Search

Background: Unhealthy diet is a key risk factor for Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) that contribute to increased morbidity and premature mortality. With increased computer literacy and mobile phone penetration, there is a high opportunity for mobile application-based interventions. The current study was conducted to develop a mobile application to monitor dietary intake and to assess its acceptability and effectiveness in diet control compared to a similar paper-based intervention. A mobile application was developed based on research evidence and opinions of local experts. The mobile application was introduced to a selected group of office workers who were in preparation, action, and maintenance stages of the Trans Theoretical Model (TTM) and a paper-based intervention was used as the comparator. Socio-demographic data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire. Participants were followed up for three months for adherence. The effectiveness of interventions was assessed at the end of three months by comparing the progressive change in the stage of change and the change from unhealthy to healthy dietary intake between two groups as primary and secondary outcomes respectively. Results: Among 123 office workers who participated in the study, 19.5% preferred the mobile intervention over the paper-based intervention. Younger, unmarried office workers and those who do not have children, had a higher acceptance for the mobile intervention (p < 0.05). There was no difference in adherence (in all three months) or outcomes between the two groups of intervention. Conclusion and recommendations: Mobile application-based interventions are better accepted among the young age group and further studies are recommended to explore their applicability. Trial registration: The study was registered in the Sri Lankan Clinical Trial Registry (Registration No. SLCTR/2020/025; Date 15th December 2020). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interest in and use of electronic consent (e-consent) in the conduct of academic clinical trials has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic. E-consent offers advantages including increased efficiency and accessibility, and reduced burden on site staff, which can be appealing to academic trialists anticipating challenges in recruitment to complex trial designs or with limited funding. However, there are many options to consider when using e-consent in a study protocol. This paper presents five case studies from Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, demonstrating how e-consent models can be effectively tailored to the needs of different trials. These examples illustrate the options around and benefits of e-consent, the acceptability of e-consent by participants, and the design considerations that were made during the development of the trial protocols. Case studies: Five randomised trials are presented, selected from a range of different trial designs, disease areas, interventions, and patient populations. E-consent was either offered as an alternative to paper consent, according to participant preference, or as the sole method of consent. E-consent was generally used to facilitate remote consent in decentralised trials but was also chosen to increase efficiency and reduce burden in an emergency department setting. The technical implementation of e-consent and detailed participant procedures were tailored to the needs of the trial settings and patient populations. For example, accompanying participant information sheets were provided in paper or electronic form, and electronic signatures could be typed or drawn. Administrative data on uptake of e-consent is presented where available. Conclusion: This paper demonstrates that the operational and technical aspects of implementing e-consent in clinical trials can be influenced by the trial design, the needs and characteristics of the trial population, financial/efficiency considerations, and level of risk. E-consent is not a one-size-fits-all tool for trials, and its use should be carefully considered during the development of the trial protocol, in conjunction with patient and public involvement contributors, site staff and other trial stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is an often-held assumption that the engagement of clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. Previous reviews found up to 28 studies suggesting a positive association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organizations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The current study sought to provide an update. Methods: We updated our existing published systematic review by again addressing the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organizations) improve healthcare performance? The search covered the period 1 January 2012 to March 2024, in two phases. First, the formal updated search ran from 1 January 2012 to 31 May 2020, in any healthcare setting or country and focussed on English language publications. In this phase two searches identified 66 901 records. Later, a further check of key journals and citations to identified papers ran from May 2020 to March 2024. In total, 168 papers progressed to full-text appraisal; 62 were identified for inclusion in the update. Then we combined papers from our original and updated reviews. Results: In the combined review, the literature is dominated by papers from the United States (50/95) and mostly drawn from the Global North. Papers cover various clinical fields, with more on cancer than any other field; 86 of the 95 papers report positive results, of which 70 are purely positive and 16 positive/mixed, meaning there are some negative elements (i.e. aspects where there is a lack of healthcare improvement) in their findings. Conclusions: The updated review collates a substantial pool of studies, especially when combined with our original review, which are largely positive in terms of the impact of research engagement on processes of care and patient outcomes. Of the potential engagement mechanisms, the review highlights the important role played by research networks. The review also identifies various papers which consider how far there is a "dose effect" from differing amounts of research engagement. Additional lessons come from analyses of equity issues and negative papers. This review provides further evidence of contributions played by systems level research investments such as research networks on processes of care and patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Overall survival is the "gold standard" endpoint in cancer clinical trials. It plays a key role in determining the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a new intervention and whether it is recommended for use in standard of care. The assessment of overall survival usually requires trial participants to be followed up for a long period of time. In this time, they may stop receiving the trial intervention and receive subsequent anti-cancer treatments, which also aim to extend survival, during trial follow-up. This can potentially change the interpretation of overall survival in the context of the clinical trial. This review aimed to determine how overall survival has been assessed in cancer clinical trials and whether subsequent anti-cancer treatments are considered. Methods: Two searches were conducted using MEDLINE within OVID© on the 9th of November 2021. The first sought to identify papers publishing overall survival results from randomised controlled trials in eight reputable journals and the second to identify papers mentioning or considering subsequent treatments. Papers published since 2010 were included if presenting or discussing overall survival in the context of treating cancer. Results: One hundred and thirty-four papers were included. The majority of these were presenting clinical trial results (98, 73%). Of these, 45 (46%) reported overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint. A lower proportion of papers including overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint compared to a secondary endpoint were published in recent years. The primary analysis of overall survival varied across the papers. Fifty-nine (60%) mentioned subsequent treatments. Seven papers performed additional analysis, primarily when patients in the control arm received the experimental treatment during trial follow-up (treatment switching). Discussion: Overall survival has steadily moved from being the primary to a secondary endpoint. However, it is still of interest with papers presenting overall survival results with the caveat of subsequent treatments, but little or no investigation into their effect. This review shows that there is a methodological gap for what researchers should do when trial participants receive anti-cancer treatment during trial follow-up. Future research will identify the stakeholder opinions, on how this methodological gap should be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective We assessed the measurement equivalence and feasibility of the paper-and-pencil and touchscreen modes of administration of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-PR25, a commonly used questionnaire to evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with prostate cancer in Taiwan. Methods A cross-over design study was conducted in 99 prostate cancer patients at an urology outpatient clinic. Descriptive exact and global agreement percentages, intraclass correlation, and equivalence test based on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) approach were used to examine the equity of HRQOL scores between these two modes of administration. We also evaluated the feasibility of computerized assessment based on patients' acceptability and preference. Additionally, we used Rasch rating scale model to assess differential item functioning (DIF) between the two modes of administration. Results The percentages of global agreement in all domains were greater than 85% in the EORTC QLQ-PR25. All results from equivalence tests were significant, except for Sexual functioning, indicating good equivalence. Only one item exhibited DIF between the two modes. Although nearly 80% of the study patients had no prior computer-use experience, the overall proportion of acceptance and preference for the touch-screen mode were quite high and there was no significant difference across age groups or between computer-use experience groups. Conclusions The study results showed that the data obtained from the modes of administration were equivalent. The touch-screen mode of administration can be a feasible and suitable alternative to the paper-and-pencil mode for assessment of patient-reported outcomes in patients with prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of BMC Medical Research Methodology is the property of BioMed Central and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Following the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research. Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time. Methods: We reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported. Results: From 168 research papers, 165 were eligible, including 54 (33%) papers with a covid-19 focus. For methodological quality, 18 (33%) covid-19 papers and 83 (73%) non-covid papers were rated as low risk of bias, OR 6.32 (95%CI 2.85 to 14.00). The difference in quality was maintained after adjusting for publication date, results, funding, study design, journal and raters (OR 6.09 (95%CI 2.09 to 17.72)). For reporting quality, adherence to reporting guidelines was poorer for covid-19 papers, mean percentage of total items reported 72% (95%CI:66 to 77) for covid-19 papers and 84% (95%CI:81 to 87) for non-covid. Conclusions: Across various measures, we have demonstrated that covid-19 research from the first wave of the pandemic was potentially of lower quality than contemporaneous non-covid research. While some differences may be an inevitable consequence of conducting research during a viral pandemic, poor reporting should not be accepted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study comparing the concordance and the preference for two versions, electronic and paper of the faces pain intensity scale-revised (FPS-R) for use by children aged 4 and older. The study including 237 patients, was performed in two pediatric hospitals in France. The study concludes that electronic version of the FPS-R can be recommended for use with children aged 4 to 12 either in clinical trials or in hospitals to monitor pain intensity.

