Search

Background: Placebo medications, by definition, are composed of inactive ingredients that have no physiological effect on symptoms. Nonetheless, administration of placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and in clinical settings has been demonstrated to have significant impact on many physical and psychological complaints. Until recently, conventional wisdom has suggested that patients must believe that placebo pills actually contain (or, at least, might possibly contain) active medication in order to elicit a response to placebo. However, several recent RCTs, including patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), chronic low back pain, and episodic migraine, have demonstrated that individuals receiving open-label placebo (OLP) can still experience symptomatic improvement and benefit from honestly described placebo treatment.Methods and Design: This paper describes an innovative multidisciplinary trial design (n = 280) that attempts to replicate and expand upon an earlier IBS OLP study. The current study will compare OLP to double-blind placebo (DBP) administration which is made possible by including a nested, double-blind RCT comparing DBP and peppermint oil. The study also examines possible genetic and psychological predictors of OLP and seeks to better understand participants' experiences with OLP and DBP through a series of extensive interviews with a randomly selected subgroup.Discussion: OLP treatment is a novel strategy for ethically harnessing placebo effects. It has potential to re-frame theories of placebo and to influence how physicians can optimize watch-and-wait strategies for common, subjective symptoms. The current study aims to dramatically expand what we know about OLP by comparing, for the first time, OLP and DBP administration. Adopting a unique, multidisciplinary approach, the study also explores genetic, psychological and experiential dimensions of OLP. The paper ends with an extensive discussion of the "culture" of the trial as well as potential mechanisms of OLP and ethical implications.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02802241 . Registered on 14 June 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recruitment of participants is particularly challenging in primary care, with less than a third of randomised controlled trials (RCT) achieving their target within the original time frame. Participant identification, consent, randomisation and data collection can all be time-consuming. Trials recruiting an incident, as opposed to a prevalent, population may be particularly affected. This paper describes the impact of a deferred recruitment model in a RCT of antibiotics for children with infected eczema in primary care, which required the recruitment of cases presenting acutely.Methods: Eligible children were identified by participating general practitioners (GPs) and referred to a study research nurse, who then visited them at home. This allowed the consent and recruitment processes to take place outside the general practice setting. Information was recorded about patients who were referred and recruited, or if not, the reasons for non-recruitment. Data on recruitment challenges were collected through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with a sample of participating GPs. Data were thematically analysed to identify key themes.Results: Of the children referred to the study 34% (58/171) were not recruited - 48% (28/58) because of difficulties arranging a baseline visit within the defined time frame, 31% (18/58) did not meet the study inclusion criteria at the time of nurse assessment, and 21% (12/58) declined participation. GPs had positive views about the recruitment process, reporting that parents valued and benefitted from additional contact with a nurse. GPs felt that the deferred recruitment model did not negatively impact on the study.Conclusions: GPs and parents recognised the benefits of deferred recruitment, but these did not translate into enhanced recruitment of participants. The model resulted in the loss of a third of children who were identified by the GP as eligible, but not subsequently recruited to the study. If the potential for improving outcomes in primary care through complex studies is to be realised, new approaches to recruitment into primary care trials need to be developed and evaluated.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN96705420 . Registered on 27 June 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International epidemiological research into violence against children is increasing in scope and frequency, but little has been written about practical management of the ethical aspects of conducting such research in low and middle-income countries. In this paper, we describe our study procedures and reflect on our experiences conducting a survey of more than 3,700 primary school children in Uganda as part of the Good Schools Study, a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based violence prevention intervention. Children were questioned extensively about their experiences of physical, sexual, and emotional violence from a range of different perpetrators. We describe our sensitisation and consent procedures, developed based on our previous research experience and requirements for our study setting. To respond to disclosures of abuse that occurred during our survey, we describe a referral algorithm developed in conjunction with local services. We then describe our experience of actually implementing these procedures in our 2012 survey, based on reflections of the research team. Drawing on 40 qualitative interviews, we describe children's experiences of participating in the survey and of being referred to local child protection services.Results: Although we were able to implement much of our protocol in a straightforward manner, we also encountered major challenges in relation to the response of local services to children's disclosures of violence. The research team had to intervene to