Search

Background The importance of patient-reported outcome measurement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) populations has been established. However, there remains a lack of research that has synthesised data around CKD-specific symptom and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) burden globally, to inform focused measurement of the most relevant patient-important information in a way that minimises patient burden. The aim of this review was to synthesise symptom prevalence/severity and HRQOL data across the following CKD clinical groups globally: (1) stage 1-5 and not on renal replacement therapy (RRT), (2) receiving dialysis, or (3) in receipt of a kidney transplant. Methods and findings MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for English-language cross-sectional/longitudinal studies reporting prevalence and/or severity of symptoms and/or HRQOL in CKD, published between January 2000 and September 2021, including adult patients with CKD, and measuring symptom prevalence/severity and/or HRQOL using a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Random effects meta-analyses were used to pool data, stratified by CKD group: not on RRT, receiving dialysis, or in receipt of a kidney transplant. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data, and an exploration of publication bias performed. The search identified 1,529 studies, of which 449, with 199,147 participants from 62 countries, were included in the analysis. Studies used 67 different symptom and HRQOL outcome measures, which provided data on 68 reported symptoms. Random effects meta-analyses highlighted the considerable symptom and HRQOL burden associated with CKD, with fatigue particularly prevalent, both in patients not on RRT (14 studies, 4,139 participants: 70%, 95% CI 60%-79%) and those receiving dialysis (21 studies, 2,943 participants: 70%, 95% CI 64%-76%). A number of symptoms were significantly (p < 0.05 after adjustment for multiple testing) less prevalent and/or less severe within the post-transplantation population, which may suggest attribution to CKD (fatigue, depression, itching, poor mobility, poor sleep, and dry mouth). Quality of life was commonly lower in patients on dialysis (36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36] Mental Component Summary [MCS] 45.7 [95% CI 45.5-45.8]; SF-36 Physical Component Summary [PCS] 35.5 [95% CI 35.3-35.6]; 91 studies, 32,105 participants for MCS and PCS) than in other CKD populations (patients not on RRT: SF-36 MCS 66.6 [95% CI 66.5-66.6], p = 0.002; PCS 66.3 [95% CI 66.2-66.4], p = 0.002; 39 studies, 24,600 participants; transplant: MCS 50.0 [95% CI 49.9-50.1], p = 0.002; PCS 48.0 [95% CI 47.9-48.1], p = 0.002; 39 studies, 9,664 participants). Limitations of the analysis are the relatively few studies contributing to symptom severity estimates and inconsistent use of PROMs (different measures and time points) across the included literature, which hindered interpretation. Conclusions The main findings highlight the considerable symptom and HRQOL burden associated with CKD. The synthesis provides a detailed overview of the symptom/HRQOL profile across clinical groups, which may support healthcare professionals when discussing, measuring, and managing the potential treatment burden associated with CKD. Protocol registration PROSPERO CRD42020164737., Author(s): Benjamin R. Fletcher 1, Sarah Damery 2, Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi 1,2,3, Nicola Anderson 1,4, Melanie Calvert 1,3,5, Paul Cockwell 1,4,6, James Ferguson 1,3, Mike Horton 7, Muirne C. S. [...]