Background: A number of studies indicate a link between cannabis-use and psychosis as well as more severe psychosis in those with existing psychotic disorders. There is currently insufficient evidence to decide the optimal way to treat cannabis abuse among patients with psychosis. Objectives: The major objective for the CapOpus trial is to evaluate the additional effect on cannabis abuse of a specialized addiction treatment program adding group treatment and motivational interviewing to treatment as usual. Design: The trial is designed as a randomized, parallel-group, observer-blinded clinical trial. Patients are primarily recruited through early-psychosis detection teams, community mental health centers, and assertive community treatment teams. Patients are randomized to one of two treatment arms, both lasting six months: 1) specialized addiction treatment plus treatment as usual or 2) treatment as usual. The specialized addiction treatment is manualized and consists of both individual and group-based motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy, and incorporates both the family and the case manager of the patient. The primary outcome measure will be changes in amount of cannabis consumption over time. Other outcome measures will be psychosis symptoms, cognitive functioning, quality of life, social functioning, and cost-benefit analyses. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00484302. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Based on a recognized need for research to examine the premise that nonsurgical approaches can be used effectively to treat signs and symptoms of scoliosis, a scientific society on scoliosis orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment (SOSORT) was established in Barcelona in 2004. SOSORT has a primary goal of implementing multidisciplinary research to develop quantitative, objective data to address the role of conservative therapies in the treatment of scoliosis. This international working group of clinicians and scientists specializing in treatment of scoliosis met in Milan, Italy in January 2005. Methods: As a baseline for developing a consensus for language and goals for proposed multicenter clinical studies, we developed questionnaires to examine current beliefs, before and after the meeting, regarding (1) the aims of physical exercises; (2) standards of treatment; and (3) the impact of such treatment performed by specialists in the field. Results: The responses to the questionnaires show that, in principle, specialists in scoliosis physiotherapy do not disagree and that several features can be regarded, currently, as standard features in the rehabilitation of scoliosis patients. These features include autocorrection in 3D, training in ADL, stabilizing the corrected posture, and patient education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: The value of using qualitative methods within clinical trials is widely recognised. How qualitative research is integrated within trials units to achieve this is less clear. This paper describes the process through which qualitative research has been integrated within Cardiff University's Centre for Trials Research (CTR) in Wales, UK. We highlight facilitators of, and challenges to, integration. Methods: We held group discussions on the work of the Qualitative Research Group (QRG) within CTR. The content of these discussions, materials for a presentation in CTR, and documents relating to the development of the QRG were interpreted at a workshop attended by group members. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to structure analysis. A writing group prepared a document for input from members of CTR, forming the basis of this paper. Results: Actions to integrate qualitative research comprised: its inclusion in Centre strategies; formation of a QRG with dedicated funding/roles; embedding of qualitative research within operating systems; capacity building/training; monitoring opportunities to include qualitative methods in studies; maximising the quality of qualitative research and developing methodological innovation. Facilitators of these actions included: the influence of the broader methodological landscape within trial/study design and its promotion of the value of qualitative research; and close physical proximity of CTR qualitative staff/students allowing sharing of methodological approaches. Introduction of innovative qualitative methods generated interest among other staff groups. Challenges included: pressure to under-resource qualitative components of research, preference for a statistical stance historically in some research areas and funding structures, and difficulties faced by qualitative researchers carving out individual academic profiles when working across trials/studies. Conclusions: Given that CTUs are pivotal to the design and conduct of RCTs and related study types across multiple disciplines, integrating qualitative research into trials units is crucial if its contribution is to be fully realised. We have made explicit one trials unit's experience of embedding qualitative research and present this to open dialogue on ways to operationalise and optimise qualitative research in trials. NPT provides a valuable framework with which to theorise these processes, including the importance of sense-making and legitimisation when introducing new practices within organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this review was to establish the frequency with which trials take into account missingness, and to discover what methods trialists use for adjustment in randomised controlled trials with longitudinal measurements. Failing to address the problems that can arise from missing outcome data can result in misleading conclusions. Missing data should be addressed as a means of a sensitivity analysis of the complete case analysis results. One hundred publications of randomised controlled trials with longitudinal measurements were selected randomly from trial publications from the years 2005 to 2012. Information was extracted from these trials, including whether reasons for dropout were reported, what methods were used for handing the missing data, whether there was any explanation of the methods for missing data handling, and whether a statistician was involved in the analysis. The main focus of the review was on missing data post dropout rather than missing interim data. Of all the papers in the study, 9 (9%) had no missing data. More than half of the papers included in the study failed to make any attempt to explain the reasons for their choice of missing data handling method. Of the papers with clear missing data handling methods, 44 papers (50%) used adequate methods of missing data handling, whereas 30 (34%) of the papers used missing data methods which may not have been appropriate. In the remaining 17 papers (19%), it was difficult to assess the validity of the methods used. An imputation method was used in 18 papers (20%) to address the problems caused by missingness. Multiple imputation methods were introduced in 1987 and are an efficient way of accounting for missing data in general, and yet only 4 papers used these methods. All these 4 papers were published in the past four years. Out of the 18 papers which used imputation, only 7 displayed the results as a sensitivity analysis of the complete case analysis results. 61% of the papers that used an imputation explained the reasons for their chosen method. Just under a third of the papers made no reference to reasons for missing outcome data. There was little consistency in reporting of missing data within longitudinal trials; some papers provided great detail about the missing data, while others made no reference to it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The first appearance of the word "telepathology" in a scientific paper can be tracked down to 1986, in a famous editorial of Ronald Weinstein. Since that paper, research in telepathology grew up developing different subfields, including static and dynamic telepathology and more recently virtual microscopy. The present work attempts an analysis of research in telepathology, starting from the tools provided by bibliometrics. Methods: A query has been developed to extract papers related to telepathology and virtual microscopy, and it has been then submitted to Pubmed by means of Entrez Utilities functions. Results obtained in XML have been processed through ad-hoc developed PHP scripts, in order to extract data on Authors, countries, and keywords. Results: On PubMed, 967 papers related to telepathology and virtual microscopy have been retrieved, which involved 2904 Authors; corresponding authors were from 37 countries. Of those authors, 2213 co-authored just one paper. Papers were published on 344 different journals, of which only 52 from the Pathology field. An analysis of papers per year has been also attempted, that demonstrates variable research output in time. Conclusions: From the proposed analysis, telepathology seems to have been consistently studied, in time, by about 400 researchers, with occasional participation of many other people. Telepathology research seems also to have varied in time, although some peaks in paper publishing are certainly related to the proceedings of the European congress on telepathology series, when they have been published on journals. However, some clear sign appears that suggests research in traditional telepathology, after a peak in 2000, showed some decline until virtual microscopy became mainstream, topic that currently pushes research again. The low number of clinical trials calls for more randomized studies in telepathology, to enable evidence-based application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Regulations, study design complexity and amounts of collected and shared data in clinical trials render efficient data handling procedures inevitable. Recent research suggests that electronic data capture can be key in this context but evidence is insufficient. This randomized controlled parallel group study tested the hypothesis that time efficiency is superior when electronic (eCRF) instead of paper case report forms (pCRF) are used for data collection. We additionally investigated predictors of time saving effects and data integrity.Methods: This study was conducted on top of a clinical weight loss trial performed at a clinical research facility over six months. All study nurses and patients participating in the clinical trial were eligible to participate and randomly allocated to enter cross-sectional data obtained during routine visits either through pCRF or eCRF. A balanced randomization list was generated before enrolment commenced. 90 and 30 records were gathered for the time that 27 patients and 2 study nurses required to report 2025 and 2037 field values, respectively. The primary hypothesis, that eCRF use is faster than pCRF use, was tested by a two-tailed t-test. Analysis of variance and covariance were used to evaluate predictors of entry performance. Data integrity was evaluated by descriptive statistics.Results: All randomized patients were included in the study (eCRF group n = 13, pCRF group n = 14). eCRF, as compared to pCRF, data collection was associated with significant time savings  across all conditions (8.29 ± 5.15 min vs. 10.54 ± 6.98 min, p = .047). This effect was not defined by participant type, i.e. patients or study nurses (F(1,112) = .15, p = .699), CRF length (F(2,112) = .49, p = .609) or patient age (Beta = .09, p = .534). Additional 5.16 ± 2.83 min per CRF were saved with eCRFs due to data transcription redundancy when patients answered questionnaires directly in eCRFs. Data integrity was superior in the eCRF condition (0 versus 3 data entry errors).Conclusions: This is the first study to prove in direct comparison that using eCRFs instead of pCRFs increases time efficiency of data collection in clinical trials, irrespective of item quantity or patient age, and improves data quality.