Search

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

BACKGROUND: Many people diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses in England receive the majority of their healthcare from primary care. Primary care practitioners may not be well equipped to meet their needs and there is often poor communication with secondary care. Collaborative care is a promising alternative model but has not been trialled specifically with this service user group in England. Collaborative care for other mental health conditions has not been widely implemented despite evidence of its effectiveness. We carried out a formative evaluation of the PARTNERS model of collaborative care, with the aim of establishing barriers and facilitators to delivery, identifying implementation support requirements and testing the initial programme theory. METHODS: The PARTNERS intervention was delivered on a small scale in three sites. Qualitative data was collected from primary and secondary care practitioners, service users and family carers, using semi-structured interviews, session recordings and tape-assisted recall. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis was carried out; themes were compared to the programme theory and used to inform an implementation support strategy. RESULTS: Key components of the intervention that were not consistently delivered as intended were: interaction with primary care teams, the use of coaching, and supervision. Barriers and facilitators identified were related to service commitment, care partner skills, supervisor understanding and service user motivation. An implementation support strategy was developed, with researcher facilitation of communication and supervision and additional training for practitioners. Some components of the intervention were not experienced as intended; this appeared to reflect difficulties with operationalising the intervention. Analysis of data relating to the intended outcomes of the intervention indicated that the mechanisms proposed in the programme theory had operated as expected. CON

BACKGROUND: Many people diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses in England receive the majority of their healthcare from primary care. Primary care practitioners may not be well equipped to meet their needs and there is often poor communication with secondary care. Collaborative care is a promising alternative model but has not been trialled specifically with this service user group in England. Collaborative care for other mental health conditions has not been widely implemented despite evidence of its effectiveness. We carried out a formative evaluation of the PARTNERS model of collaborative care, with the aim of establishing barriers and facilitators to delivery, identifying implementation support requirements and testing the initial programme theory. METHODS: The PARTNERS intervention was delivered on a small scale in three sites. Qualitative data was collected from primary and secondary care practitioners, service users and family carers, using semi-structured interviews, session recordings and tape-assisted recall. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis was carried out; themes were compared to the programme theory and used to inform an implementation support strategy. RESULTS: Key components of the intervention that were not consistently delivered as intended were: interaction with primary care teams, the use of coaching, and supervision. Barriers and facilitators identified were related to service commitment, care partner skills, supervisor understanding and service user motivation. An implementation support strategy was developed, with researcher facilitation of communication and supervision and additional training for practitioners. Some components of the intervention were not experienced as intended; this appeared to reflect difficulties with operationalising the intervention. Analysis of data relating to the intended outcomes of the intervention indicated that the mechanisms proposed in the programme theory had operated as expected. CON

Background and aims: Individuals living with severe mental illness such as schizophrenia and bipolar can have significant emotional, cognitive, physical and social challenges. Most people with severe mental illness in the United Kingdom do not receive specialist mental health care. Collaborative care is a system of support that combines clinical and organisational components to provide integrated and person-centred care. It has not been tested for severe mental illness in the United Kingdom. We aimed to develop and evaluate a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) designed to improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses when compared with usual care. Methods: Phase 1 included studies to (1) understand context: an observational retrospective study of primary and secondary care medical records and an update of the Cochrane review ‘Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness’; (2) develop and formatively evaluate the PARTNERS intervention: a review of literature on collaborative care and recovery, interviews with key leaders in collaborative care and recovery, focus groups with service users and a formative evaluation of a prototype intervention model; and (3) develop trial science work in this area: a core outcome set for bipolar and recruitment methods. In phase 2 we conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial measuring quality of life using the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life and secondary outcomes including time use, recovery and mental well-being; a cost-effectiveness study; and a mixed-methods process evaluation. Public involvement underpinned all of the workstream activity through the study Lived Experience Advisory Panel and the employment of service user researchers in the project team. Results phase 1: The study of records showed that care for individuals under secondary care is variable and substantial and that people are seen every 2 weeks on average

AIMS Trial registration supports unbiased reporting of research studies. Despite inconsistent use globally and sub-optimal completeness, registration is associated with publication of the same outcomes as defined in trial protocols, though these are not necessarily reported in published results. In the core outcomes in brain tumour trials (COBra) study a registry review was undertaken, alongside a systematic review of qualitative literature and semi-structured interviews, to develop a core outcome set (COS) outcome longlist. The study aims to identify all outcomes reported across all glioma trial registration data. METHOD Phase 3 interventional glioma trials involving patients aged 18 and over, registered on clinicaltrials.gov or the ISRCTN registry were included. Two researchers independently searched the databases and registered data and available protocols were retrieved. Two reviewers independently extracted basic trial data including primary and secondary outcomes. Outcomes were categorised according to an ontology developed through literature review. RESULTS 91 trials were identified. Primary outcome categories reported were survival (84%), disease activity (14%), symptoms (4%), adverse events (3%) and resource use (1%). Secondary outcome categories reported were survival (60%), adverse events (52%), quality of life (QoL, 41%), disease activity (30%), symptoms (20%), function (12%), resource use (7%), health status (7%), and economic (3%). The review contributed 15 unique outcomes to the final outcome longlist of 35. CONCLUSION Trial registries represent a pragmatic solution in COS development and enabled identification of outcomes not present in other data sources. Under half of registered glioma studies included QoL outcomes; a small minority included functional outcomes or economic evaluation.

Background Gliomas are the commonest form of primary brain tumour, accounting for 80% of malignant brain tumours. Gliomas represent a heterogeneous group of cancers with variable outcomes, traditionally graded from I to IV (least to most aggressive). The poor prognosis of some glioma patients and high symptom burden has led to a growing emphasis on their quality of survival. Maintaining cognitive function, physical function and other health-related quality of life aspects throughout the disease trajectory are key considerations, particularly for patients with aggressive forms of glioma. It is therefore important that glioma intervention studies collect data aligned with patient priorities that enables assessment of the net clinical benefit of treatments and facilitates informed decision-making. In particular, and of increasing recognition, is the importance of monitoring the incidence of adverse events during and after the course of an intervention, and understanding their impact upon patients, and patients’ own assessment of, tolerability. Material and Methods A trial registry review, a systematic review of the qualitative literature and semi-structured interviews with patients and caregivers were undertaken. Outcomes were extracted from these sources to formulate a longlist during the development of a core outcome set for glioma interventional trials (the COBra study). Results The registry review (n=91), systematic review (n=21) and semi-structured interviews (n=19) identified many important outcomes and concepts, one of which was tolerability. Tolerability, adverse events, toxicity or safety was reported to be collected as an outcome in 46 trials. Outcomes related to tolerability were identified from 7 articles included in the systematic review. Themes related to tolerability emerged from the qualitative interviews. These included tolerability of side effects of treatment; trade-offs of side effects versus potential benefits in deciding on, and willingness to, un