Background: Uveitis comprises a range of conditions that result in intraocular inflammation. Most sight-threatening uveitis falls into the broad category known as Non-infectious Posterior Segment-Involving Uveitis (PSIU). To evaluate treatments, trialists and clinicians must select outcome measures. The aim of this study was to understand healthcare professionals' perspectives on what outcomes are important to adult patients with PSIU and their carers. Methods: Twelve semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken to understand the perspectives of healthcare professionals. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Findings were compared with the views of patients and carers and outcomes abstracted from a previously published systematic review. Results: Eleven core domains were identified as important to healthcare professionals: (1) visual function, (2) symptoms, (3) functional ability, (4) impact on relationships, (5) financial impact, (6) psychological morbidity and emotional well-being (7) psychosocial adjustment to uveitis, (8) doctor / patient / interprofessional relationships and access to health care, (9) treatment burden, (10) treatment side effects, (11) disease control. Healthcare professionals recognised a similar range of domains to patients and carers but placed more emphasis on certain outcomes, particularly in the disease control domain. In contrast the range of outcomes identified via the systematic review was limited. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals recognise all of the published outcome domains as patients/carers in the previous publication but with subtly differing emphasis within some domains and with a priority for certain types of measures. Healthcare professionals discussed the disease control and side effects/complications to a greater degree than patients and carers in the focus groups [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation significantly impacts on a recipient's symptoms and quality of life. Capturing their experiences and post implant journey is an important part of clinical practice, research and device design evolution. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a useful tool for capturing that experience. However, patient reported outcome measures need to reflect recipients' experiences. Discussions with a patient partner group found that none of the frequently used cardiology PROMs captured their unique experiences. Aims: To capture the experiences and important issues for LVAD recipients. Develop a conceptual map of domains and items that should be reflected in patient reported outcomes. Methods: Group concept mapping (GCM) web-based software was used to remotely capture and structure recipients' experiences across a wide geographical area. GCM is a semi-quantitative mixed method consisting of 3 stages: item generation, item sorting and rating (importance, relevance and frequency). Patient partners were involved in all aspects of the study design and development. Results: 18 LVAD recipients consented to take part. 101 statements were generated and multi-dimensional scaling, and hierarchical cluster analysis identified 9 clusters. Cluster themes included: Activities, Partner/family support, Travel, Mental wellbeing, Equipment and clothing, Physical and cognitive limitations, LVAD Restrictions, LVAD Challenges and positive impact of the LVAD (LVAD Positives). LVAD Positives were scored highest across all the rating variables, e.g., frequency (2.85), relevance (2.44) and importance (2.21). Other domains rated high for importance included physical and cognitive limitations (2.19), LVAD restrictions (2.11), Partner/family support (2.02), and Equipment and clothing (2.01). Conclusion: Online GCM software facilitated the inclusion of geographically dispersed recipients and provided useful insights into the experiences of LVAD recipients. The conceptual framework identifies important domains and items that should be prioritised and included in patient reported outcomes in future research, LVAD design evolution, and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Increasingly, researchers need to demonstrate the impact of their research to their sponsors, funders, and fellow academics. However, the most appropriate way of measuring the impact of healthcare research is subject to debate. We aimed to identify the existing methodological frameworks used to measure healthcare research impact and to summarise the common themes and metrics in an impact matrix. Methods and findings Two independent investigators systematically searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL+), the Health Management Information Consortium, and the Journal of Research Evaluation from inception until May 2017 for publications that presented a methodological framework for research impact. We then summarised the common concepts and themes across methodological frameworks and identified the metrics used to evaluate differing forms of impact. Twenty-four unique methodological frameworks were identified, addressing 5 broad categories of impact: (1) 'primary research-related impact', (2) 'influence on policy making', (3) 'health and health systems impact', (4) 'health-related and societal impact', and (5) 'broader economic impact'. These categories were subdivided into 16 common impact subgroups. Authors of the included publications proposed 80 different metrics aimed at measuring impact in these areas. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant articles, as a consequence of the poor indexing of the databases searched. Conclusions The measurement of research impact is an essential exercise to help direct the allocation of limited research resources, to maximise research benefit, and to help minimise research waste. This review provides a collective summary of existing methodological frameworks for research impact, which funders may use to inform the measurement of research impact and researchers may use to inform study design decisions aimed at maximising the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of their research., Author(s): Samantha Cruz Rivera, Derek G. Kyte *, Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Thomas J. Keeley, Melanie J. Calvert Introduction In 2010, approximately US$240 billion was invested in healthcare research worldwide [1]. [...]

Background Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability; worldwide it is estimated that 16.9 million people have a first stroke each year. Lipid-lowering, anticoagulant, and antihypertensive drugs can prevent strokes, but may be underused. Methods and Findings We analysed anonymised electronic primary care records from a United Kingdom (UK) primary care database that covers approximately 6% of the UK population. Patients with first-ever stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), [greater than or equal to]18 y, with diagnosis between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013, were included. Drugs were considered under-prescribed when lipid-lowering, anticoagulant, or antihypertensive drugs were clinically indicated but were not prescribed prior to the time of stroke or TIA. The proportions of strokes or TIAs with prevention drugs under-prescribed, when clinically indicated, were calculated. In all, 29,043 stroke/TIA patients met the inclusion criteria; 17,680 had [greater than or equal to]1 prevention drug clinically indicated: 16,028 had lipid-lowering drugs indicated, 3,194 anticoagulant drugs, and 7,008 antihypertensive drugs. At least one prevention drug was not prescribed when clinically indicated in 54% (9,579/17,680) of stroke/TIA patients: 49% (7,836/16,028) were not prescribed lipid-lowering drugs, 52% (1,647/3,194) were not prescribed anticoagulant drugs, and 25% (1,740/7,008) were not prescribed antihypertensive drugs. The limitations of our study are that our definition of under-prescribing of drugs for stroke/TIA prevention did not address patients' adherence to medication or medication targets, such as blood pressure levels. Conclusions In our study, over half of people eligible for lipid-lowering, anticoagulant, or antihypertensive drugs were not prescribed them prior to first stroke/TIA. We estimate that approximately 12,000 first strokes could potentially be prevented annually in the UK through optimal prescribing of these drugs. Improving prescription of lipid-lowering, anticoagulant, and antihypertensive drugs is important to reduce the incidence and burden of stroke and TIA., Author(s): Grace M. Turner *, Melanie Calvert, Max G. Feltham, Ronan Ryan, David Fitzmaurice, K. K. Cheng, Tom Marshall Introduction Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide, [...]

