Search

Introduction Effective communication can help optimise healthcare interactions and patient outcomes. However, few interventions have been tested clinically, subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis or are sufficiently brief and well-described for implementation in primary care. This paper presents the protocol for determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rigorously developed brief eLearning tool, EMPathicO, among patients with and without musculoskeletal pain.Methods and analysis A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practitioner (GP) surgeries in England and Wales serving patients from diverse geographic, socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. GP surgeries are randomised (1:1) to receive EMPathicO e-learning immediately, or at trial end. Eligible practitioners (eg, GPs, physiotherapists and nurse practitioners) are involved in managing primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain. Patient recruitment is managed by practice staff and researchers. Target recruitment is 840 adults with and 840 without musculoskeletal pain consulting face-to-face, by telephone or video. Patients complete web-based questionnaires at preconsultation baseline, 1 week and 1, 3 and 6 months later. There are two patient-reported primary outcomes: pain intensity and patient enablement. Cost-effectiveness is considered from the National Health Service and societal perspectives. Secondary and process measures include practitioner patterns of use of EMPathicO, practitioner-reported self-efficacy and intentions, patient-reported symptom severity, quality of life, satisfaction, perceptions of practitioner empathy and optimism, treatment expectancies, anxiety, depression and continuity of care. Purposive subsamples of patients, practitioners and practice staff take part in up to two qualitative, semistructured interviews.Ethics approval and dissemination Approved by the South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee on 1 July 2022 and the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales on 6 July 2022 (REC reference 22/SC/0145; IRAS project ID 312208). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed academic publications, conference presentations and patient and practitioner outlets. If successful, EMPathicO could quickly be made available at a low cost to primary care practices across the country.Trial registration number ISRCTN18010240.

IntroductionWomen have historically been under-represented in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including many landmark RCTs that established standards of care. In light of this fact, some modern researchers are calling for replication of earlier landmark trials with women only. This approach is ethically concerning, in that it would require some enrolled women to be deprived of treatments that are currently considered standard of care.ObjectiveIn an attempt to better understand the justification of a women-only approach to designing clinical trials, this study looks to systematically categorise the number of women-only RCTs for conditions that affect both men and women and the reasons given within the medical and philosophical literatures to perform them.MethodologyThis scoping review of the literature will search, screen and select articles based on predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria, after which a grounded theory approach will be used to synthesise the data. It is expected that there will be a variety of reasons given for why a women-only trial may be justified. Electronic databases that will be searched include MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov, Philosopher's Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE and the National Reference Centre for Bioethics.SignificanceThe scope of this study is to determine published rationales used to justify women-only randomised trials, both in the case of new trials and in the repetition of landmark trials.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics board approval is not required for this study as there is no participant involvement. Results will be published as a stand-alone manuscript and will inform a larger project related to the ethics of a women-only RCT of carotid intervention for women with symptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis.

INTRODUCTION:Carotid intervention in the form of endarterectomy or stenting is the current standard of care for the majority of patients with symptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis. However, some randomised controlled trials (RCT) have demonstrated that women benefited significantly less from intervention than men. It is unclear if this is a true phenomenon or a study sampling artefact, as women were severely under-represented in all RCTs of carotid revascularisation. A systematic review is needed to summarise the existing data and to answer the question of whether a women-only trial for symptomatic patients with ipsilateral carotid stenosis is scientifically necessary and ethically permissible. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will systematically search Medline, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane libraries for all studies with data from RCTs that included women and compared either endarterectomy with stenting or revascularisation (by means of endarterectomy or stenting) with medical therapy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Search dates will be restricted to 1991-2018. Two reviewers will conduct screening search results, study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We will include all studies reporting outcomes of interest. Planned subgroup analysis based on revascularisation technique, degree of stenosis and timing of intervention from the index event will be conducted with enough data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This research is exempt of ethics approval as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated through national and international-level conferences and scientific meetings. The result of this comprehensive review will provide useful information on whether further RCTs are required to study a women-only population with symptomatic carotid disease. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019134967.

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed to generate the most reliable medical knowledge. However, RCTs are not always scientifically necessary and therefore not always ethical. Unfortunately, it is not clear when an RCT is not necessary or how this should be established. This study seeks to systematically catalogue justifications offered throughout the medical and ethics literature for performing randomisation within clinical trials.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search electronic databases of the medical literature including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov; databases of philosophical literature including Philosopher's Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE, National Reference Centre for Bioethics; the library catalogue at the University of Ottawa; bibliographies of retrieved papers; and the grey literature. We will also pursue suggestions from experts in the fields of medical ethics, philosophy and clinical trial methodology. Article screening, selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers based on prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will be consulted to resolve any discrepancies. We will then extract the reasons given to justify randomisation using methodology established to extract data in a defensible, systematic manner. We will track the reasons given, their frequency of use and changes over time. Finally, using grounded theory, we will combine the reasons into broader themes. These themes will form the foundation of our subsequent analysis from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. This review will map existing arguments that clinicians, ethicists and philosophers use to ethically justify randomisation in clinical trials.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics board approval is necessary because we are not examining patient-level data. This protocol complies with the reported guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. The findings of this paper will be disseminated via presentations and academic publication. In a subsequent phase of this research, we hope to engage with stakeholders and translate any recommendations derived from our findings into operational guidelines.

