Search

Introduction: The pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) tool, initially published in 2009 and revised in 2015, was created to assist trialists to align their design choices with the intended purpose of their randomised controlled trial (RCT): either to guide real-world decisions between alternative interventions (pragmatic) or to test hypotheses about intervention mechanisms by minimising sources of variation (explanatory). There have been many comments, suggestions, and criticisms of PRECIS-2. This summary will be used to facilitate the development of to the next revision, which is PRECIS-3., Methods: We used Web of Science to identify all publication types citing PRECIS-2, published between May 2015 and July 2023. Citations were eligible if they contained 'substantive' suggestions, comments, or criticism of the PRECIS-2 tool. We defined 'substantive' as comments explicitly referencing at least one PRECIS-2 domain or a concept directly linked to an existing or newly proposed domain. Two reviewers independently extracted comments, suggestions, and criticisms, noting their implications for the update. These were discussed among authors to achieve consensus on the interpretation of each comment and its implications for PRECIS-3., Results: The search yielded 885 publications, and after full-text review, 89 articles met the inclusion criteria. Comments pertained to new domains, changes in existing domains, or were relevant across several or all domains. Proposed new domains included assessment of the comparator arm and a domain to describe blinding. There were concerns about scoring eligibility and recruitment domains for cluster trials. Suggested areas for improvement across domains included the need for more scoring guidance for explanatory design choices., Discussion: Published comments recognise PRECIS-2's success in aiding trialists with pragmatic or explanatory design choices. Enhancing its implementation and widespread use will involve adding new domains, refining domain definitions, and addressing overall tool issues. This citation review offers valuable user feedback, pivotal for shaping the upcoming version of the PRECIS tool, PRECIS-3., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declare no conflict of interest. Dr Kirsty Loudon developed the PRECIS-2 tool as part of a DPhil., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Conducting high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is challenging, time consuming, and resource intense. Academic investigators usually depend on scarce financial resources; however, current literature lacks systematically collected empirical data on the detailed resource use and costs of investigator-initiated RCTs., Methods: The aim of this study is to generate a database of detailed empirical resource use and cost data from 100 investigator-initiated RCTs in Switzerland, Germany, and the UK. Investigators enter their empirical costs data into an online data collection form, which is followed by a short interview and a detailed cost report. We plan to investigate cost patterns and cost drivers and examine planned versus actual RCT costs as well as explore different strata of costs across the planning, conduct, and finalization phases, in drug and non-drug trials, and across medical fields and countries., Discussion: This study will add detailed empirical data to the limited research on investigator-initiated RCT costs currently available. A study limitation will be that cost data will be retrospective and self-reported, which might be inaccurate depending on how costs were recorded., Trial Registration: Open Science Framework (OSF) https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QY2GU . Registered on June 4, 2021., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: It is important to design clinical trials to include all those who may benefit from the intervention being tested. Several frameworks have been developed to help researchers think about the barriers to inclusion of particular under-served groups when designing a trial, but there is a lack of practical guidance on how to implement these frameworks. This paper describes the ACCESS project, the findings from each phase of the project and the guidance we developed (STEP UP) on how to design more inclusive trials., Methods: Development of the STEP UP guidance had five phases: (1) Scoping literature review, (2) 'roundtable' discussion meetings, (3) redesign of trials, (4) interviews and (5) guidance document development, with input from public contributors and the ACCESS team., Results: Over 40 experts contributed to the ACCESS project-patients and the public, clinicians, NHS research staff, trialists and other academics. The scoping review identified several strategies being used to improve inclusion, mostly around recruitment settings, but there was little evaluation of these strategies. The 'roundtable' discussions identified additional strategies being used across the UK and Ireland to improve inclusion, which were grouped into: Communication, Community engagement, Recruitment sites, Patient information, Flexibility, Recruitment settings, Consent process, Monitoring, Training for researchers and Incentives. These strategies were used to redesign three existing trials by applying one of the three INCLUDE frameworks (ethnicity, socioeconomic disadvantage, impaired capacity to consent) to one trial each, to produce the key recommendations for the guidance. Issues around implementation were explored in stakeholder interviews and key