Background: A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised collection of outcomes to be collected and reported in all trials within a research area. A COS can reduce reporting bias and facilitate evidence synthesis. This is currently unavailable for use in community-based bipolar trials. This research aimed to develop such a COS, with input from a full range of stakeholders. Methods: A co-production approach was used throughout. A longlist of outcomes was derived from focus groups with people with a bipolar diagnosis and carers, interviews with healthcare professionals and a rapid review of outcomes listed in bipolar trials on the Cochrane database. An expert panel with personal and/or professional experience of bipolar participated in a modified Delphi process and the COS was finalised at a consensus meeting. Results: Fifty participants rated the importance of each outcome. Sixty-six outcomes were included in Round 1 of the questionnaire; 13 outcomes were added by Round 1 participants and were rated in Round 2. Seventy-six percent of participants (n = 38) returned to Round 2 and 60 outcomes, including 4 outcomes added by participants in Round 1, received a rating of 7–9 by >70% and 1–3 by <25% of the sample. Fourteen participants finalised a COS containing 11 outcomes at the consensus meeting: personal recovery; connectedness; clinical recovery of bipolar symptoms; mental health and wellbeing; physical health; self-monitoring and management; medication effects; quality of life; service outcomes; experience of care; and use of coercion. Conclusions: This COS is recommended for use in community-based bipolar trials to ensure stakeholder-relevant outcomes, facilitate data synthesis, and transparent reporting. The COS includes guidance notes for each outcome to allow the identification of suitable measurement instruments. Further validation is recommended for use with a wide range of communities and to achieve standardised measurement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is increasing evidence that clinical trial participants are uninformed about the trials in which they participate, raising ethical concerns regarding informed consent. The aim of this pilot study was to explore clinical trial participants' use of consent discussions and information sheets when considering participating in clinical trials research. A qualitative, interview-based pilot study was designed in order to elicit, through dialogue, details of the reasons for participants' use of, and preferences regarding, different modes of information provision. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with two different groups of patients who were participants in the Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site trial. The first group comprised newly-consented trial participants, who had been recruited up to 72 hours before our interview; the second group comprised patients attending a follow-up clinic 12 months after joining the trial. Thirteen participants were recruited in total: three newly-consented patients, and ten follow-up patients. The study found that participants' use of consent discussions to gain information about clinical trials was varied, and that they only minimally used information sheets after providing initial consent for the trial. Participants demonstrated varying degrees of knowledge about the trial, with some having forgotten that they were still involved in the trial. Participants reported a high level of trust in medical staff as a reason for not seeking more information about the trial. Some participants reported dissatisfaction with the timing of information provision. Some were amenable to novel ways of receiving trial information, such as web-based methods. The pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of a larger study into the provision of information to prospective clinical trial participants. The results suggest that considering alternative ways of providing information and the appropriateness of existing information provision may be acceptable to and useful for potential trial participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can provide valuable information which may assist with the care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, given the large number of measures available, it is unclear which PROMs are suitable for use in research or clinical practice. To address this we comprehensively evaluated studies that assessed the measurement properties of PROMs in adults with CKD. Methods: Four databases were searched; reference list and citation searching of included studies was also conducted. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to appraise the methodological quality of the included studies and to inform a best evidence synthesis for each PROM. Results: The search strategy retrieved 3,702 titles/abstracts. After 288 duplicates were removed, 3,414 abstracts were screened and 71 full-text articles were retrieved for further review. Of these, 24 full-text articles were excluded as they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Following reference list and citation searching, 19 articles were retrieved bringing the total number of papers included in the final analysis to 66. There was strong evidence supporting internal consistency and moderate evidence supporting construct validity for the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 (KDQOL-36) in pre-dialysis patients. In the dialysis population, the KDQOL-Short Form (KDQOL-SF) had strong evidence for internal consistency and structural validity and moderate evidence for test-retest reliability and construct validity while the KDQOL-36 had moderate evidence of internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity. The End Stage Renal Disease-Symptom Checklist Transplantation Module (ESRD-SCLTM) demonstrated