Ensuring young voices are heard in core outcome set development: international workshops with 70 children and young people.

Plain english summaryResearchers test treatments to ensure these work and are safe. They do this by studying the effects that treatments have on patients by measuring outcomes, such as pain and quality of life. Often research teams measure different outcomes even though each team is studying the same condition. This makes it hard to compare the findings from different studies and it can reduce the accuracy of the treatment advice available to patients. Increasingly, researchers are tackling this problem by developing 'core outcome sets'. These are lists of outcomes that all researchers working on a given condition should measure in their studies. It is important that patients have a voice in the development of core outcome sets and children and young people are no exception. But their voices have rarely been heard when core outcome sets are developed. Researchers are trying to address this problem and make sure that core outcome sets are developed in ways that are suitable for children and young people. As a first step, we held two international workshops with children and young people to listen to their views. They emphasised the importance of motivating young people to participate in developing core outcome sets, making them feel valued, and making the development process more interactive, enjoyable and convenient. We hope this commentary will encourage researchers to include children and young people when developing core outcome sets and to adapt their methods so these are suitable for young participants. Future research is important to examine whether these adaptations are effective.AbstractBackground Different research teams looking at treatments for the same condition often select and measure inconsistent treatment outcomes. This makes it difficult to synthesise the results of different studies, leads to selective outcome reporting and impairs the quality of evidence about treatments. 'Core outcome sets' (COS) can help to address these problems. A COS is an agreed, minimum list of outcomes that researchers are encouraged to consistently measure and report in their studies. Including children and young people (CYP) as participants in the development of COS for paediatric conditions ensures that clinically meaningful outcomes are measured and reported. However, few published COS have included CYP as participants. COS developers have described difficulties in recruiting and retaining CYP and there is a lack of guidance on optimising COS methods for them. We aimed to explore CYP's views on the methods used to develop COS and identify ways to optimise these methods.Main body This commentary summarises discussions during two workshops with approximately 70 CYP (aged 10-18 years old) at the International Children's Advisory Network Research and Advocacy Summit, 2018. Delegates described what might motivate them to participate in a COS study, including feeling valued, understanding the need for COS and the importance of input from CYP in their development, and financial and other incentives (e.g. certificates of participation). For Delphi surveys, delegates suggested that lists of outcomes should be as brief as possible, and that scoring and feedback methods should be simplified. For consensus meetings, delegates advised preparing CYP in advance, supporting them during meetings (e.g. via mentors) and favoured arrangements whereby CYP could meet separately from parents and other stakeholders. Overall, they wanted COS methods that were convenient, enjoyable and engaging.Conclusion This commentary points to the limitations of the methods currently used to develop COS with CYP. It also points to ways to motivate CYP to participate in COS studies and to enhancements of methods to make participation more engaging for CYP. Pending much needed research on COS methods for CYP, the perspectives offered in the workshops should help teams developing COS in paediatrics and child health

Development of a core outcome set to determine the overall treatment success of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, there has been growing interest in alternatives to appendicectomy. In particular, non-operative treatment of appendicitis, with antibiotics alone, has been proposed as a potential treatment. A small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and, more recently, children suggest that antibiotic treatment may be a valid alternative to appendicectomy. However, there is currently insufficient data to justify its widespread use. Prior to performing further efficacy studies of the treatment of appendicitis in children, it is imperative to identify the most relevant outcome measures for inclusion in the design of comparative studies. This is of particular importance when evaluating a novel treatment approach since the outcomes of importance may differ from those commonly reported with traditional therapies. A review of the relevant literature and electronic resources failed to identify a core outcome set (COS) for children with appendicitis. We aim to define a COS for the measurement of treatment interventions in children (<18 years) with acute appendicitis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This project will entail: (1) a systematic review to identify previously reported acute uncomplicated appendicitis treatment outcomes; (2) assembly of stakeholder panels (paediatric and adult surgeons, patients and parents); (3) a three-stage Delphi process; and (4) a final consensus meeting to complete the COS. ETHICS AND REGISTRATION: COS development is part of CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children - a randomised controlled Trial (Feasibility) (CONTRACT) study, for which full ethical approval for CONTRACT has been granted. The COS development study is registered with the COMET Initiative in May 2017 (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/987)

CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children – a randomised controlled feasibility Trial (CONTRACT)