facilitators were identified: funders requesting information on inclusion, having the time and funding to implement strategies, dedicated staff, flexibility in trial protocols, and considering inclusion of under-served groups at the design stages. The STEP UP guidance is freely available at http://step-up-clinical-trials.co.uk ., Conclusion: Researchers should consider inclusivity to shape initial trial design decisions. Trial teams and funders need to ensure that trials are given both the resources and time needed to implement the STEP UP guidance and increase the opportunities to recruit a diverse population., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) is a pragmatic design approach that may overcome frequent challenges of traditional randomized trials such as slow recruitment, burdensome consent procedures, or limited external validity. This scoping review aims to identify all randomized controlled trials using the TwiCs design and to summarize their design characteristics, ways to obtain informed consent, output, reported challenges and mitigation strategies., Study Design and Setting: Systematic search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane, trial registries and citation tracking up to December 2022. TwiCs were defined as randomized trials embedded in a cohort with postrandomization consent for the intervention group and no specific postrandomization consent for the usual care control group. Information from identified TwiCs was extracted in duplicate from protocols, publications, and registry entries. We analyzed the information descriptively and qualitatively to highlight methodological challenges and solutions related to nonuptake of interventions and informed consent procedure., Results: We identified a total of 46 TwiCs conducted between 2005 and 2022 in 14 different countries by a handful of research groups. The most common medical fields were oncology (11/46; 24%), infectious diseases (8/46; 17%), and mental health (7/46; 15%). A typical TwiCs was investigator-initiated (46/46; 100%), publicly funded (36/46; 78%), and recruited outpatients (27/46; 59%). Excluding eight pilot trials, only 16/38 (42%) TwiCs adjusted their calculated sample size for nonuptake of the intervention, anticipating a median nonuptake of 25% (interquartile range 10%-32%) in the experimental arm. Seventeen TwiCs (45%) planned analyses to adjust effect estimates for nonuptake. Regarding informed consent, we observed three patterns: 1) three separate consents for cohort participation, randomization, and intervention (17/46; 37%); 2) combined consent for cohort participation and randomization and a separate intervention consent (10/46; 22%); and 3) consent only for cohort participation and intervention (randomization consent not mentioned; 19/46; 41%)., Conclusion: Existing TwiCs are globally scattered across a few research groups covering a wide range of medical fields and interventions. Despite the potential advantages, the number of TwiCs remains small. The variability in consent procedures and the possibility of substantial nonuptake of the intervention warrants further research to guide the planning, implementation, and analysis of TwiCs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Several coauthors (AA, CMS, HMV, CR, FC, FG, NDL, MB) are using the TwiCs design or are part of the academic TwiCs global network (https://www.twics.global). We declare no financial conflict of interest. There are no competing interests for any other author., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recruiting participants to clinical trials is an ongoing challenge, and relatively little is known about what recruitment strategies lead to better recruitment. Recruitment interventions can be considered complex interventions, often involving multiple components, targeting a variety of groups, and tailoring to different groups. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting checklist (which comprises 12 items recommended for reporting complex interventions) to guide the assessment of how recruitment interventions are described. We aimed to (1) examine to what extent we could identify information about each TIDieR item within recruitment intervention studies, and (2) observe additional detail for each item to describe useful variation among these studies., Methods: We identified randomized, nested recruitment intervention studies providing recruitment or willingness to participate rates from two sources: a Cochrane review of trials evaluating strategies to improve recruitment to randomized trials, and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls database. First, we assessed to what extent authors reported information about each TIDieR item. Second, we developed descriptive categorical variables for 7 TIDieR items and extracting relevant quotes for the other 5 items., Results: We assessed 122 recruitment intervention studies. We were able to extract information relevant to most TIDieR items (e.g., brief rationale, materials, procedure) with the exception of a few items that were only rarely reported (e.g., tailoring, modifications, planned/actual fidelity). The descriptive variables provided a useful overview of study characteristics, with most studies using various forms of informational interventions (55%) delivered at a single time point (90%), often by a member of the research team (59%) in a clinical care setting (41%)., Conclusions: Our TIDieR-based variables provide a useful description of the core elements of complex trial recruitment interventions. Recruitment