ensure that children were provided with appropriate support and that our ethical obligations were met.Conclusions: In resource poor settings, finding local services that can provide appropriate support for children may be challenging, and researchers need to have concrete plans and back-up plans in place to ensure that obligations can be met. The merits of mandatory reporting of children's disclosures to local services need to be considered on a case by case basis-in some places this has the potential to do harm. Research teams also must agree on what level of ancillary care will be provided, and budget accordingly. Further practical examples of how to address the challenges encountered in this work are needed, in order to build a consensus on best practices.Trial Registration: NCT01678846 (clinicaltrials.gov), August 24, 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the promising benefits of adaptive designs (ADs), their routine use, especially in confirmatory trials, is lagging behind the prominence given to them in the statistical literature. Much of the previous research to understand barriers and potential facilitators to the use of ADs has been driven from a pharmaceutical drug development perspective, with little focus on trials in the public sector. In this paper, we explore key stakeholders' experiences, perceptions and views on barriers and facilitators to the use of ADs in publicly funded confirmatory trials.Methods: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews of key stakeholders in clinical trials research (CTU directors, funding board and panel members, statisticians, regulators, chief investigators, data monitoring committee members and health economists) were conducted through telephone or face-to-face sessions, predominantly in the UK. We purposively selected participants sequentially to optimise maximum variation in views and experiences. We employed the framework approach to analyse the qualitative data.Results: We interviewed 27 participants. We found some of the perceived barriers to be: lack of knowledge and experience coupled with paucity of case studies, lack of applied training, degree of reluctance to use ADs, lack of bridge funding and time to support design work, lack of statistical expertise, some anxiety about the impact of early trial stopping on researchers' employment contracts, lack of understanding of acceptable scope of ADs and when ADs are appropriate, and statistical and practical complexities. Reluctance to use ADs seemed to be influenced by: therapeutic area, unfamiliarity, concerns about their robustness in decision-making and acceptability of findings to change practice, perceived complexities and proposed type of AD, among others.Conclusions: There are still considerable multifaceted, individual and organisational obstacles to be addressed to improve uptake, and successful implementation of ADs when appropriate. Nevertheless, inferred positive change in attitudes and receptiveness towards the appropriate use of ADs by public funders are supportive and are a stepping stone for the future utilisation of ADs by researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing evidence that low levels of physical activity and diets low in fruit and vegetables and high in meat and dairy products are risk factors for prostate cancer disease progression. The Prostate cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial (PrEvENT) aimed to assess a diet and physical activity intervention in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. The trial included a qualitative component to explore the experiences of men participating in the trial in order to understand the acceptability of the intervention and data collection methods. We report the qualitative findings of the trial and consider how these can be used to inform future research.Methods: PrEvENT involved randomizing men to either a dietary and/or physical activity intervention. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 17 men on completion of the 6 month trial. Interviews took place in clinic or as telephone interviews, if requested by the participant, and were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the thematic-based framework approach. Analysis was conducted throughout the data collection process to allow emergent themes to be further explored in subsequent interviews.Results: Three overarching themes were identified: acceptability of the intervention, acceptability of the data collection methods and trial logistics. Participants were predominantly positive about both the dietary and physical activity interventions and most men found the methods of data collection appropriate. Recommendations for future trials include consideration of alternative physical activity options, such as cycling or gym sessions, increased information on portion sizes, the potential importance of including wives or partners in the dietary change process and the possibility of using the pedometer or other wearable technology as part of the physical activity intervention.Conclusions: We provide insight into the opinions and experiences of the acceptability of the PrEvENT diet and physical activity intervention from the participants themselves. The interventions delivered were acceptable to this sample of participants, as were the data collection methods utilized. We also highlight some considerations for further behavioural change interventions in prostate cancer and other similar populations.Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN99048944 . Registered on 17 November 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breathlessness is the most common and intrusive symptom of advanced non-malignant respiratory and cardiac conditions. