Women’s experiences of the Odon Device to assist vaginal birth and participation in intrapartum research:a qualitative study in a maternity unit in the Southwest of England

OBJECTIVE: To investigate women’s experiences of having a birth assisted by the Odon Device (an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth) and participation in intrapartum research. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews and observations undertaken in the context of case study work embedded in the ASSIST feasibility study. SETTING: A tertiary referral National Health Service (NHS) maternity unit in the Southwest of England, between 8 October 2018 and 26 January 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Eight women, four operators and 11 midwives participated with eight observations of the assisted vaginal birth, eight interviews with women in the postnatal period, 39 interviews/reflections with operators and 19 interviews with midwives. Women in the case study research were recruited from participants in the main ASSIST Study. INTERVENTION: The Odon Device, an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth. RESULTS: Thirty-nine case studies were undertaken. Triangulation of data sources (participant observation, interviews with women, operators and midwives) enabled the exploration of women’s experiences of the Odon Device and recruitment in the intrapartum trial. Experiences were overwhelmingly positive. Women were motivated to take part by a wish for a kinder birth, and because they perceived both the recruitment and research processes (including observation) to be highly acceptable, regardless of whether the Odon-assisted birth was successful or not. CONCLUSIONS: Interviews and observations from multiple stakeholders enabled insight into women’s experiences of an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth. Applying these qualitative methods more broadly may illuminate perspectives of key stakeholders in future intrapartum intervention research and beyond. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10203171; ASSIST Study registration; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10203171

A modified Delphi process to establish future research priorities in malignant oesophagogastric surgery

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this frecordBackground: With rapid advancement in the genomics of oesophagogastric (OG) cancer and raised expectations in clinical outcomes from patients and clinicians alike there is a clear need to determine the current research priorities in OG cancer surgery. The aim of our study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine the research priorities among OG cancer surgeons in the United Kingdom. Methods: Delphi methodology may be utilised to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of experts. Members of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland were invited to submit individual research questions via an online survey (phase I). Two rounds of prioritisation by multidisciplinary expert healthcare professionals (phase II and III) were completed to determine a final list of high priority research questions. All questions submitted and subsequently ranked were analysed on an anonymised basis. Results: In total, 427 questions were submitted in phase I and 75 with an OG cancer focus were taken forward for prioritisation in phase II. Phase III produced a final list of 12 high priority questions with an emphasis on tailored or personalised treatment strategies in OG cancer surgery. Conclusion: A modified Delphi process produced a list of 12 high priority research questions in OG cancer surgery. Future studies and awards from funding bodies should reflect this consensus list of prioritised questions in the interest of improving patient care and encouraging collaborative research across multiple centres

'Trial Exegesis': Methods for Synthesizing Clinical and Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) Data in Trials to Inform Clinical Practice:A Systematic Review

PURPOSE:The CONSORT extension for patient reported outcomes (PROs) aims to improve reporting, but guidance on the optimal integration with clinical data is lacking. This study examines in detail the reporting of PROs and clinical data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gastro-intestinal cancer to inform design and reporting of combined PRO and clinical data from trials to improve the 'take home' message for clinicians to use in practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The case study was undertaken in gastro-intestinal cancer trials. Well-conducted RCTs reporting PROs with validated instruments were identified and categorized into those combining PRO and clinical data in a single paper, or those separating data into linked primary and supplemental papers. Qualitative methods were developed to examine reporting of the critical interpretation of the trial results (trial exegesis) in the papers in relation of the PRO and clinical outcomes and applied to each publication category. Results were used to inform recommendations for practice. RESULTS:From 1917 screened abstracts, 49 high quality RCTs were identified reported in 36 combined and 15 linked primary and supplemental papers. In-depth analysis of manuscript text identified three categories for understanding trial exegesis: where authors reported a "detailed", "general", or absent PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of clinical and PRO results. A total of 11 (30%) and 6 (16%) combined papers reported "detailed" PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of results although only 2 (14%) and 1 (7%) primary papers achieved the same standard respectively. Supplemental papers provide better information with 11 (73%) and 3 (20%) achieving "detailed" rationale and integrated interpretation of results. Supplemental papers, however, were published a median of 20 months after the primary RCT data in lower impact factor journals (median 16.8 versus 5.2). CONCLUSION:It is recommended that single papers, with detailed PRO rationale and integrated PRO and clinical data are published to optimize trial exegesis. Further work to examine whether this improves the use of PRO data to inform practice is needed