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials NCT02649907 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing awareness that regardless of the proven value of clinical interventions, the use of effective strategies to implement such interventions into clinical practice is necessary to ensure that patients receive the benefits. However, there is often confusion between what is the clinical intervention and what is the implementation intervention. This may be caused by a lack of conceptual clarity between 'intervention' and 'implementation', yet at other times by ambiguity in application. We suggest that both the scientific and the clinical communities would benefit from greater clarity; therefore, in this paper, we address the concepts of intervention and implementation, primarily as in clinical interventions and implementation interventions, and explore the grey area in between.Discussion: To begin, we consider the similarities, differences and potential greyness between clinical interventions and implementation interventions through an overview of concepts. This is illustrated with reference to two examples of clinical interventions and implementation intervention studies, including the potential ambiguity in between. We then discuss strategies to explore the hybridity of clinical-implementation intervention studies, including the role of theories, frameworks, models, and reporting guidelines that can be applied to help clarify the clinical and implementation intervention, respectively.Conclusion: Semantics provide opportunities for improved precision in depicting what is 'intervention' and what is 'implementation' in health care research. Further, attention to study design, the use of theory, and adoption of reporting guidelines can assist in distinguishing between the clinical intervention and the implementation intervention. However, certain aspects may remain unclear in analyses of hybrid studies of clinical and implementation interventions. Recognizing this potential greyness can inform further discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The application of adaptive design methodology within a clinical trial setting is becoming increasingly popular. However the application of these methods within trials is not being reported as adaptive designs hence making it more difficult to capture the emerging use of these designs. Within this review, we aim to understand how adaptive design methodology is being reported, whether these methods are explicitly stated as an 'adaptive design' or if it has to be inferred and to identify whether these methods are applied prospectively or concurrently.Methods: Three databases; Embase, Ovid and PubMed were chosen to conduct the literature search. The inclusion criteria for the review were phase II, phase III and phase II/III randomised controlled trials within the field of Oncology that published trial results in 2015. A variety of search terms related to adaptive designs were used.Results: A total of 734 results were identified, after screening 54 were eligible. Adaptive designs were more commonly applied in phase III confirmatory trials. The majority of the papers performed an interim analysis, which included some sort of stopping criteria. Additionally only two papers explicitly stated the term 'adaptive design' and therefore for most of the papers, it had to be inferred that adaptive methods was applied. Sixty-five applications of adaptive design methods were applied, from which the most common method was an adaptation using group sequential methods.Conclusions: This review indicated that the reporting of adaptive design methodology within clinical trials needs improving. The proposed extension to the current CONSORT 2010 guidelines could help capture adaptive design methods. Furthermore provide an essential aid to those involved with clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Participant recruitment and retention are long-standing problems in clinical trials. Although there are a large number of factors impacting on recruitment and retention, some of the problems may reflect the fact that trial design and delivery is not sufficiently 'patient-centred' (i.e., sensitive to patient needs and preferences). Most trials collect process and outcome measures, but it is unclear whether patient experience of trial participation itself is routinely measured. We conducted a structured scoping review of studies reporting standardised assessment of patient experience of participation in a trial.Methods: A structured search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and hand searching of included studies were conducted in 2016. Additional sources included policy documents, relevant websites and experts. We extracted data on trial context (type, date and location) and measure type (number of items and mode of administration), patient experience domains measured, and the results reported. We conducted a narrative synthesis.Results: We identified 22 journal articles reporting on 21 different structured measures of participant experience in trials. None of the studies used a formal definition of patient experience. Overall, patients reported relatively high levels of global satisfaction with the trial process as well as positive outcomes (such as the likelihood of future participation or recommendation of the trial to others).Conclusions: Current published evidence is sparse. Standardised assessment of patient experience of trial participation may provide opportunities for researchers to enhance trial design and delivery. This could complement other methods of enhancing the patient-centredness of trials and might improve recruitment, retention, and long-term patient engagement with trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Neurological injuries remain the leading cause of death in comatose patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Adequate blood pressure is of paramount importance to optimize cerebral perfusion and to minimize secondary brain injury. Markers measuring global cerebral ischemia caused by cardiac arrest and consecutive resuscitation and reflecting the metabolic variations after successful resuscitation are needed to assist a more individualized post-resuscitation care. Currently, no technique is available for bedside evaluation of global cerebral energy state, and until now blood pressure targets have been based on limited clinical evidence. Recent experimental and clinical studies indicate that it might be possible to evaluate cerebral oxidative metabolism from measuring the lactate-to-pyruvate (LP) ratio of the draining venous blood. In this study, jugular bulb microdialysis and immediate bedside biochemical analysis are introduced as new diagnostic tools to evaluate the effect of higher mean arterial blood pressure on global cerebral metabolism and the degree of cellular damage after OHCA.Methods/design: This is a single-center, randomized, double-blinded, superiority trial. Sixty unconscious patients with sustained return of spontaneous circulation after OHCA will be randomly assigned in a one-to-one fashion to low (63 mm Hg) or high (77 mm Hg) mean arterial blood pressure target. The primary end-point will be a difference in mean LP ratio within 48 h between blood pressure groups. Secondary end-points are (1) association between LP ratio and all-cause intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and (2) association between LP ratio and survival to hospital discharge with poor neurological function.Discussion: Markers measuring cerebral ischemia caused by cardiac arrest and consecutive resuscitation and reflecting the metabolic changes after successful resuscitation are urgently needed to enable a more personalized post-resuscitation care and prognostication. Jugular bulb microdialysis may provide a reliable global estimate of cerebral metabolic state and can be implemented as an entirely new and less invasive diagnostic tool for ICU patients after OHCA and has implications for early prognosis and treatment.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03095742 ). Registered March 30, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Informed consent is the cornerstone of research ethics. One of its goals is that participants enter research with an understanding of what their participation entails. This paper is a study on how researchers understand the informed consent process. Previous studies have looked at this topic from a research participant perspective. However, few studies focus on the perspectives of the researchers. Therefore, this is an important paper that highlights an important issue (informed consent) from the perspective of those who administer it during research. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 researchers from 3 different research centers in Malawi working in clinical trials. The data was analyzed using open code utilizing the thematic approach to qualitative data. Results: This study identified that researchers have good awareness of the role of informed consent, how important it is for participants to understand the given information and ways to adjust their practice accordingly when obtaining it in order to enhance participant understanding. According to the research staff, most participants do not really understand all the concepts of the study at the initial visit, they gain more understanding during subsequent visits. It was emphasized that the best method of facilitating informed consent is reading the informed consent to the participant, thus a face-to-face conversation. Long and complex informed consent was identified as one of the barriers to participant understanding of the informed consent. Shortening the informed consent form and having additional conversation with the participants was suggested as one way of improving participant comprehension. Conclusion: Most of the participants understand much of the information during subsequent visits as you keep reminding them since informed consent is an ongoing process. Existing relationship or trust between a participant and a researcher, may influence participants' decision and misguide their understanding on the purpose of the study. Adequate time should be allocated to informed consent discussions. Shortening the informed consent forms and having additional conversations with potential participants may help improve their understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of electronic methods to support informed consent ('eConsent') is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK. Main text: We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system's generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake. Conclusions: We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SE-AN) is amongst the most impairing of all mental illnesses. Collective uncertainties about SE-AN nosology impacts treatment refinement. Qualitative research, particularly lived experience literature, can contribute to a process of revision and enrichment of understanding the SE-AN experience and further develop treatment interventions. Poor outcomes to date, as evidenced in clinical trials and mortality for people with SE-AN (1 in 20) demonstrate the need for research that informs conceptualisations and novel treatment directions. This interpretative, meta-ethnographic meta-synthesis aimed to bridge this gap. Methods: A systematic search for qualitative studies that explored the AN experiences of people with a duration of greater than 3 years was undertaken. These studies included those that encompassed phenomenology, treatment experiences and recovery. Results: 36 papers, comprising 382 voices of SE-AN experiences informed the meta-ethnographic findings. Four higher order constructs were generated through a synthesis of themes and participant extracts cited in the extracted papers: (1) Vulnerable