intervention studies report core elements of complex interventions variably; some process elements (e.g., mode of delivery, location) are almost always described, while others (e.g., duration, fidelity) are reported infrequently, with little indication of a reason for their absence. Future research should explore whether these TIDieR-based variables can form the basis of an approach to better reporting of elements of successful recruitment interventions., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions., Methods and Analysis: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare., Ethics and Dissemination: The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JW, CH, GAA, LB and JJK declare funding from NIHR (NIHR203568) in relation to this work. JW additionally declares stats or methodological editor roles for BJOG, Fertility and Sterility, Reproduction and Fertility, Journal of Hypertension and for Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility. CH declares a statistical editor role for Cochrane Colorectal. LB additionally declares a role as academic meta-research editor for PLoS Biology, and that The University of Colorado receives remuneration for service as senior research integrity editor, Cochrane. JJK additionally declares a statistical editor role for The BMJ. WL, LS and RW declare funding from Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grants (GNT2016729, GNT2009432, GNT2009767). LS additionally declares roles as editorial board member for Cochrane Evidence Synthesis Methods and statistical editor for Cochrane Neonatal Group. RW additionally declares roles as deputy editor for Human Reproduction and editorial board member for BJOG and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility. WL additionally declares roles of associate editor for Human Reproduction Open and methodological editor for Fertility and Sterility and Fertility and Sterility Reviews. EF, SG and TLasserson declare employment by Cochrane. EF additionally declares a role as editorial board member for Cochrane Synthesis and Methods. TLasserson additionally declares authorship of a chapter in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and that he is a developer of standards for Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). SG additionally declares an academic editor role for PLOS Global Public Health. ES declares that she was a member of the Cochrane scientific misconduct policy advisory group, and roles as sign-off editor and proposal editor of The Cochrane Library. ZA declares he is a member of the Cochrane Library Editorial Board, was co-ordinating editor for Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group 2002–2023 and is PI on a grant from Children Investment Foundation Fund to University of Liverpool to investigate research integrity of clinical trials related to nutritional supplements in pregnancy. TLi is supported by grant UG1 EY020522 from the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health. TLi also declares roles as editor-in-chief for Trials, statistical editor for Annals of Internal Medicine, review editor for JAMA Ophthalmology and editorial board member for Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. MC declares that he is Co-ordinating editor for the Cochrane Methodology Review Group, Editor in Chief of Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, and Co-ordinating Editor of the James Lind Library. AA declares that The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, is funded by the Health and Social Care Directorates of the Scottish Government. All other authors declare no competing interests. DT declares an RCT topic editor role for Research Methods in Medicine and Health Sciences. MvW declares roles as co-ordinating editor for Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility and Sexually Transmitted Infections, methodology editor for Human Reproduction Update and editorial editor for Fertility and Sterility. NEO declares roles as co-ordinating editor for Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care (PaPaS) Group, 2020–2023, as member of Cochrane Central Editorial Board and as editorial board member for Journal of Pain. JC declares an editor role for Anaesthesia. AL declares a role as editorial board member for BMC Medical Ethics. GAA declares a role as statistical editor for the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. NJLB declares roles as editorial board member for International Review of Social Psychology/Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, statistical advisory board member for Mental Health Science and advisory board member for Meta-Psychology. BWM declares roles as editor for Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility and Sexually Transmitted Infections and for Fertility and Sterility. SL declares roles as associate editor for Human Reproduction, methodological editor for Fertility and Sterility and editor for Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility. EL is head of research and clinical editor for The BMJ., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Trial method research produces recommendations on how to best conduct trials. However, findings are not routinely implemented into practice. To better understand why, we conducted a mixed method study on the challenges of implementing trial method research findings into UK-based clinical trial units., Methods: Three stages of research were conducted. Firstly, case studies of completed projects that provided methodological recommendations