Effects on patients of their healthcare practitioner's or institution's participation in clinical trials: A systematic review

Background: Systematic reviews have shown uncertainty about the size or direction of any 'trial effect' for patients in trials compared to those treated outside trials. We are not aware of any systematic review of whether there is a 'trial effect' related to being treated by healthcare practitioners or institutions that take part in research.  Methods: We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and MEDLINE (most recently in January 2009) for studies in which patients were allocated to treatment in one or other setting, and cohort studies reporting the outcomes of patients from different settings. We independently assessed study quality, including the control of bias in the generation of the comparison groups, and extracted data.  Results: We retrieved and checked more than 15,000 records. Thirteen articles were eligible: five practitioner studies and eight institution studies. Meta-analyses were not possible because of heterogeneity. Two practitioner studies were judged to be 'controlled' or better. A Canadian study among nurses found that use of research evidence was higher for those who took part in research working groups and a Danish study on general practitioners found that trial doctors were more likely to prescribe in accordance with research evidence and guidelines. Five institution studies were 'controlled' but provided mixed results. A study of North American patients at hospitals that had taken part in trials for myocardial infarction found no statistically significant difference in treatment for patients in trial and non-trial hospitals. A Canadian study of myocardial infarction patients found that trial participants had better survival than patients in the same hospitals who were not in trials or those in non-trial hospitals. A study of general practices in Denmark did not detect differences in guideline adherence between trial and non-trial practices but found that trial practices were more likely to prescribe the trial sponsor's drugs. The other two 'controlled' studies of institutions found lower mortality in trial than non-trial hospitals.  Conclusions: The available findings from existing research suggest that there might be a 'trial effect' of better outcomes, greater adherence to guidelines and more use of evidence by practitioners and institutions that take part in trials. However, the consequences for patient health are uncertain and the most robust conclusion may be that there is no apparent evidence that patients treated by practitioners or in institutions that take part in trials do worse than those treated elsewhere

PRECIS-2 for retrospective assessment of RCTs in systematic reviews : some thoughts on intention, dichotomization and applicability of RCTs

Peer reviewedPostprin

Publication bias in clinical trials

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To summarise evidence of publication bias for trials of health care interventions.Output Type: Protoco

Patient and public attitudes to and awareness of clinical practice guidelines : a systematic review with thematic and narrative syntheses

Article Accepted Date: 15 July 2014 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Acknowledgements The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 258583 (DECIDE project). The Health Services Research Unit, Aberdeen University, is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The authors accept full responsibility for this paper and the views expressed in it are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Chief Scientist Office. NS receives funding through a Knowledge Translation Fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No funding bodies had a role in the manuscript. We would like to thank Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the University of Dundee for support, including access to literature. We would also like to thank Lorna Thompson (Healthcare Improvement Scotland), for her help with the protocol for this review.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A decision tool for updating Cochrane reviews

This report describes the development and validation of an updating tool to help assess the need and likely benefits of updating a Cochrane review. The report is presented in five sections. Section 1 describes the background and rationale for the updating tool, including information about when and how to update. Section 2 describes the development of the updating tool and the resulting decision tree and checklist. Section 3 presents the results of the in-house and ongoing formal pilot of the tool, while Sections 4 and 5 provide information about the dissemination of the tool and our key conclusions. This project was funded by the Cochrane Opportunities Fund in 2007

Framing the conversation: use of PRECIS-2 ratings to advance understanding of pragmatic trial design domains

Background  There continues to be debate about what constitutes a pragmatic trial and how it is distinguished from more traditional explanatory trials. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project, which includes five trials and a coordinating unit, has adopted the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) instrument. The purpose of the study was to collect PRECIS-2 ratings at two points in time to assess whether the tool was sensitive to change in trial design, and to explore with investigators the rationale for rating shifts.  Methods  A mixed-methods design included sequential collection and analysis of quantitative data (PRECIS-2 ratings) and qualitative data. Ratings were collected at two annual, in-person project meetings, and subsequent interviews conducted with investigators were recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo 11 Pro for Windows. Rating shifts were coded as either (1) actual change (reflects a change in procedure or protocol), (2) primarily a rating shift reflecting rater variability, or (3) themes that reflect important concepts about the tool and/or pragmatic trial design.  Results  Based on PRECIS-2 ratings, each trial was highly pragmatic at the planning phase and remained so 1year later in the early phases of trial implementation. Over half of the 45 paired ratings for the nine PRECIS-2 domains indicated a rating change from Time 1 to Time 2 (N = 24, 53%). Of the 24 rating changes, only three represented a true change in the design of the trial. Analysis of rationales for rating shifts identified critical themes associated with the tool or pragmatic trial design more generally. Each trial contributed one or more relevant comments, with Eligibility, Flexibility of Adherence, and Follow-up each accounting for more than one.  Conclusions  PRECIS-2 has proved useful for “framing the conversation” about trial design among members of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project. Our findings suggest that design elements assessed by the PRECIS-2 tool may represent mostly stable decisions. Overall, there has been a positive response to using PRECIS-2 to guide conversations around trial design, and the project’s focus on the use of the tool by this group of early adopters has provided valuable feedback to inform future trainings on the tool