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) is a multi-disciplinary complex intervention, theoretically underpinned by a palliative care approach, utilising evidence-based non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to support patients with advanced disease in managing their breathlessness. Having published the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of BIS for patients with advanced cancer and their carers, we sought to establish its effectiveness, and cost effectiveness, in advanced non-malignant conditions.Methods: This was a single-centre Phase III fast-track single-blind mixed method RCT of BIS versus standard care for breathless patients with non-malignant conditions and their carers. Randomisation was to one of two groups (randomly permuted blocks). Eighty-seven patients referred to BIS were randomised (intervention arm n = 44; control arm n = 43 received BIS after four-week wait); 79 (91 %) completed to key outcome measurement. The primary outcome measure was 0-10 numeric rating scale for patient distress due to breathlessness at four weeks. Secondary outcome measures were Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Client Service Receipt Inventory, EQ-5D and topic-guided interviews.Results: Qualitative analyses showed the positive impact of BIS on patients with non-malignant conditions and their carers; quantitative analyses showed a non-significant greater reduction in the primary outcome ('distress due to breathlessness'), when compared to standard care, of -0.24 (95 % CI: -1.30, 0.82). BIS resulted in extra mean costs of £799, reducing to £100 when outliers were excluded; neither difference was statistically significant. The quantitative findings contrasted with those previously reported for patients with cancer and their carers, which showed BIS to be both clinically and cost effective. For patients with non-malignant conditions there was a notable trend of improvement over both trial arms to the key measurement point; participants may have experienced a therapeutic effect from the research interviews, diluting the intervention's impact.Conclusions: BIS had a statistically non-significant effect for patients with non-malignant conditions, and slightly increased service costs, but had a qualitatively positive impact consistent with findings for advanced cancer. Trials of palliative care interventions should consider multiple, mixed method, primary outcomes and ensure that protocols limit potential contaminating therapeutic effects in study designs.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04119516 (December 2008); ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00678405 (May 2008). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is growing interest in the ethics of cluster trials, but no literature on the uncertainties in defining communities in relation to the scientific notion of the cluster in collaborative biomedical research.Methods: The views of participants in a community-based cluster randomised trial (CRT) in Mumbai, India, were solicited regarding their understanding and views on community. We conducted two focus group discussions with local residents and 20 semi-structured interviews with different respondent groups. On average, ten participants took part in each focus group, most of them women aged 18-55. We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten residents (nine women and one man) lasting approximately an hour each and seven individuals (five men and two women) identified by residents as local leaders or decision-makers. In addition, we interviewed two Municipal Corporators (locally elected government officials involved in urban planning and development) and one representative of a political party located in a slum community.Results: Residents' sense of community largely matched the scientific notion of the cluster, defined by the investigators as a geographic area, but their perceived needs were not entirely met by the trial.Conclusion: We examined whether the possibility of a conceptual mismatch between 'clusters' and 'communities' is likely to have methodological implications for a study or to lead to potential social disharmony because of the research interventions, arguing that it is important to take social factors into account as well as statistical efficiency when choosing the size and type of clusters and designing a trial. One method of informing such a design would be to use existing forums for community engagement to explore individuals' primary sense of community or social group and, where possible, to fit clusters around them.Trial Registration: ISRCTN Register: ISRCTN56183183 Clinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2012/09/003004 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgical trials have typically experienced recruitment difficulties when compared with other types of oncology trials. Qualitative studies have an important role to play in exploring reasons for low recruitment, although to date few such studies have been carried out that are embedded in surgical trials. The BOLERO trial (Bladder cancer: Open versus Lapararoscopic or RObotic cystectomy) is a study to determine the feasibility of randomisation to open versus laparoscopic access/robotic cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer. We describe the results of a qualitative study embedded within the clinical trial that explored why patients decline randomisation.Methods: Ten semi-structured interviews with patients who declined randomisation to the clinical trial, and two interviews with recruiting research nurses were conducted. Data were analysed for key themes.Results: The majority of patients declined the trial because they had preferences for a particular treatment arm, and in usual practice could choose which surgical method they would be given. In most cases the robotic option was preferred. Patients described an intuitive 'sense' that favoured the new technology and had carried out their own inquiries, including Internet research and talking with previous patients and friends and family with medical backgrounds. Medical histories and lifestyle considerations also shaped these personalised choices. Of importance too, however, were the messages patients perceived from their clinical