Pilot and feasibility studies : extending the conceptual framework

Acknowledgements Not applicable. Funding No specific funding was received for this work.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Development and validation of a short form psychometric tool assessing the caregiving Challenge of Living with Cystic Fibrosis (CLCF-SF) in a child.

Caring for a child with cystic fibrosis (CF) is a rigorous daily commitment for caregivers and treatment burden is a major concern. We aimed to develop and validate a short form version of a 46-item tool assessing the Challenge of Living with Cystic Fibrosis (CLCF) for clinical or research use. A novel genetic algorithm based on 'evolving' a subset of items from a pre-specified set of criteria, was applied to optimise the tool, using data from 135 families. Internal reliability and validity were assessed; the latter compared scores to validated tests of parental well-being, markers of treatment burden, and disease severity. The 15-item CLCF-SF demonstrated very good internal consistency [Cronbach's alpha 0.82 (95%CI 0.78-0.87)]. Scores for convergent validity correlated with the Beck Depression Inventory (Rho = 0.48), State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-State, Rho = 0.41; STAI-Trait, Rho = 0.43), Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised, lung function (Rho = -0.37), caregiver treatment management (  = 0.48) and child treatment management (  = 0.45), and discriminated between unwell and well children with CF (Mean Difference 5.5, 95%CI 2.5-8.5,  < 0.001), and recent or no hospital admission (MD 3.6, 95%CI 0.25-6.95,  = 0.039). The CLCF-SF provides a robust 15-item tool for assessing the challenge of living with a child with CF

Pilot trials in physical activity journals:a review of reporting and editorial policy

Background: Since the early 2000s, a number of publications in the medical literature have highlighted inadequacies in the design, conduct and reporting of pilot trials. This work led to two notable publications in 2016: a conceptual framework for defining feasibility studies and an extension to the CONSORT 2010 statement to include pilot trials. It was hoped that these publications would educate researchers, leading to better use of pilot trials and thus more rigorously planned and informed randomised controlled trials. The aim of the present work is to evaluate the impact of these publications in the field of physical activity by reviewing the literature pre- and post-2016. This first article presents the pre-2016 review of the reporting and the current editorial policy applied to pilot trials published in physical activity journals. Methods: Fourteen physical activity journals were screened for pilot and feasibility studies published between 2012 and 2015. The CONSORT 2010 extension to pilot and feasibility studies was used as a framework to assess the reporting quality of the studies. Editors of the eligible physical activity journals were canvassed regarding their editorial policy for pilot and feasibility studies. Results: Thirty-one articles across five journals met the eligibility criteria. These articles fell into three distinct categories: trials that were carried out in preparation for a future definitive trial (23%), trials that evaluated the feasibility of a novel intervention but did not explicitly address a future definitive trial (23%) and trials that did not have any clear objectives to address feasibility (55%). Editors from all five journals stated that they generally do not accept pilot trials, and none gave reference to the CONSORT 2010 extension as a guideline for submissions. Conclusion: The result that over half of the studies did not have feasibility objectives is in line with previous research findings, demonstrating that these findings are not being disseminated effectively to researchers in the field of physical activity. The low standard of reporting across most reviewed articles and the neglect of the extended CONSORT 2010 statement by the journal editors highlight the need to actively disseminate these guidelines to ensure their impact

Development and validation of a short form psychometric tool assessing the caregiving Challenge of Living with Cystic Fibrosis (CLCF-SF) in a child.

ObjectiveCaring for a child with cystic fibrosis (CF) is a rigorous daily commitment for caregivers and treatment burden is a major concern. We aimed to develop and validate a short form version of a 46-item tool assessing the Challenge of Living with Cystic Fibrosis (CLCF) for clinical or research use.DesignA novel genetic algorithm based on 'evolving' a subset of items from a pre-specified set of criteria, was applied to optimise the tool, using data from 135 families.Main outcome measuresInternal reliability and validity were assessed; the latter compared scores to validated tests of parental well-being, markers of treatment burden, and disease severity.ResultsThe 15-item CLCF-SF demonstrated very good internal consistency [Cronbach's alpha 0.82 (95%CI 0.78-0.87)]. Scores for convergent validity correlated with the Beck Depression Inventory (Rho = 0.48), State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-State, Rho = 0.41; STAI-Trait, Rho = 0.43), Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised, lung function (Rho = -0.37), caregiver treatment management (r = 0.48) and child treatment management (r = 0.45), and discriminated between unwell and well children with CF (Mean Difference 5.5, 95%CI 2.5-8.5, p p = 0.039).ConclusionThe CLCF-SF provides a robust 15-item tool for assessing the challenge of living with a child with CF