Objective To establish the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared with appendicectomy in children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.Design Feasibility randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study to inform recruiter training to optimise recruitment and the design of a future definitive trial.Setting Three specialist paediatric surgery centres in the UK.Patients Children (aged 4–15 years) with a clinical diagnosis of uncomplicated acute appendicitis.Interventions Appendicectomy or a non-operative treatment pathway (comprising broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation).Main outcome measures Primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited. Secondary outcomes evaluated adherence to interventions, data collection during follow-up, safety of treatment pathways and clinical course.Results Fifty per cent of eligible participants (95% CI 40 to 59) approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. Repeated bespoke recruiter training was associated with an increase in recruitment rate over the course of the trial from 38% to 72%. There was high acceptance of randomisation, good patient and surgeon adherence to trial procedures and satisfactory completion of follow-up. Although more participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated, treatment pathways were found to be safe and adverse event profiles acceptable.Conclusion Recruitment to a randomised controlled trial examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children is feasible.Trial registration number ISRCTN15830435

Conservative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis in children:the CONTRACT feasibility study, including feasibility RCT

Background Whilst non-operative treatment is known to be effective for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children, comparative randomised trial data reporting important outcomes compared to appendicectomy are lacking.ObjectivesTo ascertain the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared to appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children.•DesignMixed methods study including: a feasibility RCT; embedded and parallel qualitative and survey studies; parallel health economic feasibility study; development of a core outcome set.Setting Three specialist NHS Paediatric Surgical Units in EnglandParticipants Children (aged 4-15 years) clinically diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis participated in the feasibility RCT. Children, their families, recruiting clinicians and other healthcare professionals involved in caring for children with appendicitis took part in the qualitative study. UK Specialist Paediatric Surgeons took part in the survey. Specialist Paediatric Surgeons, Adult General Surgeons who treat children, and children and young people who previously had appendicitis along with their families took part in the core outcomes set development.Interventions Participants in the feasibility RCT were randomised to a non-operative treatment pathway (broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation) or appendicectomy.Main outcome measures Primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited to the feasibility trial.Data sourcesNHS casenotes, questionnaire responses, transcribed audio recordings of recruitment discussions and qualitative interviewsResults Overall, 50% (95%CI 40-59) of 115 eligible participants approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. There was high acceptance of randomisation and good adherence to trial procedures and follow-up (follow rates of 89%, 85% and 85% at six weeks, three months and six months respectively). More participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated.Qualitative work enabled us to: communicate about the trial effectively with patients and families; design and deliver bespoke training to optimise recruitment; and understand how to optimise design and delivery of a future trial.The health economic study, indicated that the main cost drivers are the ward stay cost and the cost of the operation, and has informed quality of life assessment methods for future work.A core outcome set for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people was developed, containing 14 outcomes.There is adequate surgeon interest to justify proceeding to an effectiveness trial with 51% of those surveyed expressing a willingness to recruit with an unchanged trial protocol.LimitationsSince the feasibility RCT was only performed in three centres we cannot guarantee successful recruitment across a larger number of sites. However, our qualitative work has informed a bespoke training package to facilitate this. Although survey results suggest adequate clinician interest to make a larger trial possible, actual participation may differ, and equipoise may have moved over time.Conclusions A future effectiveness trial is feasible following limited additional preparation to establish appropriate outcome measures and case identification. We recommend a limited package of qualitative work be included to optimise recruitment at new centres in particular.Future work Prior to proceeding to an effectiveness trial we need to: develop a robust method for distinguishing children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis from those with more advanced appendicitis; reach agreement on a primary outcome measure and effect size that is acceptable to all stakeholder groups involved.Study registration ISRCTN15830435.Funding detailsNIHR HTA programm

Different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: the SIRJIA mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND:In the UK, juvenile idiopathic arthritis is the most common inflammatory disorder in childhood, affecting 10 : 100,000 children and young people aged < 16 years each year, with a population prevalence of around 1 : 1000. Corticosteroids are commonly used to treat juvenile idiopathic arthritis; however, there is currently a lack of consensus as to which corticosteroid induction regimen should be used with various disease subtypes and severities of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. OBJECTIVE:The main study objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to compare the different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. DESIGN:This was a mixed-methods study. Work packages included a literature review; qualitative interviews with children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and their families; a questionnaire survey and screening log to establish current UK practice; a consensus meeting with health-care professionals, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and their families to establish the primary outcome; a feasibility study to pilot data capture and to collect data for future sample size calculations; and a final consensus meeting to establish the final protocol. SETTING:The setting was rheumatology clinics across the UK. PARTICIPANTS:Children, young people and their families who attended clinics and health-care professionals took part in this mixed-methods study. INTERVENTIONS:This study observed methods of prescribing corticosteroids across the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The main study outcomes were the acceptability of a future trial for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals, and the feasibility of delivering such a trial. RESULTS:Qualitative interviews identified differences in the views of children, young people and their families on a randomised controlled trial and potential barriers to recruitment. A total of 297 participants were screened from 13 centres in just less than 6 months. In practice, all routes of corticosteroid administration were used, and in all subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection was the most common treatment. The questionnaire surveys showed the varying clinical practice across the UK, but established intra-articular corticosteroids as the treatment control for a future trial. The primary outcome of choice for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals was the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count. However, results from the feasibility study showed that, owing to missing blood test data, the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score should be used. The Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score are composite disease activity scoring systems for juvenile arthritis. Two final trial protocols were established for a future randomised controlled trial. LIMITATIONS:Fewer clinics were included in this feasibility study than originally planned, limiting the ability to draw strong conclusions about these units to take part in future research. CONCLUSIONS:A definitive randomised controlled trial is likely to be feasible based on the findings from this study; however, important recommendations should be taken into account when planning such a trial. FUTURE WORK:This mixed-methods study has laid down the foundations to develop the evidence base in this area and conducting a randomised control trial to compare different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis is likely to be feasible. STUDY REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16649996. 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. 24, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

