Community pharmacy interventions for health promotion: effects on professional practice and health outcomes (Protocol)

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: Primary objective To assess the effectiveness of health promotion interventions in community pharmacy practice settings on pharmacy workers and pharmacy clients (including diagnosed patients) when compared to i) No treatment controls ii) Usual treatment controls iii) Other active intervention Secondary objectives To assess whether there are differences in effectiveness of health promotion interventions in community pharmacy practice settings on i) Pharmacy worker ii) Client (patient) with regard to: i) Ethnicity of patients ii) Country income level (World Bank Group 2009) iii) Extent of adverse health behaviour (defined according to national guidelines where available) iv) Type of pharmacy worker delivering the intervention (e.g. pharmacist versus pharmacist technician) v) Theoretical constructs/components and behaviour change techniques employed in the intervention vi) Costs of health car

Can we achieve better recruitment by providing better information? : Meta-analysis of 'studies within a trial' (SWATs) of optimised participant information sheets

BACKGROUND: The information given to people considering taking part in a trial needs to be easy to understand if those people are to become, and then remain, trial participants. However, there is a tension between providing comprehensive information and providing information that is comprehensible. User-testing is one method of developing better participant information, and there is evidence that user-tested information is better at informing participants about key issues relating to trials. However, it is not clear if user-testing also leads to changes in the rates of recruitment in trials, compared to standard trial information. As part of a programme of research, we embedded 'studies within a trial' (SWATs) across multiple ongoing trials to see if user-tested materials led to better rates of recruitment. METHODS: Seven 'host' trials included a SWAT evaluation and randomised their participants to receive routine information sheets generated by the research teams, or information sheets optimised through user-testing. We collected data on trial recruitment and analysed the results across these trials using random effects meta-analysis, with the primary outcome defined as the proportion of participants randomised in a host trial following an invitation to take part. RESULTS: Six SWATs (n=27,805) provided data on recruitment. Optimised participant information sheets likely result in little or no difference in recruitment rates (7.2% versus 6.8%, pooled odds ratio = 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19, p-value = 0.63, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Participant information sheets developed through user testing did not improve recruitment rates. The programme of work showed that co-ordinated testing of recruitment strategies using SWATs is feasible and can provide both definitive and timely evidence on the effectiveness of recruitment strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Healthlines Depression (ISRCTN14172341) Healthlines CVD (ISRCTN27508731) CASPER (ISRCTN02202951) ISDR (ISRCTN87561257) ECLS (NCT01925625) REFORM (ISRCTN68240461) HeLP Diabetes (ISRCTN02123133)

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

Guidelines for reporting embedded recruitment trials

Background: Recruitment to clinical trials is difficult with many trials failing to recruit to target and within time. Embedding trials of recruitment interventions within host trials may provide a successful way to improve this. There are no guidelines for reporting such embedded methodology trials. As part of the Medical Research Council funded Systematic Techniques for Assisting Recruitment to Trials (MRC START) programme designed to test interventions to improve recruitment to trials, we developed guidelines for reporting embedded trials. Methods: We followed a three-phase guideline development process: (1) pre-meeting literature review to generate items for the reporting guidelines; (2) face-to-face consensus meetings to draft the reporting guidelines; and (3)post-meeting feedback review, and pilot testing, followed by finalisation of the reporting guidelines. Results: We developed a reporting checklist based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement 2010. Embedded trials evaluating recruitment interventions should follow the CONSORT statement 2010 and report all items listed as essential. We used a number of examples to illustrate key issues that arise in embedded trials and how best to report them, including (a) how to deal with description of the host trial; (b) the importance of describing items that may differ in the host and embedded trials (such as the setting and the eligible population); and (c) the importance of identifying clearly the point at which the recruitment interventions were embedded in the host trial. Conclusions: Implementation of these guidelines will improve the quality of reports of embedded recruitment trials while advancing the science, design and conduct of embedded trials as a whole