were identified within trial design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. These case studies were used as survey examples to query obstacles and facilitators to implementing method research. Survey participants were experienced trial staff, identified via email invitations to UK clinical trial units. This survey assessed the case studies' rates of implementation, and demographic characteristics of trial units through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Further, interviews were conducted with senior members of trial units to explore obstacles and facilitators in more detail. Participants were sampled from trial units that indicated their willingness to participate in interviews following the survey. Interviews, and analysis, were structured via the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model of Behaviour. Finally, potential strategies to leverage lessons learned were generated via the Behaviour Change Wheel., Results: A total of 27 UK trial units responded to the survey. The rates of implementation across the case studies varied, with most trial units implementing recommendations in trial conduct and only few implementing recommendations in reporting. However, most reported implementing recommendations was important but that they lacked the resources to do so. A total of 16 senior members of trial units were interviewed. Several themes were generated from interviews and fell broadly into categories related to the methods recommendations themselves, the trial units, or external factors affecting implementation. Belief statements within themes indicated resources issues and awareness of recommendations as frequent implementation obstacles. Participation in trial networks and recommendations packaged with relevant resources were cited frequently as implementation facilitators. These obstacles and facilitators mirrored results from the survey. Results were mapped, via the Behaviour Change Wheel, to intervention functions likely to change behaviours of obstacles and facilitators identified. These intervention functions were developed into potential solutions to reduce obstacles and enhance facilitators to implementation., Conclusions: Several key areas affecting implementation of trial method recommendations were identified. Potential methods to enhance facilitators and reduce obstacles are suggested. Future research is needed to refine these methods and assess their feasibility and acceptability., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in trials aims to enhance research by improving its relevance and transparency. Planning for statistical analysis begins at the design stage of a trial within the protocol and is refined and detailed in a Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP). While PPI is common in design and protocol development it is less common within SAPs. This study aimed to reach consensus on the most important and relevant statistical analysis items within an SAP to involve patients and the public., Methods: We developed a UK-based, two-round Delphi survey through an iterative consultation with public partners, statisticians, and trialists. The consultation process started with 55 items from international guidance for statistical analysis plans. We aimed to recruit at least 20 participants per key stakeholder group for inclusion in the final analysis of the Delphi survey. Participants were asked to vote on each item using a Likert scale from 1 to 9, where a rating of 1 to 3 was labelled as having 'limited importance'; 4 to 6 as 'important but not critical' and 7 to 9 as 'critical' to involve patients and the public. Results from the second round determined consensus on critical items for PPI., Results: The consultation exercise led to the inclusion of 15 statistical items in the Delphi survey. We recruited 179 participants, of whom 72% (129: 36 statisticians, 29 patients or public partners, 25 clinical researchers or methodologists, 27 trial managers, and 12 PPI coordinators) completed both rounds. Participants were on average 48 years old, 60% were female, 84% were White, 64% were based in England and 84% had at least five years' experience in trials. Four items reached consensus regarding critical importance for patient and public involvement: presentation of results to trial participants; summary and presentation of harms; interpretation and presentation of findings in an academic setting; factors impacting how well a treatment works. No consensus was reached for the remaining 11 items. In general, the results were consistent across stakeholder groups., Discussion: We identified four critical items to involve patients and the public in statistical analysis plans. The remaining 11 items did not reach consensus and need to be considered in a case-by-case basis with most responders considering patient and public involvement important (but not critical). Our research provides a platform to enable focused future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and enhance the relevance of statistical analyses to patients and the public., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Goulão et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Importance: Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal., Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials., Design: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist., Findings: This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported., Conclusions and Relevance: This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.

