Search

Background: Mental health recovery narratives are first-person lived experience accounts of recovery from mental health problems, which refer to events or actions over a period of time, and which include elements of adversity or struggle, and also self-defined or observable strengths, successes, or survival. Recorded recovery narratives are those presented in invariant form, including text, audio, or video. In a previous publication, we presented a protocol for three pragmatic trials of the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention, a web application recommending recorded recovery narratives to participants. The aim of the definitive NEON Trial was to understand whether the NEON Intervention benefitted people with experience of psychosis. The aim of the smaller NEON-O and NEON-C trials was to evaluate the feasibility of conducting definitive trials of the NEON Intervention with people (1) experiencing non-psychosis mental health problems and (2) who informally care for others experiencing mental health problems. An open recruitment strategy with a 60-week recruitment period was developed. Recruitment for the NEON Trial and NEON-O Trial targeted mental health service users and people not using mental health services. The NEON Trial recruited to time and target. The NEON-O Trial achieved its target in 10 weeks. Analysis considered by a Programme Steering Committee after the target was achieved demonstrated a definitive result could be obtained if the trial was adapted for recruitment to continue. The UK Health Research Authority approved all needed amendments following ethical review., Purpose of This Article: To describe the decision-making process for amending the NEON-O Trial and to describe amendments made to the NEON-O Trial to enable a definitive result. The article describes amendments to the aims, objectives, design, power calculation, recruitment rate, process evaluation design, and informed consent documents. The extended NEON-O Trial adopts analysis principles previously specified for the NEON Trial. The article provides a model for other studies adapting feasibility trials into definitive trials., Trial Registration: All trials prospectively registered. NEON Trial: ISRCTN11152837 . Registered on 13th August 2018. NEON-C Trial: ISRCTN76355273 . Registered on 9th January 2020. NEON-O Trial: ISRCTN63197153 . Registered on 9th January 2020. The NEON-O Trial ISRCTN was updated when amendments were approved. Amendment details: NOSA2, 30th October 2020., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Despite being in clinical remission, many people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) live with fatigue, chronic abdominal pain and bowel urgency or incontinence that limit their quality of life. We aim to test the effectiveness of an online self-management programme (BOOST), developed using cognitive behavioural principles and a theoretically informed logic model, and delivered with facilitator support., Primary Research Question: In people with IBD who report symptoms of fatigue, pain or urgency and express a desire for intervention, does a facilitator-supported tailored (to patient needs) online self-management programme for fatigue, pain and faecal urgency/incontinence improve IBD-related quality of life (measured using the UK-IBDQ) and global rating of symptom relief (0-10 scale) compared with care as usual?, Methods: A pragmatic two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT), of a 12-session facilitator-supported online cognitive behavioural self-management programme versus care as usual to manage symptoms of fatigue, pain and faecal urgency/incontinence in IBD. Patients will be recruited through a previous large-scale survey of unselected people with inflammatory bowel disease. The UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and global rating of symptom relief at 6 months are