Remote Ischaemic Conditioning in STEMI Patients in Sub-Saharan AFRICA: Rationale and Study Design for the RIC-AFRICA Trial

Purpose: Despite evidence of myocardial infarct size reduction in animal studies, remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) failed to improve clinical outcomes in the large CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial. Potential reasons include that the predominantly low-risk study participants all received timely optimal reperfusion therapy by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Whether RIC can improve clinical outcomes in higher-risk STEMI patients in environments with poor access to early reperfusion or PPCI will be investigated in the RIC-AFRICA trial. // Methods: The RIC-AFRICA study is a sub-Saharan African multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial designed to test the impact of RIC on the composite endpoint of 30-day mortality and heart failure in 1200 adult STEMI patients without access to PPCI. Randomized participants will be stratified by whether or not they receive thrombolytic therapy within 12 h or arrive outside the thrombolytic window (12–24 h). Participants will receive either RIC (four 5-min cycles of inflation [20 mmHg above systolic blood pressure] and deflation of an automated blood pressure cuff placed on the upper arm) or sham control (similar protocol but with low-pressure inflation of 20 mmHg and deflation) within 1 h of thrombolysis and applied daily for the next 2 days. STEMI patients arriving greater than 24 h after chest pain but within 72 h will be recruited to participate in a concurrently running independent observational arm. // Conclusion: The RIC-AFRICA trial will determine whether RIC can reduce rates of death and heart failure in higher-risk sub-optimally reperfused STEMI patients, thereby providing a low-cost, non-invasive therapy for improving health outcomes

A randomised controlled trial to compare opt-in and opt-out parental consent for childhood vaccine safety surveillance using data linkage: study protocol

Extent: 10p.Background: The Vaccine Assessment using Linked Data (VALiD) trial compared opt-in and opt-out parental consent for a population-based childhood vaccine safety surveillance program using data linkage. A subsequent telephone interview of all households enrolled in the trial elicited parental intent regarding the return or non-return of reply forms for opt-in and opt-out consent. This paper describes the rationale for the trial and provides an overview of the design and methods. Methods/Design: Single-centre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (RCT) stratified by firstborn status. Mothers who gave birth at one tertiary South Australian hospital were randomised at six weeks post-partum to receive an opt-in or opt-out reply form, along with information explaining data linkage. The primary outcome at 10 weeks post-partum was parental participation in each arm, as indicated by the respective return or non-return of a reply form (or via telephone or email response). A subsequent telephone interview at 10 weeks post-partum elicited parental intent regarding the return or non-return of the reply form, and attitudes and knowledge about data linkage, vaccine safety, consent preferences and vaccination practices. Enrolment began in July 2009 and 1,129 households were recruited in a three-month period. Analysis has not yet been undertaken. The participation rate and selection bias for each method of consent will be compared when the data are analysed. Discussion: The VALiD RCT represents the first trial of opt-in versus opt-out consent for a data linkage study that assesses consent preferences and intent compared with actual opting in or opting out behaviour, and socioeconomic factors. The limitations to generalisability are discussed.Jesia G Berry, Philip Ryan, Annette J Braunack-Mayer, Katherine M Duszynski, Vicki Xafis, Michael S Gold, the Vaccine Assessment Using Linked Data (VALiD) Working Grou

Diversity in collaborative research communities: a multicultural, multidisciplinary thesis writing group in public health

Writing groups for doctoral students are generally agreed to provide valuable learning spaces for Ph.D. candidates. Here an academic developer and the eight members of a writing group formed in a Discipline of Public Health provide an account of their experiences of collaborating in a multicultural, multidisciplinary thesis writing group. We consider the benefits of belonging to such a group for Ph.D. students who are operating in a research climate in which disciplinary boundaries are blurring and where an increasing number of doctoral projects are interdisciplinary in nature; in which both academic staff and students come from enormously diverse cultural and language backgrounds; and in which teamwork, networking and collaboration are prized but not always proactively facilitated. We argue that doctoral writing groups comprising students from diverse cultural and disciplinary backgrounds can be of significant value for postgraduates who wish to collaborate on their own academic development to improve their research writing and communication skills; at the same time, such collaborative work effectively builds an inclusive, dynamic research community.Cally Guerin, Vicki Xafis, Diana V. Doda, Marianne H. Gillam, Allison J. Larg, Helene Luckner, Nasreen Jahan, Aris Widayati and Chuangzhou X

