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

Effective Feedback to Improve Primary Care Prescribing Safety (EFIPPS) a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised trial:designing the intervention (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01602705)

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Developing core sets for persons following amputation based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a way to specify functioning

Amputation is a common late stage sequel of peripheral vascular disease and diabetes or a sequel of accidental trauma, civil unrest and landmines. The functional impairments affect many facets of life including but not limited to: Mobility; activities of daily living; body image and sexuality. Classification, measurement and comparison of the consequences of amputations has been impeded by the limited availability of internationally, multiculturally standardized instruments in the amputee setting. The introduction of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) by the World Health Assembly in May 2001 provides a globally accepted framework and classification system to describe, assess and compare function and disability. In order to facilitate the use of the ICF in everyday clinical practice and research, ICF core sets have been developed that focus on specific aspects of function typically associated with a particular disability. The objective of this paper is to outline the development process for the ICF core sets for persons following amputation. The ICF core sets are designed to translate the benefits of the ICF into clinical routine. The ICF core sets will be defined at a Consensus conference which will integrate evidence from preparatory studies, namely: (a) a systematic literature review regarding the outcome measures of clinical trails and observational studies, (b) semi-structured patient interviews, (c) international experts participating in an internet-based survey, and (d) cross-sectional, multi-center studies for clinical applicability. To validate the ICF core sets field-testing will follow. Invitation for participation: The development of ICF Core Sets is an inclusive and open process. Anyone who wishes to actively participate in this process is invited to do so

Quality of Care for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care in Norway Is Improving: Results of cross-sectional surveys of 33 general practices in 1995 and 2005

OBJECTIVE—To assess changes in the quality of care in Norway for patients with type 2 diabetes

Breast cancer risk reduction:is it feasible to initiate a randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle intervention programme (ActWell) within a national breast screening programme?

BackgroundBreast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second cause of cancer deaths amongst women in the UK. The incidence of the disease is increasing and is highest in women from least deprived areas. It is estimated that around 42% of the disease in post-menopausal women could be prevented by increased physical activity and reductions in alcohol intake and body fatness. Breast cancer control endeavours focus on national screening programmes but these do not include communications or interventions for risk reductionThis study aimed to assess the feasibility of delivery, indicative effects and acceptability of a lifestyle intervention programme initiated within the NHS Scottish Breast Screening Programme (NHSSBSP).MethodsA 1:1 randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the 3 month ActWell programme (focussing on body weight, physical activity and alcohol) versus usual care conducted in two NHSSBSP sites between June 2013 and January 2014. Feasibility assessments included recruitment, retention, and fidelity to protocol. Indicative outcomes were measured at baseline and 3 month follow-up (body weight, waist circumference, eating and alcohol habits and physical activity. At study end, a questionnaire assessed participant satisfaction and qualitative interviews elicited women¿s, coaches and radiographers¿ experiences. Statistical analysis used Chi squared tests for comparisons in proportions and paired t tests for comparisons of means. Linear regression analyses were performed, adjusted for baseline values, with group allocation as a fixed effectResultsA pre-set recruitment target of 80 women was achieved within 12 weeks and 65 (81%) participants (29 intervention, 36 control) completed 3 month assessments. Mean age was 58¿±¿5.6 years, mean BMI was 29.2¿±¿7.0 kg/m2 and many (44%) reported a family history of breast cancer.The primary analysis (baseline body weight adjusted) showed a significant between group difference favouring the intervention group of 2.04 kg (95%CI ¿3.24 kg to ¿0.85 kg). Significant, favourable between group differences were also detected for BMI, waist circumference, physical activity and sitting time. Women rated the programme highly and 70% said they would recommend it to others.ConclusionsRecruitment, retention, indicative results and participant acceptability support the development of a definitive RCT to measure long term effects.Trial registrationThe trial was registered with Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN56223933)

From theory to 'measurement' in complex interventions: methodological lessons from the development of an e-health normalisation instrument

<b>Background</b> Although empirical and theoretical understanding of processes of implementation in health care is advancing, translation of theory into structured measures that capture the complex interplay between interventions, individuals and context remain limited. This paper aimed to (1) describe the process and outcome of a project to develop a theory-based instrument for measuring implementation processes relating to e-health interventions; and (2) identify key issues and methodological challenges for advancing work in this field.<p></p> <b>Methods</b> A 30-item instrument (Technology Adoption Readiness Scale (TARS)) for measuring normalisation processes in the context of e-health service interventions was developed on the basis on Normalization Process Theory (NPT). NPT focuses on how new practices become routinely embedded within social contexts. The instrument was pre-tested in two health care settings in which e-health (electronic facilitation of healthcare decision-making and practice) was used by health care professionals.<p></p> <b>Results</b> The developed instrument was pre-tested in two professional samples (N = 46; N = 231). Ratings of items representing normalisation 'processes' were significantly related to staff members' perceptions of whether or not e-health had become 'routine'. Key methodological challenges are discussed in relation to: translating multi-component theoretical constructs into simple questions; developing and choosing appropriate outcome measures; conducting multiple-stakeholder assessments; instrument and question framing; and more general issues for instrument development in practice contexts.<p></p> <b>Conclusions</b> To develop theory-derived measures of implementation process for progressing research in this field, four key recommendations are made relating to (1) greater attention to underlying theoretical assumptions and extent of translation work required; (2) the need for appropriate but flexible approaches to outcomes measurement; (3) representation of multiple perspectives and collaborative nature of work; and (4) emphasis on generic measurement approaches that can be flexibly tailored to particular contexts of study