the co-primary outcomes, with multiple secondary outcomes measured also at 6 and 12 months post randomisation to assess maintenance. The RCT has an embedded pilot study, health economics evaluation and process evaluation. We will randomise 680 patients, 340 in each group. Demographic characteristics and outcome measures will be presented for both study groups at baseline. The UK-IBDQ and global rating of symptom relief at 6 and 12 months post randomisation will be compared between the study groups., Discussion: The BOOST online self-management programme for people with IBD-related symptoms of fatigue, pain and urgency has been designed to be easily scalable and implemented. If it is shown to improve patients' quality of life, this trial will enable clinicians and patients to make informed management decisions. This is the first trial, to our knowledge, focused on multiple symptoms prioritised by both people with IBD and health professionals., Trial Registration: ISRCTN71618461 . Registered on 9 September 2019., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Mental health recovery narratives have been defined as first-person lived experience accounts of recovery from mental health problems which refer to events or actions over a period of time and which include elements of adversity or struggle, and also self-defined strengths, successes or survival. They are readily available in invariant recorded form, including text, audio or video. Previous studies have provided evidence that receiving recorded recovery narratives can provide benefits to recipients. This protocol describes three pragmatic trials that will be conducted by the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) study using the NEON Intervention, a web application that delivers recorded recovery narratives to its users. The aim of the NEON Trial is to understand whether receiving online recorded recovery narratives through the NEON Intervention benefits people with experience of psychosis. The aim of the NEON-O and NEON-C trials is to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial on the use of the NEON Intervention with people experiencing non-psychosis mental health problems and those who care for others experiencing mental health problems respectively., Methods: The NEON Trial will recruit 683 participants with experience of psychosis. The NEON-O Trial will recruit at least 100 participants with experience of non-psychosis mental health problems. The NEON-C Trial will recruit at least 100 participants with experience of caring for others who have experienced mental health problems. In all three trials, participants will be randomly allocated into one of two arms. Intervention arm participants will receive treatment as usual plus immediate access to the NEON Intervention for 1 year. Control arm participants will receive treatment as usual plus access to the NEON Intervention after 1 year. All participants will complete demographics and outcome measures at baseline, 1 week, 12 weeks and 52 weeks. For the NEON Trial, the primary outcome measure is the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life at 52 weeks, and secondary outcome measures are the CORE-10, Herth Hope Index, Mental Health Confidence Scale and Meaning in Life Questionnaire. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted using data collected through the EQ-5D-5 L and the Client Service Receipt Inventory., Discussion: NEON Trial analyses will establish both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NEON Intervention for people with experience of psychosis, and hence inform future clinical recommendations for this population., Trial Registration: All trials were prospectively registered with ISRCTN. NEON Trial: ISRCTN11152837 . Registered on 13 August 2018. NEON-C Trial: ISRCTN76355273 . Registered on 9 January 2020. NEON-O Trial: ISRCTN63197153 . Registered on 9 January 2020.