Introduction Although previously thought to be a rare occurrence, spontaneous recanalisation is not uncommon, with a growing number of reports describing this phenomenon. However, the frequency, time course and mechanism of spontaneous recanalisation remain unknown. A better characterisation of these events is essential to ensuring adequate identification and proper future trial design for treatment.Objective To describe the current body of literature around spontaneous recanalisation following internal carotid occlusion.Methods and analysis With the assistance of an information specialist, we will search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials and Web of Science for studies of adults with spontaneous recanalisation or transient occlusion of the internal carotid artery. Two reviewers will independently collect data on included studies pertaining to publication data, study population information, timepoints of initial presentation, recanalisation and subsequent follow-up.Ethics and dissemination Primary data will not be collected; therefore, formal ethics is not required. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at academic conferences.

Objective Advance consent is a recognised method of obtaining informed consent for participation in research, whereby a potential participant provides consent for future involvement in a study contingent on qualifying for the study’s inclusion criteria on a later date. The goal of this study is to map the existing literature on the use of advance consent for enrolment in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for emergency conditions.Design Scoping review designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses–Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.Data sources We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials from inception to 10 February 2020.Eligibility criteria Eligible studies included articles that discussed or employed the use of advance consent for enrolment in RCTs related to emergency conditions. There were no restrictions on the type of eligible study. Data were extracted directly from included papers using a standardised data charting form. We produced a narrative review including article type and authors’ dispositions towards advance consent.Results Our search yielded 1039 titles with duplicates removed. Six articles met inclusion criteria. Three articles discussed the theoretical use of research advance directives in emergency conditions; one article evaluated stakeholders’ perceptions of advance consent; and one article described a method for patients to document their preferences for participation in future research. Only one study employed advance consent to enrol participants into a clinical trial for an emergency condition.Conclusion Our review demonstrates that there has been minimal exploration of advance consent for enrolment in RCTs for emergency conditions. Future studies could aim to assess the acceptability of advance consent to participants, along with the feasibility of enrolling research participants using this method of consent.Protocol The protocol for this scoping review was published a priori.

Objectives To undertake a process evaluation of an adherence support intervention for people with cystic fibrosis (PWCF), to assess its feasibility and acceptability.Setting Two UK cystic fibrosis (CF) units.Participants Fourteen adult PWCF; three professionals delivering adherence support (‘interventionists’); five multi-disciplinary CF team members.Interventions Nebuliser with data recording and transfer capability, linked to a software platform, and strategies to support adherence to nebulised treatments facilitated by interventionists over 5 months (± 1 month).Primary and secondary measures Feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, assessed through semistructured interviews, questionnaires, fidelity assessments and click analytics.Results Interventionists were complimentary about the intervention and training. Key barriers to intervention feasibility and acceptability were identified. Interventionists had difficulty finding clinic space and time in normal working hours to conduct review visits. As a result, fewer than expected intervention visits were conducted and interviews indicated this may explain low adherence in some intervention arm participants. Adherence levels appeared to be >100% for some patients, due to inaccurate prescription data, particularly in patients with complex treatment regimens. Flatlines in adherence data at the start of the study were linked to device connectivity problems. Content and delivery quality fidelity were 100% and 60%–92%, respectively, indicating that interventionists needed to focus more on intervention ‘active ingredients’ during sessions.Conclusions The process evaluation led to 14 key changes to intervention procedures to overcome barriers to intervention success. With the identified changes, it is feasible and acceptable to support medication adherence with this intervention.Trial registration number ISRCTN13076797; Results.

Introduction Clinical trials for intracerebral haemorrhage typically measure outcomes in the same way and at the same time points as trials for ischaemic stroke. However, there is growing evidence that the trajectory of recovery following intracerebral haemorrhage may differ significantly from that following ischaemic stroke. A better understanding of current approaches to outcome assessment is essential to ensure that future trials examining treatments for intracerebral haemorrhage are designed appropriately.Objective To determine when and how outcomes are measured in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage.Methods and analysis With the assistance of an information specialist, we will conduct a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science for prospective studies of adults with primary intracerebral haemorrhage and documented outcomes with specified times. Two reviewers will independently collect data on included studies pertaining to publication data, study population information, timing of outcome and details of the outcome measurement tools used. The extracted data will be used to demonstrate the type and timing of outcome measures.Ethics and dissemination Primary data will not be collected therefore formal ethics is not required. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and through presentation at academic conferences.