs developing proposals for ‘difficult’ RCTs or for RCTs with lower than expected recruitment and to the funding bodies wishing to promote efficient recruitment in pragmatic RCTs. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1391-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Beginning to explore the experience of managing a direct payment for someone with dementia: The perspectives of suitable people and adult social care practitioners

Following legal improvements made around mental capacity together with the Health and Social Care Act, it is now possible for a direct payment to be paid to a 'Suitable Person' to manage on someone's behalf to purchase directly care and support services. People with dementia are a key group affected by this change in England of adult social care. We interviewed nine social care practitioners and seven Suitable People for people with dementia across five English local authorities to begin to examine their experiences of this new method of social care provision. Findings from thematic analyses suggest positive outcomes and multiple beneficiaries, but some challenges: potentially inappropriate processes, support planning, divergence in attitudes towards care and support outcomes. Implications for practice include obfuscation of recipients' and Suitable People's best interests and supporting practitioners to explore fully clients' aspirations for care and support

Arthroscopic hip surgery compared with personalised hip therapy in people over 16 years old with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome : UK FASHIoN RCT

Background: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery or with physiotherapist-led conservative care. Objective: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care. Design: The UK FASHIoN (full trial of arthroscopic surgery for hip impingement compared with non-operative care) trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial that was carried out at 23 NHS hospitals. Participants: Participants were included if they had femoroacetabular impingement, were aged ≥ 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology (but no osteoarthritis) and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy. Intervention: Participants were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to receive hip arthroscopy followed by postoperative physiotherapy, or personalised hip therapy (i.e. an individualised physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre using a central telephone randomisation service. Outcome assessment and analysis were masked. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed by intention to treat. Results: Between July 2012 and July 2016, 648 eligible patients were identified and 348 participants were recruited. In total, 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 participants were allocated to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% (N = 319; hip arthroscopy, n = 157; personalised hip therapy, n = 162). At 12 months, mean International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) score had improved from 39.2 (standard deviation 20.9) points to 58.8 (standard deviation 27.2) points for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35.6 (standard deviation 18.2) points to 49.7 (standard deviation 25.5) points for participants in personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in International Hip Outcome Tool scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline International Hip Outcome Tool score and centre, was 6.8 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 12.0) points in favour of hip arthroscopy (p = 0.0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6.1 points). Five (83%) of six serious adverse events in the hip arthroscopy group were related to treatment and one serious adverse event in the personalised hip therapy group was not. Thirty-eight (24%) personalised hip therapy patients chose to have hip arthroscopy between 1 and 3 years after randomisation. Nineteen (12%) hip arthroscopy patients had a revision arthroscopy. Eleven (7%) personalised hip therapy patients and three (2%) hip arthroscopy patients had a hip replacement within 3 years. Limitations: Study participants and treating clinicians were not blinded to the intervention arm. Delays were encountered in participants accessing treatment, particularly surgery. Follow-up lasted for 3 years. Conclusion: Hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy both improved hip-related quality of life for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Hip arthroscopy led to a greater improvement in quality of life than personalised hip therapy, and this difference was clinically significant at 12 months. This study does not demonstrate cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy compared with personalised hip therapy within the first 12 months. Further follow-up will reveal whether or not the clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy are maintained and whether or not it is cost-effective in the long term. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN64081839. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Additional Link above to access the full-text via the publisher's site

Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs):the SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework

BackgroundResearch has shown that recruitment to trials is a process that stretches from identifying potentially eligible patients, through eligibility assessment, to obtaining informed consent. The length and complexity of this pathway means that many patients do not have the opportunity to consider participation. This article presents the development of a simple framework to document, understand and improve the process of trial recruitment. MethodsEight RCTs integrated a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) into the main trial, feasibility or pilot study. Part of the QRI required mapping the patient recruitment pathway using trial-specific screening and recruitment logs. A content analysis compared the logs to identify aspects of the recruitment pathway and process that were useful in monitoring and improving recruitment. Findings were synthesised to develop an optimised simple framework that can be used in a wide range of RCTs. ResultsThe eight trials recorded basic information about patients screened for trial participation and randomisation outcome. Three trials systematically recorded reasons why an individual was not enrolled in the trial, and further details why they were not eligible or approached, or declined randomisation. A framework to facilitate clearer recording of the recruitment process and reasons for non-participation was developed: SEAR andndash; Screening, to identify potentially eligible trial participants; Eligibility, assessed against the trial protocol inclusion/exclusion criteria; Approach, the provision of oral and written information and invitation to participate in the trial, and Randomised or not, with the outcome of randomisation or treatment received. ConclusionsThe SEAR framework encourages the collection of information to identify recruitment obstacles and facilitate improvements to the recruitment process. SEAR can be adapted to monitor recruitment to most RCTs, but is likely to add most value in trials where recruitment problems are anticipated or evident. Further work to test it more widely is recommended.</p

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

Improved risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation: an integrated GARFIELD-AF tool for the prediction of mortality, stroke and bleed in patients with and without anticoagulation.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an accurate, web-based tool for stratifying patients with atrial fibrillation to facilitate decisions on the potential benefits/risks of anticoagulation, based on mortality, stroke and bleeding risks. DESIGN: The new tool was developed, using stepwise regression, for all and then applied to lower risk patients. C-statistics were compared with CHA2DS2-VASc using 30-fold cross-validation to control for overfitting. External validation was undertaken in an independent dataset, Outcome Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). PARTICIPANTS: Data from 39 898 patients enrolled in the prospective GARFIELD-AF registry provided the basis for deriving and validating an integrated risk tool to predict stroke risk, mortality and bleeding risk. RESULTS: The discriminatory value of the GARFIELD-AF risk model was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc for patients with or without anticoagulation. C-statistics (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and haemorrhagic stroke/major bleeding (treated patients) were: 0.77 (0.76 to 0.78), 0.69 (0.67 to 0.71) and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.69), respectively, for the GARFIELD-AF risk models, and 0.66 (0.64-0.67), 0.64 (0.61-0.66) and 0.64 (0.61-0.68), respectively, for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). In very low to low risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)), the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED (for bleeding) scores offered weak discriminatory value for mortality, stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. C-statistics for the GARFIELD-AF risk tool were 0.69 (0.64 to 0.75), 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) and 0.60 (0.47 to 0.73) for each end point, respectively, versus 0.50 (0.45 to 0.55), 0.59 (0.50 to 0.67) and 0.55 (0.53 to 0.56) for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). Upon validation in the ORBIT-AF population, C-statistics showed that the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was effective for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality using the full and simplified model for all-cause mortality: C-statistics 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77) and 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77), respectively, and for predicting for any stroke or systemic embolism over 1 year, C-statistics 0.68 (0.62 to 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc in predicting stroke and mortality and superior to HAS-BLED for bleeding, overall and in lower risk patients. The GARFIELD-AF tool has the potential for incorporation in routine electronic systems, and for the first time, permits simultaneous evaluation of ischaemic stroke, mortality and bleeding risks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362) and for ORBIT-AF (NCT01165710)