sense of self (2) Intra-psychic processes (3) Global impoverishment (4) Inter-psychic temporal processes. Running across these meta-themes were three cross cutting themes (i) Treatment: help versus harm, (ii) Shifts in control (iii) Hope versus hopelessness. These meta-themes were integrated into conceptualisations of SE-AN that was experienced as a recursive process of existential self-in-relation to other and the anorexia nervosa trap. Conclusions: The alternative conceptualisation of SE-AN proposed in this paper poses a challenge to current conceptualisations of AN and calls for treatments to engage with the complex intra and inter-psychic processes of the SE-AN, more fully. In doing so, clinicians and researchers are asked to continue to be bold in testing novel ideas that may challenge our own rigidity and attachment to dominant paradigms to best serve the individual person with SE-AN. The 'global impoverishment of self', found in this synthesis of AN experiences, should inform proposed diagnostic criteria for SE-AN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of integrated community-based maternal neonatal and child health (MNCH) programmes is essential to address the gap in coverage of universal health care in sub-Saharan Africa, which bears the highest burden for poor MNCH outcomes globally. However, to assess their impact in practice requires the design and implementation of increasingly complex evaluation approaches in 'real-world' settings frequently characterised by underserved health and civil registration systems. This commentary introduces the series titled "Lessons Learned from Operationalising Impact Evaluations of MNCH Interventions". Based on a 20-year collaboration between the Kintampo Health Research Centre in Ghana (KHRC) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the United Kingdom (LSHTM), the series brings together an international group of authors responsible for the design and conduct of seminal MNCH trials of community health worker-led interventions, including policy-relevant trials of vitamin A supplementation conducted since 1995. Underpinning the research was a long running surveillance system following up 120,000 women and infants each month—the largest research surveillance system on the continent at the time. The papers in this series provide honest and practical accounts of lessons learned in the design of quantitative and qualitative systems to track key MNCH outcomes, supported by sustainable strategies to maximise engagement with study communities. This commentary offers a retrospective overview of the collaboration and its many achievements, and highlights key messages from the series relevant for future research in MNCH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the U.S. there are significant racial and gender disparities in the uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Black Americans represented 14% of PrEP users in 2022, but accounted for 42% of new HIV diagnoses in 2021 and in the South, Black people represented 48% of new HIV diagnoses in 2021 but only 21% of PrEP users in 2022. Women who use drugs may be even less likely than women who do not use drugs have initiated PrEP. Moreover, women involved in community supervision programs (CSP) are less likely to initiate or use PrEP, More PrEP interventions that focus on Black women with recent history of drug use in CSPs are needed to reduce inequities in PrEP uptake. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial with a sub-sample (n = 336) of the total (N = 352) participants from the parent study (E-WORTH), who tested HIV negative at baseline were considered PrEP-eligible. Black women were recruited from CSPs in New York City (NYC), with recent substance use. Participants were randomized to either E-WORTH (n = 172) an HIV testing plus, receive a 5-session, culturally-tailored, group-based HIV prevention intervention, versus an HIV testing control group (n = 180). The 5 sessions included an introduction to PrEP and access. This paper reports outcomes on improved awareness of PrEP, willingness to use PrEP, and PrEP uptake over the 12-month follow-up period. HIV outcomes are reported in a previous paper. Results: Compared to control participants, participants in this study assigned to E-WORTH had significantly greater odds of being aware of PrEP as a biomedical HIV prevention strategy (OR = 3.25, 95% CI = 1.64–6.46, p = 0.001), and indicated a greater willingness to use PrEP as an HIV prevention method (b = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.06–0.32, p = 0.004) over the entire 12-month follow-up period. Conclusions: These findings underscore the effectiveness of a culturally-tailored intervention for Black women in CSP settings in increasing awareness, and intention to initiate PrEP. Low uptake of PrEP in both arms highlight the need for providing more robust PrEP-on-demand strategies that are integrated into other services such as substance abuse treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02391233. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In light of the FDA's Project Optimus initiative, there is fresh interest in leveraging Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) data to enhance the assessment of tolerability for investigational therapies within early phase dose-finding oncology trials. Typically, dose escalation in most trial designs is solely reliant on clinician assessed adverse events. Research has shown a disparity between patients and clinicians when assessing whether an investigational therapy is tolerable, leading to the recommendation of potentially intolerable doses for further investigation in subsequent trials. It is also increasingly recognized that patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) plays a pivotal role in enriching trial design and conduct. However, to our knowledge, no PPIE has explored the optimal integration of PROs in the development of advanced statistical trial designs within early phase dose-finding oncology trials. Methods: A virtual PPIE session was held with nine participants on 18th October 2023 to discuss the incorporation of PROs within a dose-finding trial design. This cross disciplinary session was developed and led by a team of statisticians, clinical specialists, qualitative experts, and trial methodologists. Following the session, in-depth perspectives were provided by two patient advocates who actively engaged in the PPIE session. We discuss the importance of PPIE in shaping advanced dose-finding trial designs, share insights from patients on integrating PROs to inform treatment tolerability, and present a template for meaningful patient involvement in trial design development. Results: Participants generally supported the introduction of PROs within dose-finding trials but showed some apprehensiveness as to how PROs may reduce the size of the recommended dose (and potentially efficacious effect). Some participants shared that they may be reluctant to record the real severity of their symptoms via PROs if it would mean that they would have to discontinue treatment. They discussed that PROs could be used to assess tolerability rather than toxicity of a dose. Conclusions: Amplifying patient voice in the development of patient-centric dose-finding trial designs is now essential. This paper offers an exemplary illustration of how trialists and methodologists can effectively incorporate patient voice in the future development of advanced dose-finding trial designs. Plain English summary: The aim of dose-finding oncology trials is to make sure a treatment is safe, understand its side effects, and recommend the right dose (or doses) for future clinical trials. Traditionally, a patient's tolerance to treatment is assessed by doctors who evaluate toxicities (side-effects) using established grading guidelines. Research has shown that doctors might not identify all the side effects that patients actually experience during a trial. There is growing interest in the introduction of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within dose-finding trials. PROs are reports of a patient's health and well-being experiences which come directly from the patient themselves, usually assessed using a questionnaire. In a dose-finding trial, we start with a low dose of a drug and increase it until too many patients have severe side effects. The highest safe dose is then investigated in a later phase trial. We are suggesting a new way to do these trials. We want to look at both what doctors see as severe side effects and what patients say. This enables us to recommend a dose that balances both perspectives. We would also like to ask patients what level of risk they are comfortable with regarding severe side effects. In this paper, we highlight the importance of involving patients in creating advanced dose-finding trial designs, particularly with PROs to help decide whether a dose is tolerable for patients. We also share findings of a patient and public involvement and engagement session and provide a guide for meaningful patient involvement in developing trial designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the fastest growing demographic worldwide, the elderly population is projected to reach nearly 1 billion by 2030 and double the 2022 number by 2050. Despite being the largest consumers of medications, they have been historically underrepresented in clinical trials. However, we are witnessing a promising shift as their participation in trials is on the rise. In fact, recent megatrials enrolling more than 30,000 elderly participants demonstrated the feasibility of large-scale clinical trials involving this very specific population. However, unique challenges, including multi-morbidities, frailty, and ethically sound informed consent in those with cognitive deficits, require continuous careful reassessments and flexibility. Creative and tailored strategies are of paramount importance to bolster elderly trial participation. This paper highlights challenges and shares our experiences on novel methods and success stories associated with the enrollment and retention of elderly individuals in clinical trials. Successful tactics to balance the burden of clinical trial participation with its benefits encompass regular contact, family and friends' engagement, making travel easier or unnecessary, use of digital tools, and building relationships with community organizations. Through innovative strategies that consider the unique needs and limitations of this population, we can achieve successful participation in clinical trials. This will lead to more effective treatments and interventions for our growing elderly population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A growing body of evidence suggest an association between physical activity levels and students psychological well-being. A number of research studies have evaluated playground interventions that aim to increase physical activity levels, decrease conflict and bullying, and improve students behaviour. The HAPPY Study will evaluate the success of an intervention combining environmental modifications, teacher development, and peer support that can culminate in an easy to implement, low cost and effective model for increasing physical activity, and improving psychological well-being for children.Methods/design: Data will be collected at six New South Wales (NSW) primary schools, on physical activity levels, on-task time during classes, and social support for physical activity during a 12 month Cluster Controlled Trial (CT). Three quantitative data collection tools will be used to capture student's physical activity levels during lunch and recess breaks (the SOPARC tool), student's on-task behaviour during classes following recess and lunch breaks (the BOSS tool) and where students receive the most encouragement to be physically active from (the Physical Activity Social Support Scale survey). Baseline data will be analysed against follow-up data, collected after an intervention that is rolled out in all schools as part of a stepped wedge CT design.Discussion: A review of relevant Australian and New Zealand literature suggests that playground interventions can be successful at increasing physical activity levels, increasing social and conflict resolution skills in students, and decreasing incidences of bullying. This study will investigate any correlation between physical activity levels, and student behaviour during classes following breaks.Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register ACTRN12616000575437 , registered May 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases aims to enhance the rare diseases research ecosystem by bringing together stakeholders such as research funders, institutions and patient organizations. Work Package 20 focuses on the validation, use and development of innovative methodologies for rare disease clinical trials. This paper reports on the outcomes of a retreat held in April 2023, where areas for innovation and educational needs in rare disease clinical trials were discussed in multi-stakeholder sessions. Methods: Multi-stakeholder sessions covered the topics: Future Educational System, Randomization in Rare Disease Clinical Trials, Endpoints in Rare Disease Clinical Trials and Using History Course Data. The sessions began with expert presentations to set the scene, followed by guided discussions facilitated by questions on a collaborative digital whiteboard. Participants wrote responses, which were then discussed live with the experts. Results: Training is needed for diverse stakeholders in rare disease clinical trials to enhance understanding and drive innovation. Challenges include a lack of standardized terminology for multiple endpoints, inadequate understanding of randomization in small sample studies and various obstacles in effectively using natural history data. Conclusion: Creating a comprehensive and sustainable educational program for rare diseases clinical trial methodology requires strategic collaboration and adherence to FAIR principles. The workshop highlighted the need for innovations for topics in areas such as handling missing data, optimizing the extraction of information from small samples, remote endpoint measurement and new randomized inference techniques. Additionally, integrating innovations into tailored training programs is crucial for advancing the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review of journal articles is an important step in the research process. Editors rely on the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, peer review quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in how to approach the task. This paper describes some of the main steps that peer reviewers in general and, in particular, those performing reviewes of randomised controlled trials (RCT), can use when carrying out a review. It can be helpful to begin with a brief read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by a detailed read and a careful check for flaws. These can be divided into 'major' (problems that must be resolved before publication can be considered) and 'minor' (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being aware of the appropriate reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) can also be valuable. Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is important. Finally, ensuring that the paper's strengths are acknowledged along with a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the quality of the paper. The proper conduct of a peer review is the responsibility of all who accept the role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in research positively affects the relevance, quality, and impact of research. Around 11% of studies published in leading medical journals demonstrate PPIE. The extent of PPIE in nursing research has not been previously studied. Methods: A descriptive study of PPIE in clinical trials published in general nursing science journals between 1st January and 31st August 2021. Data were extracted from included studies against the five items of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) short form reporting checklist. Results: We searched 27 journals and identified 89 randomised controlled clinical trials. There was no statement or evidence of PPIE in any of the included trials. Conclusion: Nurse researchers need to ensure that they purposefully involve patients in their research and report this in papers describing study findings. Plain English summary: Patient involvement in research may improve the quality and relevance of the work. The British Medical Journal—one of the top medical research journals in the world—has developed a patient partnership plan. Part of this plan requires papers sent to the journal for publication to include a statement about how patients were involved in the research. If patients were not involved in the research, this should be stated in the paper. Most papers published in the British Medical Journal now include a statement about patient involvement. We wanted to check if nurses were reporting patient involvement in the research they do. We read 89 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 27 general nursing journals. We focused on RCTs because they are widely considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions and therefore are most likely to impact on patient care. Unlike the British Medical Journal, there was no evidence that nursing journals required authors to say how patients were engaged or involved in the research they published. There was no evidence of patient involvement in any of the nursing research articles that we looked at. The implication of our work is that nurse researchers need to be developing ways for effective engagement of patients in all aspects of their research and explaining how they did this in the papers they publish in nursing journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) need to be reported so that their results can be unambiguously and robustly interpreted. Binary outcomes yield unique challenges, as different analytical approaches may produce relative, absolute, or no treatment effects, and results may be particularly sensitive to the assumptions made about missing data. This review of recently published RCTs aimed to identify the methods used to analyse binary primary outcomes, how missing data were handled, and how the results were reported.Methods: Systematic review of reports of RCTs published in January 2019 that included a binary primary outcome measure. We identified potentially eligible English language papers on PubMed, without restricting by journal or medical research area. Papers reporting the results from individually randomised, parallel-group RCTs were included.Results: Two hundred reports of RCTs were included in this review. We found that 64% of the 200 reports used a chi-squared-style test as their primary analytical method. Fifty-five per cent (95% confidence interval 48% to 62%) reported at least one treatment effect measure, and 38% presented only a p value without any treatment effect measure. Missing data were not always adequately described and were most commonly handled using available case analysis (69%) in the 140 studies that reported missing data. Imputation and best/worst-case scenarios were used in 21% of studies. Twelve per cent of articles reported an appropriate sensitivity analysis for missing data.Conclusions: The statistical analysis and reporting of treatment effects in reports of randomised trials with a binary primary endpoint requires substantial improvement. Only around half of the studied reports presented a treatment effect measure, hindering the understanding and dissemination of the findings. We also found that published trials often did not clearly describe missing data or sensitivity analyses for these missing data. Practice for secondary endpoints or observational studies may differ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sildenafil is a cyclic guanosine monophosphate-specific phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor used for treating pulmonary hypertension. Although the use of sildenafil in patients under 18 years old is off-label, this inhibitor has been widely prescribed for children treatment at hospitals in Brazil. In this work we evaluated the current practices in using sildenafil in the three main reference hospitals of Rio de Janeiro to design a clinical trial. Then we analyzed the content of sildenafil in powder paper preparations used in these institutions. Methods and Results: We assessed the data about the use of sildenafil in three reference hospitals including Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia - INC, Instituto Estadual de Cardiologia Aloysio de Castro - IECAC and Hospital Pro-Cardíaco - HPC. The pharmacy records were analyzed from April 1st, 2008 to April 30th, 2008 and interviews with the pharmacists were also performed. Our results showed that INC used the greatest amount of sildenafil in: treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), management of transient PAH during surgery, preparation for cardiac transplantation and haemodynamic studies during cardiac catheterization. Meanwhile IECAC and HPC used sildenafil only for treating PAH in few patients during the period evaluated. In INC and IECAC, sildenafil was available in tablets, and powder papers prepared by two private pharmacies and one public hospital pharmacy. In contrast all patients of HPC received sildenafil in tablets with no external manipulation. Our quantification analysis results using reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatography method showed that powder papers prepared by the private pharmacies from the sildenafil tablets presented only 58.5 to 89.3% of the declared concentration in contrast to samples from the public hospital pharmacy (104.4 to 105.3%). Conclusion: Few patients received the prescribed sildenafil dose at the reference hospitals evaluated in Rio de Janeiro, which may importantly compromise this inhibitor effect in the current treatment. This study reinforced the need of checking the practices of preparing and administering sildenafil continually. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). This paper summarizes key features and conclusions from the various SAVVY papers. Methods: Summarizing several papers reporting theoretical investigations using simulations and an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organizations, biases from ignoring varying follow-up times or CEs are investigated. The bias of commonly used estimators of the absolute (incidence proportion and one minus Kaplan-Meier) and relative (risk and hazard ratio) AE risk is quantified. Furthermore, we provide a cursory assessment of how pertinent guidelines for the analysis of safety data deal with the features of varying follow-up time and CEs. Results: SAVVY finds that for both, avoiding bias and categorization of evidence with respect to treatment effect on AE risk into categories, the choice of the estimator is key and more important than features of the underlying data such as percentage of censoring, CEs, amount of follow-up, or value of the gold-standard. Conclusions: The choice of the estimator of the cumulative AE probability and the definition of CEs are crucial. Whenever varying follow-up times and/or CEs are present in the assessment of AEs, SAVVY recommends using the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) with an appropriate definition of CEs to quantify AE risk. There is an urgent need to improve pertinent clinical trial reporting guidelines for reporting AEs so that incidence proportions or one minus Kaplan-Meier estimators are finally replaced by the AJE with appropriate definition of CEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Multi-arm non-inferiority (MANI) trials, here defined as non-inferiority trials with multiple experimental treatment arms, can be useful in situations where several viable treatments exist for a disease area or for testing different dose schedules. To maintain the statistical integrity of such trials, issues regarding both design and analysis must be considered, from both the multi-arm and the non-inferiority perspectives. Little guidance currently