The PRECIS-2 tool has good interrater reliability and reasonable discriminant validity

This work was supported by the Chief Scientist Office (CSO) of Scotland grant CZH/4/773, the UK Medical Research Council and the University of Dundee work through the provision of a stipend for KL and from the Health Services Research Unit at the University of Aberdeen, which is core funded by the CSO of the Scottish Government Health Directories. We are grateful to all the participants who assisted in this study: F Althabe, A-W Chan, D Altman, D Bratton, E Brass, M Campbell, G Forbes, B Gaglio, R Glasgow, H Hobbelen, S Hopewell, J Krishnan, D Riddle, J Segal, D Steinfort, P Tugwell, SN Van der Veer, VA. Welch, C Witt.Peer reviewedPostprin

Patients, health information, and guidelines:a focus-group study

Background. Evidence-based clinical guidelines could support shared decision-making and help patients to participate actively in their care. However, it is not well known how patients view guidelines as a source of health information. This qualitative study aimed to assess what patients know about guidelines, and what they think of their presentation formats. Research question. What is the role of guidelines as health information for patients and how could the implementation of evidence-based information for patients be improved? Methods. A qualitative study with focus groups that were built around a semi-structured topic guide. Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed and analysed using a phenomenographic approach. Results. Five focus groups were carried out in 2012 with a total of 23 participants. Patients searched for health information from the Internet or consulted health professionals or their personal networks. The concepts of guidelines included instructions or standards for health professionals, information given by a health professional to the patient, and material to protect and promote the interests of patients. Some patients did not have a concept for guidelines. Patients felt that health information was abundant and its quality sometimes difficult to assess. They respected conciseness, clarity, clear structure, and specialists or well-known organizations as authors of health information. Patients would like health professionals to deliver and clarify written materials to them or point out to them the relevant Internet sites. Conclusions. The concept of guidelines was not well known among our interviewees; however, they expressed an interest in having more communication on health information, both written information and clarifications with their health professionals

What do patients and the public know about clinical practice guidelines and what do they want from them? A qualitative study

Background   Guideline producers are increasingly producing versions of guidelines for the public. The aim of this study was to explore what patients and the public understand about the purpose and production of clinical guidelines, and what they want from clinical guidelines to support their healthcare decisions.  Methods  Participants were purposively selected to represent a range of the likely users of patient versions of guidelines, including individuals with health conditions (diabetes and depression), general members of the public, health communication professionals and a group of young people. Participants were asked about their awareness and understanding of clinical guidelines and presented with scenario recommendations, or draft materials from patient guidelines to prompt discussion. Each discussion was facilitated by one or two researchers. All focus groups were recorded and transcribed prior to analysis. Data were analysed using framework analysis.  Results  We ran nine focus groups involving 62 individuals, supplemented by four interviews with people experiencing homelessness. Eight groups were held in Scotland, one in England. The four interviews were held in Scotland. The framework analysis yielded five themes: access and awareness; what patients want to know; properties of guidelines; presenting evidence; and format. Awareness of guidelines was low. Participants emphasised the need for information that enables them to choose between treatment options, including harms. They would like help with this from healthcare professionals, especially general practitioners. Participants differed in their support for the inclusion of numerical information and graphs.  Conclusions  Members of the public want information to help them choose between treatments, including information on harm, particularly to support shared decisions with health professionals. Presenting numerical information is a challenge and layered approaches that present information in stages may be helpful. Ignoring the themes identified in this study is likely to lead to materials that fail to support public and patient healthcare decisions