An optimised patient information sheet did not significantly increase recruitment or retention in a falls prevention study: an embedded randomised recruitment trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials are generally regarded as the 'gold standard' experimental design to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. Unfortunately, many trials either fail to recruit sufficient numbers of participants, or recruitment takes longer than anticipated. The current embedded trial evaluates the effectiveness of optimised patient information sheets on recruitment of participants in a falls prevention trial. METHODS: A three-arm, embedded randomised methodology trial was conducted within the National Institute for Health Research-funded REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention (REFORM) cohort randomised controlled trial. Routine National Health Service podiatry patients over the age of 65 were randomised to receive either the control patient information sheet (PIS) for the host trial or one of two optimised versions, a bespoke user-tested PIS or a template-developed PIS. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each group who went on to be randomised to the host trial. RESULTS: Six thousand and nine hundred patients were randomised 1:1:1 into the embedded trial. A total of 193 (2.8%) went on to be randomised into the main REFORM trial (control n = 62, template-developed n = 68; bespoke user-tested n = 63). Information sheet allocation did not improve recruitment to the trial (odds ratios for the three pairwise comparisons: template vs control 1.10 (95% CI 0.77-1.56, p = 0.60); user-tested vs control 1.01 (95% CI 0.71-1.45, p = 0.94); and user-tested vs template 0.92 (95% CI 0.65-1.31, p = 0.65)). CONCLUSIONS: This embedded methodology trial has demonstrated limited evidence as to the benefit of using optimised information materials on recruitment and retention rates in the REFORM study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, ISRCTN68240461 . Registered on 01 July 2011

Guidelines for reporting embedded recruitment trials

Background: Recruitment to clinical trials is difficult with many trials failing to recruit to target and within time. Embedding trials of recruitment interventions within host trials may provide a successful way to improve this. There are no guidelines for reporting such embedded methodology trials. As part of the Medical Research Council funded Systematic Techniques for Assisting Recruitment to Trials (MRC START) programme designed to test interventions to improve recruitment to trials, we developed guidelines for reporting embedded trials. Methods: We followed a three-phase guideline development process: (1) pre-meeting literature review to generate items for the reporting guidelines; (2) face-to-face consensus meetings to draft the reporting guidelines; and (3)post-meeting feedback review, and pilot testing, followed by finalisation of the reporting guidelines. Results: We developed a reporting checklist based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement 2010. Embedded trials evaluating recruitment interventions should follow the CONSORT statement 2010 and report all items listed as essential. We used a number of examples to illustrate key issues that arise in embedded trials and how best to report them, including (a) how to deal with description of the host trial; (b) the importance of describing items that may differ in the host and embedded trials (such as the setting and the eligible population); and (c) the importance of identifying clearly the point at which the recruitment interventions were embedded in the host trial. Conclusions: Implementation of these guidelines will improve the quality of reports of embedded recruitment trials while advancing the science, design and conduct of embedded trials as a whole

Supported intervention versus intervention alone for management of fecal incontinence in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: a multicentre randomised controlled trial with qualitative evaluation

ABSTRACT Purpose To test a non-invasive self-management intervention supported by specialist nurses against the intervention alone in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) with fecal incontinence and to conduct a qualitative evaluation of the trial. Design Multicentre parallel group randomised controlled open label trial, with qualitative evaluation. Subjects and Setting: Patients from a preceding case-finding study who had reported fecal incontinence and met the study requirements participated in the RCT, delivered via IBD outpatient clinics in six UK hospitals. Sixteen participants and 11 staff were interviewed for the qualitative evaluation. Methods Over a three-month period, participants received either four 30-minute sessions with an IBD Clinical Nurse Specialist and a self-management booklet, or the booklet alone; low retention numbers precluded statistical analysis; Individual face-to-face or telephone interviews, recorded digitally and transcribed professionally, were conducted to evaluate the RCT. Transcripts were analysed thematically using an inductive method. Results RCT: 67 participants of the target of 186 were recruited (nurse + booklet: n=32; booklet alone: n=35) and 21 completed the study. Forty-six participants were lost to follow-up or withdrawn. Given the low recruitment and high attrition, statistical analysis of quantitative data was considered futile. Interviews: four themes described the experiences of patient participants and of staff, and provided insight into reasons for low recruitment and attrition, and the difficulties of delivering resource-heavy studies in busy health service environments. Conclusions Alternative approaches to trials of nurse-led interventions in hospital settings are needed