Background: Pre-specification of outcomes is an important tool to guard against outcome switching in clinical trials. However, if the outcome is not sufficiently clearly defined, then different definitions could be applied and analysed, with only the most favourable result reported., Methods: In order to assess the impact that differing outcome definitions could have on treatment effect estimates, we re-analysed data from TRIGGER, a cluster randomised trial comparing two red blood cell transfusion strategies for patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We varied several aspects of the definition of further bleeding: (1) the criteria for what constitutes a further bleeding episode; (2) how further bleeding is assessed; and (3) the time-point at which further bleeding is measured., Results: There were marked discrepancies in the estimated odds ratios (OR) (range 0.23-0.94) and corresponding P values (range < 0.001-0.89) between different outcome definitions. At the extremes, differing outcome definitions led to markedly different conclusions; one definition led to very little evidence of a treatment effect (OR = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37-2.40, P = 0.89), while another led to very strong evidence of a treatment effect (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.11-0.50, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Outcomes should be pre-specified in sufficient detail to avoid differing definitions being analysed and only the most favourable result being reported., Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov, NCT02105532 . Registered on 7 April 2014.

Background: Incorrect classification of outcomes in clinical trials can lead to biased estimates of treatment effect and reduced power. Ensuring appropriate adjudication methods to minimize outcome misclassification is therefore essential. While there are many reported adjudication approaches, there is little consensus over which approach is best., Methods: Under the assumption of non-differential assessment (i.e. that misclassification rates are the same in each treatment arm, as would typically be the case when outcome assessors are blinded), we use simulation and theoretical results to address four different questions about outcome adjudication: (a) How many assessors should be used? (b) When is it better to use onsite or central assessment? (c) Should central assessors adjudicate all outcomes, or only suspected events? (d) Should central assessment with multiple assessors be done independently or through group consensus?, Results: No one adjudication approach performs optimally in all settings. The optimal approach depends on the misclassification rates of site and central assessors, and the correlation between assessors. We found: (a) there will generally be little incremental benefit to using more than three assessors and, for outcomes with very high correlation between assessors, using one assessor is sufficient; (b) when choosing between site and central assessors, the assessor with the smallest misclassification rate should be chosen; when these rates are unknown, a combination of one site assessor and two central assessors will provide good results across a range of scenarios; (c) having central assessors adjudicate only suspected events will typically increase bias, and should be avoided, unless the threshold for sending outcomes for central assessment is extremely low; (d) central assessors can adjudicate either independently or in a group, and the preferred option should be dictated by whichever is expected to have the lowest misclassification rate., Conclusions: Outcome adjudication is of critical importance to ensure validity of trial results, although no one approach is optimal across all settings. Investigators should choose the best strategy based on the specific characteristics of their trial. Regardless of the adjudication strategy chosen, assessors should be qualified and receive appropriate training.

Background: Constipation is common in adults and up to 20% of the population report this symptom. Chronic constipation (CC), usually defined as more than 6 months of symptoms, is less common but results in 0.5 million UK GP consultations per annum. The effect of symptoms on measured quality of life (QOL) is significant, and CC consumes significant health care resources. In the UK, it is estimated that 10% of district nursing time is spent on constipation. Trans-anal irrigation therapy has become a widely used treatment despite a lack of robust efficacy data to support its use. The long-term outcome of treatment is also unclear. A randomised comparison of two different methods of irrigation (high- and low-volume) will provide valuable evidence of superiority of one system over the other, as well as providing efficacy data for the treatment as a whole., Methods: Participants will be recruited based on predetermined eligibility criteria. Following informed consent, they will be randomised to either high-volume (HV) or low-volume (LV) irrigation and undergo standardised radiological and physiological investigations. Following training, they will commence home irrigation with the allocated device. Data will be collected at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months according to a standardised outcomes framework. The primary outcome is PAC-QOL, measured at 3 months. The study is powered to detect a 10% difference in outcome between systems at 3 months; this means that 300 patients will need to be recruited., Discussion: This study will be the first randomised comparison of two different methods of trans-anal irrigation. It will also be the largest prospective study of CC patients treated with irrigation. It will provide evidence for the effectiveness of irrigation in the treatment of CC, as well as the comparative effectiveness of the two methods. This will enable more cost-effective and evidence-based use of irrigation. Also, the results will be combined with the other studies in the CapaCiTY programme to generate an evidence-based treatment algorithm for CC in adults., Trial Registration: ISRCTN, identifier: ISRCTN11093872 . Registered on 11 November 2015. Trial not retrospectively registered. Protocol version 3 (22 January 2016).

Background: Patient recruitment in clinical trials is often challenging, and as a result, many trials are stopped early due to insufficient recruitment. The re-randomization design allows patients to be re-enrolled and re-randomized for each new treatment episode that they experience. Because it allows multiple enrollments for each patient, this design has been proposed as a way to increase the recruitment rate in clinical trials. However, it is unknown to what extent recruitment could be increased in practice., Methods: We modelled the expected recruitment rate for parallel-group and re-randomization trials in different settings based on estimates from real trials and datasets. We considered three clinical areas: in vitro fertilization, severe asthma exacerbations, and acute sickle cell pain crises. We compared the two designs in terms of the expected time to complete recruitment, and the sample size recruited over a fixed recruitment period., Results: Across the different scenarios we considered, we estimated that re-randomization could reduce the expected time to complete recruitment by between 4 and 22 months (relative reductions of 19% and 45%), or increase the sample size recruited over a fixed recruitment period by between 29% and 171%. Re-randomization can increase recruitment most for trials with a short follow-up period, a long trial recruitment duration, and patients with high rates of treatment episodes., Conclusions: Re-randomization has the potential to increase the recruitment rate in certain settings, and could lead to quicker and more efficient trials in these scenarios.