strong evidence for internal consistency and moderate evidence for test-retest reliability, structural and construct validity in renal transplant recipients. Conclusions: We suggest considering the KDQOL-36 for use in pre-dialysis patients; the KDQOL-SF or KDQOL-36 for dialysis patients and the ESRD-SCLTM for use in transplant recipients. However, further research is required to evaluate the measurement error, structural validity, responsiveness and patient acceptability of PROMs used in CKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To be meaningful, a core outcome set (COS) should be relevant to all stakeholders including patients and carers. This review aimed to explore the methods by which patients and carers have been included as participants in COS development exercises and, in particular, the use and reporting of qualitative methods. Methods: In August 2015, a search of the Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database was undertaken to identify papers involving patients and carers in COS development. Data were extracted to identify the data collection methods used in COS development, the number of health professionals, patients and carers participating in these, and the reported details of qualitative research undertaken. Results: Fifty-nine papers reporting patient and carer participation were included in the review, ten of which reported using qualitative methods. Although patients and carers participated in outcome elicitation for inclusion in COS processes, health professionals tended to dominate the prioritisation exercises. Of the ten qualitative papers, only three were reported as a clear pre-designed part of a COS process. Qualitative data were collected using interviews, focus groups or a combination of these. None of the qualitative papers reported an underpinning methodological framework and details regarding data saturation, reflexivity and resource use associated with data collection were often poorly reported. Five papers reported difficulty in achieving a diverse sample of participants and two reported that a large and varied range of outcomes were often identified by participants making subsequent rating and ranking difficult. Conclusions: Consideration of the best way to include patients and carers throughout the COS development process is needed. Additionally, further work is required to assess the potential role of qualitative methods in COS, to explore the knowledge produced by different qualitative data collection methods, and to evaluate the time and resources required to incorporate qualitative methods into COS development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with reduced health-related quality of life (HRQL). However, the relationship between pre-dialysis CKD, HRQL and clinical outcomes, including mortality and progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is unclear. Methods: All 745 participants recruited into the Renal Impairment In Secondary Care study to end March 2014 were included. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data were collected at baseline including an assessment of HRQL using the Euroqol EQ-5D-3L. Health states were converted into an EQ-5Dindex score using a set of weighted preferences specific to the UK population. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and competing risk analyses were undertaken to evaluate the association of HRQL with progression to ESRD or all-cause mortality. Regression analyses were then performed to identify variables associated with the significant HRQL components. Results: Median eGFR was 25.8 ml/min/1.73 m2 (IQR 19.6–33.7ml/min) and median ACR was 33 mg/mmol (IQR 6.6–130.3 mg/mmol). Five hundred and fifty five participants (75.7%) reported problems with one or more EQ-5D domains. When adjusted for age, gender, comorbidity, eGFR and ACR, both reported problems with self-care [hazard ratio 2.542, 95% confidence interval 1.222–5.286, p = 0.013] and reduced EQ-5Dindex score [hazard ratio 0.283, 95% confidence interval 0.099–0.810, p = 0.019] were significantly associated with an increase in all-cause mortality. Similar findings were observed for competing risk analyses. Reduced HRQL was not a risk factor for progression to ESRD in multivariable analyses. Conclusions: Impaired HRQL is common in the pre-dialysis CKD population. Reduced HRQL, as demonstrated by problems with self-care or a lower EQ-5Dindex score, is associated with a higher risk for death but not ESRD. Multiple factors influence these aspects of HRQL but renal function, as measured by eGFR and ACR, are not among them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provides valuable information to inform patient-centered care, but may also reveal ‘PRO alerts’: psychological distress or physical symptoms that may require an immediate response. Ad-hoc management of PRO alerts in clinical trials may result in suboptimal patient care or potentially bias trial results. To gain greater understanding of current practice in PRO alert management we conducted a national survey of personnel involved in clinical trials with a PRO endpoint. Methods and Findings: We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 767 UK-based research nurses, data managers/coordinators, trial managers and chief/principal investigators involved in clinical trials using PROs. Respondents were self-selected volunteers from a non-randomised sample of eligible individuals recruited via 55 UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units and 19 Comprehensive Local Research Networks. Questions centred on the proportion of trial personnel encountering alerts, how staff responded to PRO alerts and whether current guidance was deemed sufficient to support research personnel. We undertook descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and directed thematic analysis of free-text comments. 