encounters. Whilst some patients felt their surgeon favoured the robotic option, others interpreted 'indirect' cues such as the 'established' reputation of the surgeon and surgical method and comments made during clinical assessments. Many patients expressed a wish for greater direction from their surgeon when making these decisions.Conclusion: For trials where the 'new technology' is available to patients, there will likely be difficulties with recruitment. Greater attention could be paid to how messages about treatment options and the trial are conveyed across the whole clinical setting. However, if it is too difficult to challenge such messages, then questions should be asked about whether genuine and convincing equipoise can be presented and perceived in such trials. This calls for consideration of whether alternative methods of generating evidence could be used when evaluating surgical techniques which are established and routinely available.Trial Registration: Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN38528926 (11 December 2008). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective recruitment is an essential element of successful research but notoriously difficult to achieve. This article examines health care professionals' views on the factors influencing decision-making regarding referral to a stroke rehabilitation trial.Methods: Semi-structured interviews and a card-sorting task were undertaken with stroke service staff in acute and community hospital trusts. Data analysis used a thematic framework approach.Results: Twenty-seven qualified health care professionals from 12 (6 acute and 6 community) hospital trusts and one charity participated. Four main factors emerged: patient-related, professional views, the organisation and research logistics, which all contributed to staff's decision about whether to refer patients to a trial. Clinicians identified patient-related factors as the most frequent influence and considered themselves the patients' advocate. They used their knowledge of the patient to anticipate the patients' reaction to possible participation and tended to only refer those whom they perceived would respond positively. Participants also identified experience of research, a sense of ownership of the project and a positive view of the intervention being evaluated as factors influencing referral. The need to prioritise clinical matters, meet managerial demands and cope with constant change were organisational factors impacting negatively on referral. Staff often simply forgot about recruitment in the face of other higher priorities. Quick, simple, flexible research processes that were closely aligned with existing ways of working were felt to facilitate recruitment.Conclusions: Patient- and professional-related factors were the most frequent influence on clinicians' recruitment decisions, which often had a 'gate-keeping' effect. Managerial and clinical responsibility to juggle multiple (often higher) priorities was also an important factor. To facilitate recruitment, researchers need to develop strategies to approach potential participants as directly as possible to enable them to make their own decisions about participation; ensure that research processes are as quick and simple as possible; align with existing clinical pathways and systems; and give regular reminders and ongoing support to promote recruitment.Trial Registration: ISRCTN, 98287938 . Registered 6 May 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious mental disorder with multiple comorbidities and complications. In those with a severe and enduring form of the illness (SEED-AN), treatment responsivity is poor and the evidence base limited. Thus, there is a need for novel treatment strategies. This paper describes the theoretical background and protocol of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of real versus sham (placebo) therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in SEED-AN. The aim of this trial is to obtain information that will guide decision making and protocol development in relation to a future large-scale RCT of rTMS in this group of patients, and also to assess the preliminary efficacy and neural correlates of rTMS treatment.Design: Forty-four adults from the community with a DSM-5 diagnosis of AN, an illness duration>3 years and a previous course of unsuccessful treatment will be randomly allocated to receive 20 sessions of either real or sham rTMS, in a parallel group design. As this is a feasibility study, no primary outcome has been defined and a broad range of outcome variables will be examined. These include weight/body mass index (BMI), eating disorder psychopathology, other psychopathology (for example, depression, anxiety), quality of life, neuropsychological processes (such as self-regulation, attentional bias and food choice behaviour), neuroimaging measures (that is, changes in brain structure or function), tolerability and acceptability of rTMS, and additional service utilisation. The feasibility of conducting a large-scale RCT of rTMS and the appropriateness of rTMS as a treatment for SEED-AN will be evaluated through: assessment of recruitment and retention rates, acceptability of random allocation, blinding success (allocation concealment), completion of treatment sessions and research assessments (baseline, post-treatment and follow-up assessments). The acceptability and tolerability of the treatment will be assessed via semi-structured interviews.Discussion: The effect sizes generated and other findings from this trial will inform a future large-scale RCT with respect to decisions on primary outcome measures and other aspects of protocol development. Additionally, results from this study will provide a preliminary indication of the efficacy of rTMS treatment for AN, the neural correlates of the illness, and potential biomarkers of clinical response.Trial Registration: ISRCTN14329415 . Date of registration: 23 July 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]