exists on exactly how these aspects should be addressed and it is the aim of this paper to provide recommendations to aid the design of future MANI trials.Methods: A comprehensive literature review covering four databases was conducted to identify publications associated with MANI trials. Literature was split into methodological and trial publications in order to investigate the required design and analysis considerations for MANI trials and whether they were being addressed in practice.Results: A number of issues were identified that if not properly addressed, could lead to issues with the FWER, power or bias. These ranged from the structuring of trial hypotheses at the design stage to the consideration of potential heterogeneous treatment variances at the analysis stage. One key issue of interest was adjustment for multiple testing at the analysis stage. There was little consensus concerning whether more powerful p value adjustment methods were preferred to approximate adjusted CIs when presenting and interpreting the results of MANI trials. We found 65 examples of previous MANI trials, of which 31 adjusted for multiple testing out of the 39 that were adjudged to require it. Trials generally preferred to utilise simple, well-known methods for study design and analysis and while some awareness was shown concerning FWER inflation and choice of power, many trials seemed not to consider the issues and did not provide sufficient definition of their chosen design and analysis approaches.Conclusions: While MANI trials to date have shown some awareness of the issues raised within this paper, very few have satisfied the criteria of the outlined recommendations. Going forward, trials should consider the recommendations in this paper and ensure they clearly define and reason their choices of trial design and analysis techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The intricate association between nutrition and osteoporosis has garnered increasing attention, and approximately 3000 articles have been published in the past 20 years. However, there are currently very few comprehensive reviews on the development of this field. It is very necessary to retrospectively analyze the related articles and summarize the research hotspots, depth, and directions. Objectives: This study aimed to quantitatively analyze, visually review and comment on the articles published in the field of osteoporosis and nutrition based on the bibliometric methods, providing new insights for future research. Methods: The related articles published from 2004 to 2024 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC). CiteSpace 6.1R2 software was used to conduct collaborative network analysis of annual publication volume, author patterns, country/region contributions, institutional affiliations, journal publications, highly cited literature, and keyword clustering. Results: A total of 2138 articles were assessed, revealing a consistent upward trend in published works in this domain, with the majority originating from the United States (564 papers). Seoul National University was identified as the most prolific institution (56 papers). Geng Bin was the most prolific author. Research hotspots included bone density, postmenopausal women, vitamin D, hip fractures, etc. Research subjects included physical activity, sarcopenia, calcium intake, machine learning, etc. Recent research trends indicate that cross-sectional study was more and the quality of life, muscle, and zinc are receiving attention in studies. Conclusions: Future research should continue to explore better methods for measuring bone density, investigating indicators for predicting fracture risk, exploring the relationship between various nutrients and substances with osteoporosis at a deeper level, and bolstering management strategies for male osteoporosis. Researchers should conduct longitudinal or interventional studies, and further improving the overall quality of life of patients with osteoporosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As previously published, the MMPOWER-3 clinical trial did not demonstrate a significant benefit of elamipretide treatment in a genotypically diverse population of adults with primary mitochondrial myopathy (PMM). However, the prespecified subgroup of subjects with disease-causing nuclear DNA (nDNA) pathogenic variants receiving elamipretide experienced an improvement in the six-minute walk test (6MWT), while the cohort of subjects with mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) pathogenic variants showed no difference versus placebo. These published findings prompted additional genotype-specific post hoc analyses of the MMPOWER-3 trial. Here, we present these analyses to further investigate the findings and to seek trends and commonalities among those subjects who responded to treatment, to build a more precise Phase 3 trial design for further investigation in likely responders. Results: Subjects with mtDNA pathogenic variants or single large-scale mtDNA deletions represented 74% of the MMPOWER-3 population, with 70% in the mtDNA cohort having either single large-scale mtDNA deletions or MT-TL1 pathogenic variants. Most subjects in the nDNA cohort had pathogenic variants in genes required for mtDNA maintenance (mtDNA replisome), the majority of which were in POLG and TWNK. The mtDNA replisome post-hoc cohort displayed an improvement on the 6MWT, trending towards significant, in the elamipretide group when compared with placebo (25.2 ± 8.7 m versus 2.0 ± 8.6 m for placebo group; p = 0.06). The 6MWT results at week 24 in subjects with replisome variants showed a significant change in the elamipretide group subjects who had chronic progressive external ophthalmoplegia (CPEO) (37.3 ± 9.5 m versus − 8.0 ± 10.7 m for the placebo group; p = 0.0024). Pharmacokinetic (exposure–response) analyses in the nDNA cohort showed a weak positive correlation between plasma elamipretide concentration and 6MWT improvement. Conclusions: Post hoc analyses indicated that elamipretide had a beneficial effect in PMM patients with mtDNA replisome disorders, underscoring the importance of considering specific genetic subtypes in PMM clinical trials. These data serve as the foundation for a follow-up Phase 3 clinical trial (NuPOWER) which has been designed as described in this paper to determine the efficacy of elamipretide in patients with mtDNA maintenance-related disorders. Classification of evidence: Class I ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03323749 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The value of patient and public involvement (PPI) during the earliest stages of clinical trial development, and prior to the award of substantive funding, is widely recognised. However, it is often under-resourced and PPI processes during this phase are rarely reported in detail. Having benefitted from seed funding to develop an international clinical trial proposal, we sought to describe and appraise PPI activities and processes that support pre-award co-development. Methods: A 12-month "accelerator" award facilitated development of a substantive funding application to deliver the Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention PlatfORm Trial (RAPPORT), conceived to prioritise preventative interventions for people at risk of RA. PPI partners, including individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), RA patients, relatives and members of the public, provided feedback on key trial design issues through online meetings, a feedback form and emails. PPI processes employed during the one-year accelerator project were thereafter evaluated by PPI partners using an anonymous online feedback form with reference to National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) UK standards for public involvement in research. Results: Sixteen out of the 25-strong PPI partner panel completed an online feedback form (64%). Respondents perceived PPI processes positively in relation to all NIHR standard domains. Several key facilitators and challenges were identified, including the need for adequate PPI funding during pre-award phases of research, strategies for creating an inclusive environment, flexibility around levels of involvement, and challenges in achieving representatively diverse participation, and the importance of communicating transparent processes for role-assignment and time-reimbursement. Conclusions: In general, RAPPORT was considered an example of PPI well done, and in line with UK standards for public involvement in research. Facilitators and challenges of relevance for the development of future translational and clinical trial funding applications are highlighted. Plain English Summary: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in the development of funding applications to deliver clinical trials is desirable, but the PPI activities and processes involved at this early, "pre-award" stage are rarely reported. In the current paper we describe such activities during a 12-month project to develop a grant proposal for a substantive, international clinical trial. Three PPI partners were co-recipients of "seed funding" to conduct the 12-month Accelerator project, an additional 22 PPI partners being subsequently recruited to co-develop the funding application for the trial, entitled the "Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention: catalysing PlatfORm Trial (RAPPORT)." PPI partners contributed through meetings, email discussions and the completion of feedback forms. The PPI processes used in the project were evaluated by 16 of the PPI partners using an anonymous online feedback form. The form asked about the areas covered by the UK Standards for Public Involvement. PPI partners indicated that PPI in RAPPORT was done well in relation to all areas of the UK Standards. PPI partners felt they were heard, and their input valued, and that the communication was effective. Furthermore, they appreciated online format of the PPI activities, the flexible levels of involvement offered and the support from staff with expertise in both research and PPI. Some areas for potential improvement in future initiatives were also identified, which are discussed alongside challenges to co-development of projects during the "pre-award" stage in general, and the benefit of seed funding to support effective PPI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aedes mosquito is the primary vector of emerging or re-emerging arboviruses that threaten public health worldwide. Many efforts have been made to develop interventions to control the Aedes mosquito. This scoping review was conducted to identify the nature and scope of educational interventions to prevent and control diseases transmitted through the Aedes mosquito. The findings can be used to evaluate, compare, and develop appropriate control strategies. Methods: The present scoping review was conducted in 2023 and used Arksey and O'Malley's approach, which involves five key stages. To search for academic papers, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and ScienceDirect databases were used with a combination of keywords about Aedes mosquitoes, educational interventions, and disease prevention and control. The search was not limited by the publication date, yet only included studies published in English. Studies were included that reported the educational interventions about Aedes mosquito control at the community or organizational level. The screening of papers was done based on the PRISMA-ScR guideline. Excel 2019 was used for data analysis. Results: Initially, 3,172 papers were extracted, and after screenings and reviews, a total number of 45 final papers were selected. The studies focused on educational interventions. Twenty interventional studies were at the organizational level and 25 at the community level. The latter was the most commonly used strategy. Interventions using educational approaches have achieved sustainable results. Out of the forty-five studies, twenty-one were assessed to have a low risk of bias. Conclusions: The present scoping review evaluates the effectiveness of educational interventions at various community