20% of research nurses did not view completed PRO questionnaires and were not in a position to discover alerts, 39–50% of the remaining respondent group participants reported encountering PRO alerts. Of these, 83% of research nurses and 54% of data managers/trial coordinators reported taking action to assist the trial participant, but less than half were able to record the intervention in the trial documentation. Research personnel reported current PRO alert guidance/training was insufficient. Conclusions: Research personnel are intermittently exposed to PRO alerts. Some intervene to help trial participants, but are not able to record this intervention in the trial documentation, risking co-intervention bias. Other staff do not check PRO information during the trial, meaning alerts may remain undiscovered, or do not respond to alerts if they are inadvertently encountered; both of which may impact on patient safety. Guidance is needed to support PRO alert management that protects the interests of trial participants whilst avoiding potential bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate: acceptability and feasibility of trial procedures; distribution of scores on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, planned primary outcome); and efficient working of trial components. Design and Setting: A feasibility and external pilot randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN33808269, assigned 10/12/2012) was conducted across 2 UK secondary care outpatient physiotherapy departments associated with regional spinal surgery centres. Participants: Consecutive consenting patients aged >18 years; post primary, single level, lumbar discectomy. Interventions: Participants were randomised to either 1:1 physiotherapy outpatient management including patient leaflet, or patient leaflet alone. Main Outcome Measures: Blinded assessments were made at 4 weeks post surgery (baseline) and 12 weeks post baseline (proposed primary end point). Secondary outcomes included: Global Perceived Effect, back/leg pain, straight leg raise, return to work/function, quality of life, fear avoidance, range of movement, medication, re-operation. Results: At discharge, 110 (44%) eligible patients gave consent to be contacted. 59 (54%) patients were recruited. Loss to follow up was 39% at 12 weeks, with one site contributing 83% losses. Mean (SD) RMDQ was 10.07 (5.58) leaflet and 10.52 (5.94) physiotherapy/leaflet at baseline; and 5.37 (4.91) leaflet and 5.53 (4.49) physiotherapy/leaflet at 12 weeks. 5.1% zero scores at 12 weeks illustrated no floor effect. Sensitivity to change was assessed at 12 weeks with mean (SD) change -4.53 (6.41), 95%CI -7.61 to -1.44 for leaflet; and -6.18 (5.59), 95%CI -9.01 to -3.30 for physiotherapy/leaflet. RMDQ mean difference (95%CI) between change from baseline to twelve weeks was 1.65(-2.46 to 5.75). Mean difference (95%CI) between groups at 12 weeks was -0.16 (-3.36 to 3.04). Participant adherence with treatment was good. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Both interventions were acceptable, and it is promising that they both demonstrated a trend in reducing disability in this population. A randomised controlled trial, using a different trial design, is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of combining the interventions into a stepped care intervention and comparing to a no intervention arm. Findings will guide design changes for an adequately powered randomised controlled trial, using RMDQ as the primary outcome. Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence suggests there are inconsistencies in patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment and reporting in clinical trials, which may limit the use of these data to inform patient care. For trials with a PRO endpoint, routine inclusion of key PRO information in the protocol may help improve trial conduct and the reporting and appraisal of PRO results; however, it is currently unclear exactly what PRO-specific information should be included. The aim of this review was to summarize the current PRO-specific guidance for clinical trial protocol developers. Methods and Findings: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and Cochrane Library databases (inception to February 2013) for PRO-specific guidance regarding trial protocol development. Further guidance documents were identified via Google, Google scholar, requests to members of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered clinical trials units and international experts. Two independent investigators undertook title/abstract screening, full text review and data extraction, with a third involved in the event of disagreement. 21,175 citations were screened and 54 met the inclusion criteria. Guidance documents were difficult to access: electronic database searches identified just 8 documents, with the remaining 46 sourced elsewhere (5 from citation tracking, 27 from hand searching, 7 from the grey literature review and 7 from experts). 162 unique PRO-specific protocol recommendations were extracted from included documents. A further 10 PRO recommendations were identified relating to supporting trial documentation. Only 5/162 (3%) recommendations appeared in ≥50% of guidance documents reviewed, indicating a lack of consistency. Conclusions: PRO-specific protocol guidelines were difficult to access, lacked consistency and may be challenging to implement in practice. There is a need to develop easily accessible consensus-driven PRO protocol guidance. Guidance should be aimed at ensuring key PRO information is routinely included in appropriate trial protocols, in order to facilitate rigorous collection/reporting of PRO data, to effectively inform patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Qualitative evidence suggests patient-reported outcome (PRO) information is frequently absent from clinical trial protocols, potentially leading to inconsistent PRO data collection and risking bias. Direct evidence regarding PRO trial protocol content is lacking. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the PRO-specific content of UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme trial protocols. Methods and Findings: We conducted an electronic search of the NIHR HTA programme database (inception to August 2013) for protocols describing a randomised controlled trial including a primary/secondary PRO. Two investigators independently reviewed the content of each protocol, using a specially constructed PRO-specific protocol checklist, alongside the ‘Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials’ (SPIRIT) checklist. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third investigator. 75 trial protocols were included in the analysis. Protocols included a mean of 32/51 (63%) SPIRIT recommendations (range 16–41, SD 5.62) and 11/33 (33%) PRO-specific items (range 4–18, SD 3.56). Over half (61%) of the PRO items were incomplete. Protocols containing a primary PRO included slightly more PRO checklist items (mean 14/33 (43%)). PRO protocol content was not associated with general protocol completeness; thus, protocols judged as relatively ‘complete’ using SPIRIT were still likely to have omitted a large proportion of PRO checklist items. Conclusions: The PRO components of HTA clinical trial protocols require improvement. Information on the PRO rationale/hypothesis, data collection methods, training and management was often absent. This low compliance is unsurprising; evidence shows existing PRO guidance for protocol developers remains difficult to access and lacks consistency. Study findings suggest there are a number of PRO protocol checklist items that are not fully addressed by the current SPIRIT statement. We therefore advocate the development of consensus-based supplementary guidelines, aimed at improving the completeness and quality of PRO content in clinical trial protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Around ten percent of the population have been reported as having Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), which is associated with increased cardiovascular mortality. Few previous studies have ascertained the chronicity of CKD. In the UK, a payment for performance (P4P) initiative incentivizes CKD (stages 3–5) recognition and management in primary care, but the impact of this has not been assessed. Methods and Findings: Using data from 426 primary care practices (population 2,707,130), the age standardised prevalence of stages 3–5 CKD was identified using two consecutive estimated Glomerular Filtration Rates (eGFRs) seven days apart. Additionally the accuracy of practice CKD registers and the relationship between accurate identification of CKD and the achievement of P4P indicators was determined. Between 2005 and 2009, the prevalence of stages 3–5 CKD increased from 0.3% to 3.9%. In 2009, 30,440 patients (1.1% unadjusted) fulfilled biochemical criteria for CKD but were not on a practice CKD register (uncoded CKD) and 60,705 patients (2.2% unadjusted) were included on a practice CKD register but did not fulfil biochemical criteria (miscoded CKD). For patients with confirmed CKD, inclusion in a practice register was associated with increasing age, male sex, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and increasing CKD stage (p<0.0001). Uncoded CKD patients compared to miscoded patients were less likely to achieve performance indicators for blood pressure (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82–0.86 p<0.001) or recorded albumin-creatinine ratio (OR 0.73, 0.70–0.76, p<0.001). Conclusions: The prevalence of stages 3–5 CKD, using two laboratory reported eGFRs, was lower than estimates from previous studies. Clinically significant discrepancies were identified between biochemically defined CKD and appearance on practice registers, with misclassification associated with sub-optimal care for some people with CKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Wound-edge protection devices (WEPDs) have been used in surgery for more than 40 years to reduce surgical site infection (SSI). No economic evaluation of WEPDs against any comparator has ever been conducted. The aim of the paper was to assess whether WEPDs are cost-effective in reducing SSI compared to standard care alone in the United Kingdom. Methods and Findings: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside the ROSSINI trial. The study perspective was that of the UK National Health Service and the time horizon was 30 days post-operatively. The study was conducted in 21 UK hospitals. 760 patients undergoing laparotomy were randomised to either WEPD or standard care and 735 were included in the primary analysis. The main economic outcome was cost-effectiveness based on incremental cost (£) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Patients in the WEPD arm accessed health care worth £5,420 on average and gained 0.02131 QALYs, compared to £5,130 and 0.02133 QALYs gained in the standard care arm. The WEPD strategy was more costly and equally effective compared to standard care, but there was significant uncertainty around incremental costs and QALYs. The findings were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: There is no evidence to suggest that WEPDs can be considered a cost effective device to reduce SSI. Their continued use is a waste of limited health care resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly assessed in clinical trials, and guidelines are available to inform the design and reporting of such trials. However, researchers involved in PRO data collection report that specific guidance on ‘in-trial’ activity (recruitment, data