The CO-produced Psychosocial INtervention delivered by GPs to young people after self-harm (COPING): protocol for a feasibility study

BackgroundSelf-harm in young people is a growing concern and reducing rates a global priority. General practitioners (GPs) can intervene early after self-harm but there are no effective treatments presently available. We developed the GP-led COPING intervention, in partnership with young people with lived experience and GPs, to be delivered to young people 16–25 years across two consultations. This study aims to examine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a fully powered effectiveness trial of the COPING intervention in NHS general practice.MethodsThis will be a mixed-methods external non-randomised before-after single arm feasibility study in NHS general practices in the West Midlands, England. Patients aged 16–25 years who have self-harmed in the last 12 months will be eligible to receive COPING. Feasibility outcomes will be recruitment rates, intervention delivery, retention rates, and completion of follow-up outcome measures. All participants will receive COPING with a target sample of 31 with final follow-up data collection at six months from baseline. Clinical data such as self-harm repetition will be collected. A nested qualitative study and national survey of GPs will explore COPING acceptability, deliverability, implementation, and likelihood of contamination.DiscussionBrief GP-led interventions for young people after self-harm are needed and address national guideline and policy recommendations. This study of the COPING intervention will assess whether a main trial is feasible

Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework

We describe a framework for defining pilot and feasibility studies focusing on studies conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial. To develop the framework, we undertook a Delphi survey; ran an open meeting at a trial methodology conference; conducted a review of definitions outside the health research context; consulted experts at an international consensus meeting; and reviewed 27 empirical pilot or feasibility studies. We initially adopted mutually exclusive definitions of pilot and feasibility studies. However, some Delphi survey respondents and the majority of open meeting attendees disagreed with the idea of mutually exclusive definitions. Their viewpoint was supported by definitions outside the health research context, the use of the terms ‘pilot’ and ‘feasibility’ in the literature, and participants at the international consensus meeting. In our framework, pilot studies are a subset of feasibility studies, rather than the two being mutually exclusive. A feasibility study asks whether something can be done, should we proceed with it, and if so, how. A pilot study asks the same questions but also has a specific design feature: in a pilot study a future study, or part of a future study, is conducted on a smaller scale. We suggest that to facilitate their identification, these studies should be clearly identified using the terms ‘feasibility’ or ‘pilot’ as appropriate. This should include feasibility studies that are largely qualitative; we found these difficult to identify in electronic searches because researchers rarely used the term ‘feasibility’ in the title or abstract of such studies. Investigators should also report appropriate objectives and methods related to feasibility; and give clear confirmation that their study is in preparation for a future randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of an intervention

Surgical Standards for Management of the Axilla in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials with Pathological Complete Response Endpoint.

Advances in the surgical management of the axilla in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, especially those with node positive disease at diagnosis, have led to changes in practice and more judicious use of axillary lymph node dissection that may minimize morbidity from surgery. However, there is still significant confusion about how to optimally manage the axilla, resulting in variation among practices. From the viewpoint of drug development, assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy remains paramount and appropriate assessment of residual disease-the primary endpoint of many drug therapy trials in the neoadjuvant setting-is critical. Therefore decreasing the variability, especially in a multicenter clinical trial setting, and establishing a minimum standard to ensure consistency in clinical trial data, without mandating axillary lymph node dissection, for all patients is necessary. The key elements which include proper staging and identification of nodal involvement at diagnosis, and appropriately targeted management of the axilla at the time of surgical resection are presented. The following protocols have been adopted as standard procedure by the I-SPY2 trial for management of axilla in patients with node positive disease, and present a framework for prospective clinical trials and practice

Erratum: Author Correction: Surgical Standards for Management of the Axilla in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials with Pathological Complete Response Endpoint.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/s41523-018-0074-6.]