levels for controlling Aedes-borne diseases, emphasizing the need for multidisciplinary collaboration. Controlling Aedes mosquitoes using education and attracting the community's participation is an effective approach to reduce diseases transmitted through Aedes. The development of education at different levels of the community, such as educational and occupational environments, can play a role in the effectiveness of societal education and can be more cost-effective. Maintaining the effect of this approach is challenging because it requires multi-sector and multidisciplinary team participation and active community engagement over the long term. Further research is required to explore the removal of barriers to the implementation of educational interventions and the consistency of effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of electronic health records (EHR) to provide real-world data for research is established, but using EHR to deliver randomised controlled trials (RCTs) more efficiently is less developed. The Allergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) RCT evaluated a penicillin allergy assessment pathway versus usual clinical care in a UK primary care setting. The aim of this paper is to describe how EHRs were used to facilitate efficient delivery of a large-scale randomised trial of a complex intervention embracing efficient participant identification, supporting minimising GP workload, providing accurate post-intervention EHR updates of allergy status, and facilitating participant follow up and outcome data collection. The generalisability of the EHR approach and health economic implications of EHR in clinical trials will be reported in the main ALABAMA trial cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: A descriptive account of the adaptation of functionality within SystmOne used to deliver/facilitate multiple trial processes from participant identification to outcome data collection. Results: An ALABAMA organisation group within SystmOne was established which allowed sharing of trial functions/materials developed centrally by the research team. The 'ALABAMA unit' within SystmOne was also created and provided a secure efficient environment to access participants' EHR data. Processes of referring consented participants, allocating them to a trial arm, and assigning specific functions to the intervention arm were developed by adapting tools such as templates, reports, and protocols which were already available in SystmOne as well as pathways to facilitate allergy de-labelling processes and data retrieval for trial outcome analysis. Conclusions: ALABAMA is one of the first RCTs to utilise SystmOne EHR functionality and data across the RCT delivery, demonstrating feasibility and applicability to other primary care RCTs. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04108637, registered 05/03/2019. ISRCTN: ISRCTN20579216. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Africa, specifically the Sub-Saharan region, has had numerous medical technology clinical trials to address the various healthcare challenges around infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, and nutritional disorders it is facing. Medical device clinical trials provide performance data in terms of safety, efficacy, and efficiency, which is a requirement before commercialization. Key players such as academicians, governments, international organizations, and funders collaborate to drive these trials, but their growth in Africa remains slower compared to other parts of the globe. This paper aims to evaluate the number of medical device clinical trials conducted in different African countries that are registered on the clinicaltrials.gov website. Methods: Data on medical device clinical trials was mined from clinicaltrials.gov website accessed on 22nd September, 2022. The data extracted was analyzed and cleaned in Microsoft Excel and R. Countries were grouped into regions and descriptive statistical analyses for each region were done. Additionally, frequency distributions were also generated and no inferential statistical tests were performed, as the primary focus of this analysis was to describe the distribution of medical conditions across regions. Results: Thirty-one African countries had registered medical device clinical trials on the website with the majority taking place in Egypt and South Africa. Medical device trials for heart related issues took longer to complete compared to other conditions. Malaria, HIV, and male circumcision related device trials were mainly conducted in Eastern and Southern Africa while trials related to dental, fertility, and obesity were concentrated in Northern Africa. Female reproductive health issues were studied equally across all regions. Some African countries did not have any trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov website. Conclusion: Findings from this study clearly show the disparity in the number, status, and duration of medical device clinical trials across various African countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fibroblast cells have the ability to improve skin conditions through regenerative medicine and cell-based therapies. The purpose of this scoping review is to assess the contribution of fibroblast cells to skin homeostasis and extracellular matrix deposition in clinical trials involving skin disorders and cosmetic applications. Methods: Using targeted search terms, published publications from January 2000 to August 2023 that addressed fibroblast uses in clinical trials of skin conditions were obtained from bibliographic databases like PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS). Precise inclusion and exclusion criteria were used during the screening process. The potential benefits of induction treatment with fibroblasts lead to the choosing of clinical trials for this kind of treatment. Results: Out of the 820 published ppapers initially identified, only 35 studies fulfilled our meticulous eligibility criteria after careful screening. To ensure clarity, we methodically eliminated any duplicate or irrelevant published papers, thereby offering a transparent account of our selection process. Conclusion: This study highlights the advantages of fibroblast therapy in treating skin conditions such as diabetic foot, venous leg ulcers, and cosmetic reasons. Fibroblasts possess remarkable regenerating capabilities, making dermal fibroblast therapy crucial in cell-based and skin regenerative treatments. Nevertheless, additional research is required for more disorders and cosmetic applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite Africa's significant infectious disease burden, it is underrepresented in global vaccine clinical trials. While this trend is slowly reversing, it is important to recognize and mitigate the challenges that arise when conducting vaccine clinical trials in this environment. These challenges stem from a variety of factors peculiar to the population and may negatively impact adverse event collection and reporting if not properly addressed. Methods: As a team of clinical researchers working within the MRCG (Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia), we have conducted 12 phase 1 to 3 vaccine trials over the past 10 years. In this article, we discuss the challenges we face and the strategies we have developed to improve the collection and reporting of adverse events in low-income settings. Outcome. Healthcare-seeking behaviors in the Gambia are influenced by spiritual and cultural beliefs as well as barriers to accessing orthodox healthcare; participants in trials may resort to non-orthodox care, reducing the accuracy of reported adverse events. To address this, trial eligibility criteria prohibit self-treatment and herbal product use during trials. Instead, round-the-clock care is provided to trial participants, facilitating safety follow-up. Constraints in the healthcare system in the Gambia such as limitations in diagnostic tools limit the specificity of diagnosis when reporting adverse events. To overcome these challenges, the Medical Research Council Unit maintains a Clinical Services Department, offering medical care and diagnostic services to study participants. Sociocultural factors, including low literacy rates and social influences, impact adverse event collection. Solicited adverse events are collected during home visits on paper-based or electronic report forms. Community engagement meetings are held before each study starts to inform community stakeholders about the study and answer any questions they may have. These meetings ensure that influential members of the community understand the purpose of the study and the risks and benefits of participating in the trial. This understanding makes them more likely to support participation within their communities. Conclusion: Conducting ethical vaccine clinical trials in resource-limited settings requires strategies to accurately collect and report adverse events. Our experiences from the Gambia offer insights into adverse event collection in these settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the rapid expansion of electronic health records, the use of computer mouse and keyboard, challenges the data entry into these systems. Speech recognition software is one of the substitutes for the mouse and keyboard. The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of online and offline speech recognition software on spelling errors in nursing reports and to compare them with errors in handwritten reports.Methods: For this study, online and offline speech recognition software were selected and customized based on unrecognized terms by these softwares. Two groups of 35 nurses provided the admission notes of hospitalized patients upon their arrival using three data entry methods (using the handwritten method or two types of speech recognition software). After at least a month, they created the same reports using the other methods. The number of spelling errors in each method was determined. These errors were compared between the paper method and the two electronic methods before and after the correction of errors.Results: The lowest accuracy was related to online software with 96.4% and accuracy. On the average per report, the online method 6.76, and the offline method 4.56 generated more errors than the paper method. After correcting the errors by the participants, the number of errors in the online reports decreased by 94.75% and the number of errors in the offline reports decreased by 97.20%. The highest number of reports with errors was related to reports created by online software.Conclusion: Although two software had relatively high accuracy, they created more errors than the paper method that can be lowered by optimizing and upgrading these softwares. The results showed that error correction by users significantly reduced the documentation errors caused by the software. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several reviews of published cluster randomised trials have reported that about half did not take clustering into account in the analysis, which was thus incorrect and potentially misleading. In this paper I ask whether cluster randomised trials are increasing in both number and quality of reporting. Methods: Computer search for papers on cluster randomised trials since 1980, hand search of trial reports published in selected volumes of the British Medical Journal over 20 years. Results: There has been a large increase in the numbers of methodological papers and of trial reports using the term 'cluster random' in recent years, with about equal numbers of each type of paper. The British Medical Journal contained more such reports than any other journal. In this journal there was a corresponding increase over time in the number of trials where subjects were randomised in clusters. In 2003 all reports showed awareness of the need to allow for clustering in the analysis. In 1993 and before clustering was ignored in most such trials. Conclusion: Cluster trials are becoming more frequent and reporting is of higher quality. Perhaps statistician pressure works. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Providing evidence of impact highlights the benefits of medical research to society. Such evidence is increasingly requested by research funders and commonly relies on citation analysis. However, other indicators may be more informative. Although frameworks to demonstrate the impact of clinical research have been reported, no complementary framework exists for methodological research. Therefore, we assessed the impact of methodological research projects conducted or completed between 2009 and 2012 at the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit Hub for Trials Methodology ResearchHub, with a view to developing an appropriate framework. Methods Various approaches to the collection of data on research impact were employed. Citation rates were obtained using Web of Science (http://www.webofknowledge.com/) and analyzed descriptively. Semistructured interviews were conducted to obtain information on the rates of different types of research output that indicated impact for each project. Results were then pooled across all projects. Finally, email queries pertaining to methodology projects were collected retrospectively and their content analyzed. Results Simple citation analysis established the citation rates per year since publication for 74 methodological publications; however, further detailed analysis revealed more about the potential influence of these citations. Interviews that spanned 20 individual research projects demonstrated a variety of types of impact not otherwise collated, for example, applications and further developments of the research; release of software and provision of guidance materials to facilitate uptake; formation of new collaborations and broad dissemination. Finally, 194 email queries relating to 6 methodological projects were received from 170 individuals across 23 countries. They provided further evidence that the methodologies were impacting on research and research practice, both nationally and internationally. We have used the information gathered in this study to adapt an existing framework for impact of clinical research for use in methodological research. Conclusions Gathering evidence on research impact of methodological research from a variety of sources has enabled us to obtain multiple indicators and thus to demonstrate broad impacts of methodological research. The adapted framework developed can be applied to future methodological research and thus provides a tool for methodologists to better assess and report research impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Stop Cancer PAIN Trial was a phase III pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial which compared effectiveness of screening and guidelines with or without implementation strategies for improving pain in adults with cancer attending six Australian outpatient comprehensive cancer centres (n = 688). A system for pain screening was introduced before observation of a 'control' phase. Implementation strategies introduced in the 'intervention' phase included: (1) audit of adherence to guideline recommendations, with feedback to clinical teams; (2) health professional education via an email-administered 'spaced education' module; and (3) a patient education booklet and self-management resource. Selection of strategies was informed by the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) Model (Michie et al., 2011) and evidence for each strategy's stand-alone effectiveness. A consultant physician at each centre supported the intervention as a 'clinical champion'. However, fidelity to the intervention was limited, and the Trial did not demonstrate effectiveness. This paper reports a sub-study of the Trial which aimed to identify factors inhibiting or enabling fidelity to inform future guideline implementation initiatives. Methods: The qualitative sub-study enabled in-depth exploration of factors from the perspectives of personnel at each centre. Clinical champions, clinicians and clinic receptionists were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Analysis used a framework method and a largely deductive approach based on the COM-B Model. Results: Twenty-four people participated, including 15 physicians, 8 nurses and 1 clinic receptionist. Coding against the COM-B Model identified 'capability' to be the most influential component, with 'opportunity' and 'motivation' playing largely subsidiary roles. Findings suggest that fidelity could have been improved by: considering the readiness for change of each clinical setting; better articulating the intervention's value proposition; defining clinician roles and responsibilities, addressing perceptions that pain care falls beyond oncology clinicians' scopes of practice; integrating the intervention within existing systems and processes; promoting patient-clinician partnerships; investing in clinical champions among senior nursing and junior medical personnel, supported by medical leaders; and planning for slow incremental change rather than rapid uptake. Conclusions: Future guideline implementation interventions may require a 'meta-implementation' approach based on complex systems theory to successfully integrate multiple strategies. Trial registration: Registry: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; number: ACTRN 12615000064505; data: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspxid=367236&isReview=true. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Engagement and partnership with consumers and communities throughout research processes produces high quality research meeting community needs and promoting translation of research into improved policy and practice. Partnership is critical in research involving Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people (First Nations Peoples) to ensure cultural safety. We present lessons from the design, implementation and progress of the National Health and Medical Research Council funded INtravenous iron polymaltose for First Nations Australian patients with high FERRitin levels on hemodialysis (INFERR) clinical trial. Main body: The trial was designed to understand the benefits and harms of iron therapy in First Nations Australians on haemodialysis with anaemia and hyperferritinaemia. The lack of evidence for treatment was discussed with patients who were potential participants. A key element ensuring safe conduct of the INFERR trial was the establishment of the Indigenous Reference Groups (IRGs) comprising of dialysis patients based in the Top End of Australia and Central Australia. Two IRGs were needed based on advice from First Nations communities and researchers/academics on the project regarding local cultural differences and approaches to trial conduct. The IRGs underpin culturally safe trial conduct by providing input into study materials and translating study findings into effective messages and policies for First Nations dialysis patients. Throughout the trial conduct, the IRGs' role has developed to provide key mechanisms for advice and guidance regarding research conduct both in this study and more broadly. Support provided to the IRGs by trial First Nations Research Officers and independent First Nations researchers/academics who simplify research concepts is critical. The IRGs have developed feedback documents and processes to participants, stakeholders, and the renal units. They guarantee culturally safe advice for embedding findings from the trial into clinical practice guidelines ensuring evidence-based approaches in managing anaemia in haemodialysis patients with hyperferritinaemia. Conclusion: Active consumer and community partnership is critical in research conduct to ensure research impact. Strong partnership with consumers in the INFERR clinical trial has demonstrated that First Nations Consumers will engage in research they understand, that addresses health priorities for them and where they feel respected, listened to, and empowered to achieve change. Plain English summary: In this paper, we present the importance of actively involving consumers in the planning, implementation and conduct of research using the example of a clinical trial among Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Australians (First Nations Australians) who have kidney disease and are currently receiving haemodialysis. The study assesses how safe and effective it is for people on dialysis to receive iron given through the vein during dialysis when they have anaemia and high levels of a blood test called ferritin, a test used routinely to measure iron levels. Two consumer reference groups of First Nations patients on dialysis, one based in the Top End of Australia and the other based in Central Australia, are supported by First Nations Research Officers and Research Academics to make sure that the research is performed in a way that involves, respects and values First Nations participation, culture, and knowledge. Active consumer and community partnership in this study has supported robust research governance processes which we believe are crucial for knowledge translation to have a positive impact for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical trials that are patient-centered appear to be more successful (e.g., clinical outcomes, improved communication, mutual empowerment, changed attitudes), thus, action research may be a field of importance. The current study explores the Formation and Execution of Activities phases of a community-academic partnership (CAP). Methods: Members consisted of industry stakeholders, a healthcare/academic institution, and patients/families with lived experiences as cancer survivors and/or caregivers. Retrospectively, CAP members described the facilitating and/or hindering factors present in the partnership development. A document review process was used. Field notes from three CAP meetings, which focused on understanding clinical trial participation, were analyzed using a thematic approach. Results: Seven facilitating and three hindering factors were present. Interpersonal (vs. operational) processes were referenced as influential facilitating factors more often. Themes that emerged included 'trials as a treatment option', 'leaving a legacy', and 'timing is critical.' Conclusion: This study provides a patient-centered perspective on barriers/challenges of clinical trial participation and how to improve future perceptions. Plain English Summary: Clinical trials are more successful when patients are engaged, and their perspectives have been considered in the study design. Community-academic partnerships (CAPs) are one way to ensure patients are more engaged in the research process by creating a collaboration where all parties involved play an equitable role. We provide an example of a CAP with an industry stakeholder, a healthcare/academic institution, and patients as well as families with lived experiences as cancer survivors and/or caregivers. Described here two phases of the CAP: the Formation and the Execution of Activities phases. The Formation phase covers the collaboration process and development of the CAP. In our study, to better understand this phase, CAP members described what did and did not go well during the partnership development. We found more aspects went well than did not and that processes related to the quality of the relationship and communication among CAP members were important. The Execution of Activities phase focuses on how the CAP is working towards an agreed upon outcome. In our study, to better understand this phase, we reviewed notes taken at previous CAP meetings that focused on exploring participation in clinical trials as a treatment option. We found that when it comes to participation in clinical trials, patients and/or caregivers with lived experiences with cancer, felt that timing of this treatment option was important and that reasons for participation included wanting to leave a legacy. In this paper we describe some challenges of clinical trial participation, identified by patients and caregivers, and discuss how to improve views of clinical trial participation in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]