collection and data inputting) and the management of ‘concerning’ PRO data (i.e., data which raises concern for the well-being of the trial participant) appears to be lacking. The purpose of this review was to determine the extent and nature of published guidelines addressing these areas. Methods and Findings: Systematic review of 1,362 articles identified 18 eligible papers containing ‘in-trial’ guidelines. Two independent authors undertook a qualitative content analysis of the selected papers. Guidelines presented in each of the articles were coded according to an a priori defined coding frame, which demonstrated reliability (pooled Kappa 0.86–0.97), and validity (<2% residual category coding). The majority of guidelines present were concerned with ‘pre-trial’ activities (72%), for example, outcome measure selection and study design issues, or ‘post-trial’ activities (16%) such as data analysis, reporting and interpretation. ‘In-trial’ guidelines represented 9.2% of all guidance across the papers reviewed, with content primarily focused on compliance, quality control, proxy assessment and reporting of data collection. There were no guidelines surrounding the management of concerning PRO data. Conclusions: The findings highlight there are minimal in-trial guidelines in publication regarding PRO data collection and management in clinical trials. No guidance appears to exist for researchers involved with the handling of concerning PRO data. Guidelines are needed, which support researchers to manage all PRO data appropriately and which facilitate unbiased data collection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The rationale for centre selection in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often unclear but may have important implications for the generalisability of trial results. The aims of this study were to evaluate the factors which currently influence centre selection in RCTs and consider how generalisability considerations inform current and optimal practice. Methods and Findings: Mixed methods approach consisting of a systematic review and meta-summary of centre selection criteria reported in RCT protocols funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) initiated between January 2005-January 2012; and an online survey on the topic of current and optimal centre selection, distributed to professionals in the 48 UK Clinical Trials Units and 10 NIHR Research Design Services. The survey design was informed by the systematic review and by two focus groups conducted with trialists at the Birmingham Centre for Clinical Trials. 129 trial protocols were included in the systematic review, with a total target sample size in excess of 317,000 participants. The meta-summary identified 53 unique centre selection criteria. 78 protocols (60%) provided at least one criterion for centre selection, but only 31 (24%) protocols explicitly acknowledged generalisability. This is consistent with the survey findings (n = 70), where less than a third of participants reported generalisability as a key driver of centre selection in current practice. This contrasts with trialists’ views on optimal practice, where generalisability in terms of clinical practice, population characteristics and economic results were prime considerations for 60% (n = 42), 57% (n = 40) and 46% (n = 32) of respondents, respectively. Conclusions: Centres are rarely enrolled in RCTs with an explicit view to external validity, although trialists acknowledge that incorporating generalisability in centre selection should ideally be more prominent. There is a need to operationalize ‘generalisability’ and incorporate it at the design stage of RCTs so that results are readily transferable to ‘real world’ practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Limited data exists on the prevalence of heart failure amongst minority groups in the UK. To document the community prevalence and severity of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation, amongst the South Asian and Black African -Caribbean groups in the UK. Methods s and Results: We conducted a cross-sectional study recruiting from September 2006 to July 2009 from 20 primary care centres in Birmingham, UK. 10,902 eligible subjects invited, 5,408 participated (49.6%) and 5,354 had complete data (49.1%). Subjects had median age 58.2 years (interquartile range 51.0 to 70.0), and 2544 (47.5%) were male. Of these, 1933 (36.3%) had BMI>30 kg/m², 1,563 (29.2%) had diabetes, 2676 (50.0%) had hypertension, 307 (5.7%) had a history of myocardial infarction, and 104 (1.9%) had history of arrhythmia. Overall, 59 (1.1%) had an Ejection Fraction<40%, and of these 40 (0.75%) were NYHA class ≥2; 51 subjects (0.95%) had atrial fibrillation. Of the remaining 19 patients with an EF<40%, only 4 patients were treated with furosemide. A further 54 subjects had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Conclusions: This is the largest study of the prevalence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure and atrial fibrillation in under-researched minority communities in the UK. The prevalence of heart failure in these minority communities appears comparable to that of the general population but less than anticipated given the high rates of cardiovascular disease in these groups. Heart failure continues to be a major cause of morbidity in all ethnic groups and preventive strategies need to be identified and implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With increasing globalisation, the challenges of providing accessible and safe healthcare to all are great. Studies show that there are substantial numbers of people who are not fluent in English to a level where they can make best use of health services. We examined how health professionals manage language barriers in a consultation. Methods and Findings: This