Sources of potential bias when combining routine data linkage and a national survey of secondary school-aged children: a record linkage study

Background Linking survey data to administrative records requires informed participant consent. When linkage includes child data, this includes parental and child consent. Little is known of the potential impacts of introducing consent to data linkage on response rates and biases in school-based surveys. This paper assessed: i) the impact on overall parental consent rates and sample representativeness when consent for linkage was introduced and ii) the quality of identifiable data provided to facilitate linkage. Methods Including an option for data linkage was piloted in a sub-sample of schools participating in the Student Health and Wellbeing survey, a national survey of adolescents in Wales, UK. Schools agreeing to participate were randomized 2:1 to receive versus not receive the data linkage question. Survey responses from consenting students were anonymised and linked to routine datasets (e.g. general practice, inpatient, and outpatient records). Parental withdrawal rates were calculated for linkage and non-linkage samples. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to compare characteristics between: i) consenters and non-consenters; ii) successfully and unsuccessfully linked students; and iii) the linked cohort and peers within the general population, with additional comparisons of mental health diagnoses and health service contacts. Results The sub-sample comprised 64 eligible schools (out of 193), with data linkage piloted in 39. Parental consent was comparable across linkage and non-linkage schools. 48.7% (n = 9232) of students consented to data linkage. Modelling showed these students were more likely to be younger, more affluent, have higher positive mental wellbeing, and report fewer risk-related behaviours compared to non-consenters. Overall, 69.8% of consenting students were successfully linked, with higher rates of success among younger students. The linked cohort had lower rates of mental health diagnoses (5.8% vs. 8.8%) and specialist contacts (5.2% vs. 7.7%) than general population peers. Conclusions Introducing data linkage within a national survey of adolescents had no impact on study completion rates. However, students consenting to data linkage, and those successfully linked, differed from non-consenting students on several key characteristics, raising questions concerning the representativeness of linked cohorts. Further research is needed to better understand decision-making processes around providing consent to data linkage in adolescent populations

Making sense of it all: Ethical reflections on the conditions surrounding the first genome-edited babies

10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16295.2Wellcome Open Research521

Parent perspectives on consent for the linkage of data to evaluate vaccine safety: A randomised trial of opt-in and opt-out consent

BackgroundWe examined parents' consent preferences and understanding of an opt-in or opt-out invitation to participate in data linkage for post-marketing safety surveillance of childhood vaccines.MethodsA single-blind parallel-group randomised controlled trial: 1129 families of babies born at a South Australian hospital in 2009 were sent information at 6 weeks post-partum, explaining data linkage of childhood immunisation and hospital records for vaccine safety surveillance, with 4 weeks to opt in or opt out by reply form, telephone, or email. At 10 weeks post-partum, 1026 (91%) parents were followed up by telephone interview.ResultsIn both the opt-in (n = 564) and opt-out arms (n = 565), four-fifths of the parents recalled receiving the information (81% vs. 83%, P = 0.35), three-fifths reported reading it (63% vs. 67%, P = 0.11), but only two-fifths correctly identified the health records to be linked (43% vs. 39%, P = 0.21). Parents who actively consented (opted in) were more likely than those who passively consented (did not opt out) to recall the information (100% vs. 83%, P LimitationsThe context of data linkage is limited to vaccine safety surveillance. Only recall and understanding retained at 1 month post enrolment were measured.ConclusionsThis trial demonstrates that informed consent for a population-based surveillance programme cannot realistically be achieved using mail-based opt-in and opt-out approaches. While recall and understanding of the study's purpose were better among parents who actively consented (opted in) compared with parents who passively consented (did not opt out), participation was substantially lower (21% vs. 96% respectively). Most parents appeared to have a poor understanding of data linkage for vaccine safety surveillance; nonetheless, they supported data linkage. They preferred a system utilising opt-out consent or no consent to one using opt-in consent.Jesia G Berry, Philip Ryan, Katherine M Duszynski, Annette J Braunack-Mayer, Jillian Carlson, Vicki Xafis, and Michael S Gold; for the Vaccine Assessment using Linked Data (VALiD) Working Grou