The intervention process in the European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) trial: a mixed method protocol for evaluation

Background - EuroFIT is a gender-sensitised, health and lifestyle program targeting physical activity, sedentary time and dietary behaviours in men. The delivery of the program in football clubs, led by the clubs’ community coaches, is designed to both attract and engage men in lifestyle change through an interest in football or loyalty to the club they support. The EuroFIT program will be evaluated in a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT), for which ~1000 overweight men, aged 30–65 years, will be recruited in 15 top professional football clubs in the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the UK. The process evaluation is designed to investigate how implementation within the RCT is achieved in the various football clubs and countries and the processes through which EuroFIT affects outcomes. Methods - This mixed methods evaluation is guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions. Data will be collected in the intervention arm of the EuroFIT trial through: participant questionnaires (n = 500); attendance sheets and coach logs (n = 360); observations of sessions (n = 30); coach questionnaires (n = 30); usage logs from a novel device for self-monitoring physical activity and non-sedentary behaviour (SitFIT); an app-based game to promote social support for physical activity outside program sessions (MatchFIT); interviews with coaches (n = 15); football club representatives (n = 15); and focus groups with participants (n = 30). Written standard operating procedures are used to ensure quality and consistency in data collection and analysis across the participating countries. Data will be analysed thematically within datasets and overall synthesis of findings will address the processes through which the program is implemented in various countries and clubs and through which it affects outcomes, with careful attention to the context of the football club. Discussion - The process evaluation will provide a comprehensive account of what was necessary to implement the EuroFIT program in professional football clubs within a trial setting and how outcomes were affected by the program. This will allow us to re-appraise the program’s conceptual base, optimise the program for post-trial implementation and roll out, and offer suggestions for the development and implementation of future initiatives to promote health and wellbeing through professional sports clubs. Trial Registration - ISRCTN81935608. Registered on 16 June 2015

Correction to:A novel approach to increasing community capacity for weight management a volunteer-delivered programme (ActWELL) initiated within breast screening clinics: a randomised controlled trial

Acknowledgements Our thanks to Elizabeth Banks who advised and assisted with many aspects of the study and also to the many women who commented on the development and design of this study including those on our Public Advisory Team (Pamela Deponio, Maggie Taylor and Mary Wotherspoon). Funding This work was supported by The Scottish Government, grant number BC/Screening/17/01. The funders provided independent referee reports which guided the final study design. The funders have read this manuscript. In-kind support was given by Breast Cancer Now for facilitating this study.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A novel approach to increasing community capacity for weight management a volunteer-delivered programme (ActWELL) initiated within breast screening clinics:a randomised controlled trial

Background: It is estimated that around 30% of breast cancers in post-menopausal women are related to lifestyle. The breast cancer-pooling project demonstrated that sustained weight loss of 2 to 4.5 kg is associated with an 18% lower risk of breast cancer, highlighting the importance of small changes in body weight. Our study aimed to assess the effectiveness a volunteer-delivered, community based, weight management programme (ActWELL) for women with a BMI > 25 kg/m2 attending NHS Scotland Breast Screening clinics. Methods: A multicentre, 1:1 parallel group, randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 560 women aged 50 to 70 years with BMI > 25 kg/m2. On completion of baseline measures, all participants received a breast cancer prevention leaflet. Intervention group participants received the ActWELL intervention which focussed on personalised diet advice and pedometer walking plans. The programme was delivered in leisure centres by (the charity) Breast Cancer Now volunteer coaches. Primary outcomes were changes between groups at 12 months in body weight (kg) and physical activity (accelerometer measured step count). Results: Two hundred seventy-nine women were allocated to the intervention group and 281 to the comparison group. Twelve-month data were available from 240 (81%) intervention and 227 (85%) comparison group participants. Coaches delivered 523 coaching sessions and 1915 support calls to 279 intervention participants. Mean weight change was − 2.5 kg (95% CI − 3.1 to − 1.9) in the intervention group and − 1.2 kg (− 1.8 to 0.6) in the comparison group. The adjusted mean difference was − 1.3 kg (95% CI − 2.2 to − 0.4, P = 0.003). The odds ratio for losing 5% weight was 2.20 (95% CI 1.4 to 3.4, p = 0.0005) in favour of the intervention. The adjusted mean difference in step counts between groups was 483 steps/day (95% CI − 635 to 1602) (NS). Conclusions: A community weight management intervention initiated at breast screening clinics and delivered by volunteer coaches doubled the likelihood of clinically significant weight loss at 12 months (compared with usual care) offering significant potential to decrease breast cancer risk

The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence

The authors would like to thank colleagues at the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) who, through participating in a series of seminars, contributed with valuable input on the initial draft of the presented approaches. The authors also thank all GRADE Working Group members who have contributed to the paper during group discussions at Grade Working Group meetings. The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, receives core funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital is supported by a core grant from the Oak Foundation (OCAY-13-309). SVK is funded by a NRS Scottish Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13 & MC_UU_12017/15) and Chief Scientist’s Office (SPHSU13 & SPHSU15).Peer reviewedPublisher PD