was a cross-sectional study in 41 UK general practices . Health professionals completed a proforma for a randomly allocated consultation session. Seventy-seven (63%) practitioners responded, from 41(59%) practices. From 1008 consultations, 555 involved patients who did not have English as a first language; 710 took place in English; 222 were in other languages, the practitioner either communicating with the patient in their own language/using an alternative language. Seven consultations were in a mixture of English/patient's own language. Patients' first languages numbered 37 (apart from English), in contrast to health practitioners, who declared at least a basic level of proficiency in 22 languages other than English. The practitioner's reported proficiency in the language used was at a basic level in 24 consultations, whereas in 21, they reported having no proficiency at all. In 57 consultations, a relative/friend interpreted and in 6, a bilingual member of staff/community worker was used. Only in 6 cases was a professional interpreter booked. The main limitation was that only one random session was selected and assessment of patient/professional fluency in English was subjective. Conclusions: It would appear that professional interpreters are under-used in relation to the need for them, with bilingual staff/family and friends being used commonly. In many cases where the patient spoke little/no English, the practitioner consulted in the patient's language but this approach was also used where reported practitioner proficiency was low. Further research in different setting is needed to substantiate these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives:To assess: 1) the feasibility of electronic information provision; 2) gather evidence on the topics and level of detail of information potential research participant’s accessed; 3) to assess satisfaction and understanding. Design:Observational study with an embedded randomised controlled trial. Setting:Low risk intervention study based in primary care. Participants:White British & Irish, South Asian and African-Caribbean subjects aged between 40-74 years eligible for a blood pressure monitoring study. Interventions:PDF copy of the standard paper participant information sheet (PDF-PIS) and an electronic Interactive Information Sheet (IIS) where participants could choose both the type and level of detail accessed. Main Outcome Measures:1) Proportion of participants providing an email address and accessing electronic information 2) Willingness to participate in a recruitment clinic. 3) Type and depth of information accessed on the IIS. 4) Participant satisfaction and understanding. Results:1160 participants were eligible for the study. Of these, 276 (24%) provided an active email address, of whom 84 did not respond to the email. 106 responded to the email but chose not to access any electronic information and were therefore ineligible for randomisation. 42 were randomised to receive the PDF-PIS and 44 to receive the IIS (with consent rates of 48% and 36%, respectively; odds ratio 0.6, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 1.4). Electronic observation of information accessed by potential participants showed 41% chose to access no information and only 9% accessed the detail presented on the Research Ethics Committee approved participant information sheet before booking to attend a recruitment clinic for the intervention study. 63 of the 106 participants (59%) who chose not to access any electronic information also booked an appointment. Conclusions:Current written information about research may not be read, emphasising the importance of the consent interview and consideration of new ways of presenting complex information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life (HRQL) are increasingly used to evaluate treatment effectiveness in clinical trials, are valued by patients, and may inform important decisions in the clinical setting. It is of concern, therefore, that preliminary evidence, gained from group discussions at UK-wide Medical Research Council (MRC) quality of life training days, suggests there are inconsistent standards of HRQL data collection in trials and appropriate training and education is often lacking. Our objective was to investigate these reports, to determine if they represented isolated experiences, or were indicative of a potentially wider problem. Methods And Findings:We undertook a qualitative study, conducting 26 semi-structured interviews with research nurses, data managers, trial coordinators and research facilitators involved in the collection and entry of HRQL data in clinical trials, across one primary care NHS trust, two secondary care NHS trusts and two clinical trials units in the UK. We used conventional content analysis to analyze and interpret our data. Our study participants reported (1) inconsistent standards in HRQL measurement, both between, and within, trials, which appeared to risk the introduction of bias; (2), difficulties in dealing with HRQL data that raised concern for the well-being of the trial participant, which in some instances led to the delivery of non-protocol driven co-interventions, (3), a frequent lack of HRQL protocol content and appropriate training and education of trial staff, and (4) that HRQL data collection could be associated with emotional and/or ethical burden. Conclusions:Our findings suggest there are inconsistencies in the standards of HRQL data collection in some trials resulting from a general lack of HRQL-specific protocol content, training and education. These inconsistencies could lead to biased HRQL trial results. Future research should aim to develop HRQL guidelines and training programmes aimed at supporting researchers to carry out high quality data collection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]