CONTRACT Study - CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children (feasibility):study protocol for a randomised controlled Trial

BackgroundCurrently, the routine treatment for acute appendicitis in the United Kingdom is an appendicectomy. However, there is increasing scientific interest and research into non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults and children. While a number of studies have investigated non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults, this research cannot be applied to the paediatric population. Ultimately, we aim to perform a UK-based multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost effectiveness of non-operative treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children, as compared with appendicectomy. First, we will undertake a feasibility study to assess the feasibility of performing such a trial.Methods/designThe study involves a feasibility RCT with a nested qualitative research to optimise recruitment as well as a health economic substudy. Children (aged 4–15 years inclusive) diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis that would normally be treated with an appendicectomy are eligible for the RCT. Exclusion criteria include clinical/radiological suspicion of perforated appendicitis, appendix mass or previous non-operative treatment of appendicitis. Participants will be randomised into one of two arms. Participants in the intervention arm are treated with antibiotics and regular clinical assessment to ensure clinical improvement. Participants in the control arm will receive appendicectomy. Randomisation will be minimised by age, sex, duration of symptoms and centre. Children and families who are approached for the RCT will be invited to participate in the embedded qualitative substudy, which includes recording of recruitment consultants and subsequent interviews with participants and non-participants and their families and recruiters. Analyses of these will inform interventions to optimise recruitment. The main study outcomes include recruitment rate (primary outcome), identification of strategies to optimise recruitment, performance of trial treatment pathways, clinical outcomes and safety of non-operative treatment. We have involved children, young people and parents in study design and delivery.DiscussionIn this study we will explore the feasibility of performing a full efficacy RCT comparing non-operative treatment with appendicectomy in children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Factors determining success of the present study include recruitment rate, safety of non-operative treatment and adequate interest in the future RCT. Ultimately this feasibility study will form the foundation of the main RCT and reinforce its design.Trial registrationISRCTN15830435. Registered on 8 February 2017

Protective parents and permissive children: what qualitative interviews with parents and children can tell us about the feasibility of juvenile idiopathic arthritis trials

Background: Patient recruitment can be very challenging in paediatric studies, especially in relatively uncommon conditions, such as juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). However, involving children and young people (CYP) in the design of such trials could promise a more rapid trajectory towards making evidence-based treatments available. Studies involving CYP are advocated in the literature but we are not aware of any early stage feasibility studies that have qualitatively accessed the perspectives of parents and CYP with a long term condition to inform design and conduct of a trial. In the context of a feasibility study to inform the design of a proposed randomised controlled trial of corticosteroid induction regimen in JIA, we explored families’ perspectives on the proposed trial and on JIA trials generally. Methods: We analysed interviews with 27 participants (8 CYP aged 8–16 years and 19 parents) from four UK paediatric rheumatology centres. CYP had recently received corticosteroids to treat JIA. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically, drawing on the Framework Method. Results: Both parents and CYP were capable of engaging with the logic of the proposed trial but pointed to challenges with its design. Treatment preferences influenced willingness to participate in the proposed trial. The preferences of older children and their parents often differed, with CYP being more willing to participate in the proposed trial than parents. Families’ current treatment preferences were largely informed by past positive and negative treatment experiences. Some participants also indicated that their treatment preferences were influenced by those of their clinicians. Conclusion: Previous research has typically focused on deficits in patients’ understandings of trials. We found that both parents and CYP understood trial concepts and were able to identify potential flaws in the proposed trial. We propose recommendations to optimise the design of a planned corticosteroid induction regimen trial in JIA. Accessing both parents’ and CYP’s perspectives helps to identify and address recruitment challenges, which will ultimately optimise informed consent and future recruitment