Background: The cluster randomised crossover (CRXO) design is gaining popularity in trial settings where individual randomisation or parallel group cluster randomisation is not feasible or practical. Our aim is to stimulate discussion on the content of a reporting guideline for CRXO trials and to assess the reporting quality of published CRXO trials., Methods: We undertook a systematic review of CRXO trials. Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus as well as citation searches of CRXO methodological articles were conducted to December 2014. Reporting quality was assessed against both modified items from 2010 CONSORT and 2012 cluster trials extension and other proposed quality measures., Results: Of the 3425 records identified through database searching, 83 trials met the inclusion criteria. Trials were infrequently identified as "cluster randomis(z)ed crossover" in title (n = 7, 8%) or abstract (n = 21, 25%), and a rationale for the design was infrequently provided (n = 20, 24%). Design parameters such as the number of clusters and number of periods were well reported. Discussion of carryover took place in only 17 trials (20%). Sample size methods were only reported in 58% (n = 48) of trials. A range of approaches were used to report baseline characteristics. The analysis method was not adequately reported in 23% (n = 19) of trials. The observed within-cluster within-period intracluster correlation and within-cluster between-period intracluster correlation for the primary outcome data were not reported in any trial. The potential for selection, performance, and detection bias could be evaluated in 30%, 81%, and 70% of trials, respectively., Conclusions: There is a clear need to improve the quality of reporting in CRXO trials. Given the unique features of a CRXO trial, it is important to develop a CONSORT extension. Consensus amongst trialists on the content of such a guideline is essential.

Background: Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are commonly analysed using mixed-effects models or generalised estimating equations (GEEs). However, these analyses do not always perform well with the small number of clusters typical of most CRTs. They can lead to increased risk of a type I error (finding a statistically significant treatment effect when it does not exist) if appropriate corrections are not used., Methods: We conducted a small simulation study to evaluate the impact of using small-sample corrections for mixed-effects models or GEEs in CRTs with a small number of clusters. We then reanalysed data from TRIGGER, a CRT with six clusters, to determine the effect of using an inappropriate analysis method in practice. Finally, we reviewed 100 CRTs previously identified by a search on PubMed in order to assess whether trials were using appropriate methods of analysis. Trials were classified as at risk of an increased type I error rate if they did not report using an analysis method which accounted for clustering, or if they had fewer than 40 clusters and performed an individual-level analysis without reporting the use of an appropriate small-sample correction., Results: Our simulation study found that using mixed-effects models or GEEs without an appropriate correction led to inflated type I error rates, even for as many as 70 clusters. Conversely, using small-sample corrections provided correct type I error rates across all scenarios. Reanalysis of the TRIGGER trial found that inappropriate methods of analysis gave much smaller P values (P ≤ 0.01) than appropriate methods (P = 0.04-0.15). In our review, of the 99 trials that reported the number of clusters, 64 (65 %) were at risk of an increased type I error rate; 14 trials did not report using an analysis method which accounted for clustering, and 50 trials with fewer than 40 clusters performed an individual-level analysis without reporting the use of an appropriate correction., Conclusions: CRTs with a small or medium number of clusters are at risk of an inflated type I error rate unless appropriate analysis methods are used. Investigators should consider using small-sample corrections with mixed-effects models or GEEs to ensure valid results.

Background: The Coping with Persistent Pain, Effectiveness Research into Self-management (COPERS) trial assessed whether a group-based self-management course is effective in reducing pain-related disability in participants with chronic musculoskeletal pain. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for the COPERS trial., Methods and Design: COPERS was a pragmatic, multicentre, unmasked, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. This article describes (a) the overall analysis principles (including which participants will be included in each analysis, how results will be presented, which covariates will be adjusted for, and how we will account for clustering in the intervention group); (b) the primary and secondary outcomes, and how each outcome will be analysed; (c) sensitivity analyses; (d) subgroup analyses; and (e) adherence-adjusted analyses., Trial Registration: ISRCTN24426731.