Importance: Trial protocols outline a trial's objectives as well as the methods (design, conduct, and analysis) that will be used to meet those objectives, and transparent reporting of trial protocols ensures objectives are clear and facilitates appraisal regarding the suitability of study methods. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, no extension of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement, which provides guidance on reporting of trial protocols, for factorial trials is available., Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the SPIRIT 2013 Statement for factorial trials., Evidence Review: The SPIRIT extension for factorial trials was developed using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework. First, a list of reporting recommendations was generated using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (inception to May 2019), which was supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors. Second, a 3-round Delphi survey (January to June 2022, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries) was conducted to assess the importance of items and identify additional recommendations. Third, a hybrid consensus meeting was held, attended by 15 panelists to finalize selection and wording of the checklist., Findings: This SPIRIT extension for factorial trials modified 9 of the 33 items in the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Key reporting recommendations were that the rationale for using a factorial design should be provided, including whether an interaction is hypothesized; the treatment groups that will form the main comparisons should be identified; and statistical methods for each main comparison should be provided, including how interactions will be assessed., Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus statement, 9 factorial-specific items were provided that should be addressed in all protocols of factorial trials to increase the trial's utility and transparency.

Background: Suboptimal or slow recruitment affects 30-50% of trials. Education and training of trial recruiters has been identified as one strategy for potentially boosting recruitment to randomised controlled trials (hereafter referred to as trials). The Training tRial recruiters, An educational INtervention (TRAIN) project was established to develop and assess the acceptability of an education and training intervention for recruiters to neonatal trials. In this paper, we report the development and acceptability of TRAIN., Methods: TRAIN involved three sequential phases, with each phase contributing information to the subsequent phase(s). These phases were 1) evidence synthesis (systematic review of the effectiveness of training interventions and a content analysis of the format, content, and delivery of identified interventions), 2) intervention development using a Partnership (co-design/co-creation) approach, and 3) intervention acceptability assessments with recruiters to neonatal trials., Results: TRAIN, accompanied by a comprehensive intervention manual, has been designed for online or in-person delivery. TRAIN can be offered to recruiters before trial recruitment begins or as refresher sessions during a trial. The intervention consists of five core learning outcomes which are addressed across three core training units. These units are the trial protocol (Unit 1, 50 min, trial-specific), understanding randomisation (Unit 2, 5 min, trial-generic) and approaching and engaging with parents (Unit 3, 70 min, trial-generic). Eleven recruiters to neonatal trials registered to attend the acceptability assessment training workshops, although only four took part. All four positively valued the training Units and resources for increasing recruiter preparedness, knowledge, and confidence. More flexibility in how the training is facilitated, however, was noted (e.g., training divided across two workshops of shorter duration). Units 2 and 3 were considered beneficial to incorporate into Good Clinical Practice Training or as part of induction training for new staff joining neonatal units., Conclusion: TRAIN offers a comprehensive co-produced training and education intervention for recruiters to neonatal trials. TRAIN was deemed acceptable, with minor modification, to neonatal trial recruiters. The small number of recruiters taking part in the acceptability assessment is a limitation. Scale-up of TRAIN with formal piloting and testing for effectiveness in a large cluster randomised trial is required., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: People need high-quality information to make decisions about research participation. Providing information in written format alone is conventional but may not be the most effective and acceptable approach. We developed a structure for the presentation of information using multimedia which included generic and trial-specific content. Our aim was to embed 'Studies Within A Trial' (SWATs) across multiple ongoing trials to test whether multimedia presentation of patient information led to better rates of recruitment., Methods: Five trials included a SWAT and randomised their participants to receive a multimedia presentation alongside standard information, or standard written information alone. We collected data on trial recruitment, acceptance and retention and analysed the pooled results using random effects meta-analysis, with the primary outcome defined as the proportion of participants randomised following an invitation to take part., Results: Five SWATs provided data on the primary outcome of proportion of participants randomised. Multimedia alongside written information results in little or no difference in recruitment rates (pooled odds ratio = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.17, p-value = 0.671, I 2  = 0%). There was no effect on any other outcomes., Conclusions: Multimedia alongside written information did not improve trial recruitment rates., Trial Registration: ISRCTN71952900, ISRCTN 06710391, ISRCTN 17160087, ISRCTN05926847, ISRCTN62869767., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person healthcare visits were reduced. Consequently, trial teams needed to consider implementing remote methods for conducting clinical trials, including e-Consent. Although some clinical trials may have implemented e-Consent prior to the pandemic, anecdotes of uptake for this method increased within academic-led trials. When the increased use of this process emerged, representatives from several large academic clinical trial groups within the UK collaborated to discuss ways in which trialists can learn from one another when implementing e-Consent., Methods: A survey of UKCRC-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken in April-June 2021 to understand the implementation of and their views on the use of e-Consent and experiences from the perspectives of systems programmers and quality assurance staff on the use of e-Consent. CTUs not using e-Consent were asked to provide any reasons/barriers (including no suitable trials) and any plans for implementing it in the future. Two events for trialists and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives were then held to disseminate findings, foster discussion, share experiences and aid in the identification of areas that the academic CTU community felt required more research., Results: Thirty-four (64%) of 53 CTUs responded to the survey, with good geographical representation across the UK. Twenty-one (62%) of the responding CTUs had implemented e-Consent in at least one of their trials, across different types of trials, including CTIMPs (Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Product), ATIMPs (Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products) and non-CTIMPs. One hundred ninety-seven participants attended the two workshops for wide-ranging discussions., Conclusion: e-Consent is increasingly used in academic-led trials, yet uncertainties remain amongst trialists, patients and members of the public. Uncertainties include a lack of formal, practical guidance and a lack of evidence to demonstrate optimal or appropriate methods to use. We strongly encourage trialists to continue to share their own experiences of the implementation of e-Consent., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Clinical trials aim to draw conclusions about the effects of treatments, but a trial can address many different potential questions. For example, does the treatment work well for patients who take it as prescribed? Or does it work regardless of whether patients take it exactly as prescribed? Since different questions can lead to different conclusions on treatment benefit, it is important to clearly understand what treatment effect a trial aims to investigate-this is called the 'estimand'. Using estimands helps to ensure trials are designed and analysed to answer the questions of interest to different stakeholders, including patients and public. However, there is uncertainty about whether patients and public would like to be involved in defining estimands and how to do so. Public partners are patients and/or members of the public who are part of, or advise, the research team. We aimed to (i) co-develop a tool with public partners that helps explain what an estimand is and (ii) explore public partner's perspectives on the importance of discussing estimands during trial design., Methods: An online consultation meeting was held with 5 public partners of mixed age, gender and ethnicities, from various regions of the UK. Public partner opinions were collected and a practical tool describing estimands, drafted before the meeting by the research team, was developed. Afterwards, the tool was refined, and additional feedback sought via email., Results: Public partners want to be involved in estimand discussions. They found an introductory tool, to be presented and described to them by a researcher, helpful for starting a discussion about estimands in a trial design context. They recommended storytelling, analogies and visual aids within the tool. Four topics related to public partners' involvement in defining estimands were identified: (i) the importance of addressing questions that are relevant to patients and public in trials, (ii) involving public partners early on, (iii) a need for education and communication for all stakeholders and (iv) public partners and researchers working together., Conclusions: We co-developed a tool for researchers and public partners to use to facilitate the involvement of public partners in estimand discussions., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Poor retention in randomised trials can lead to serious consequences to their validity. Studies within trials (SWATs) are used to identify the most effective interventions to increase retention. Many interventions could be applied at any follow-up time point, but SWATs commonly assess interventions at a single time point, which can reduce efficiency., Methods: The re-randomisation design allows participants to be re-enrolled and re-randomised whenever a new retention opportunity occurs (i.e. a new follow-up time point where the intervention could be applied). The main advantages are as follows: (a) it allows the estimation of an average effect across time points, thus increasing generalisability; (b) it can be more efficient than a parallel arm trial due to increased sample size; and (c) it allows subgroup analyses to estimate effectiveness at different time points. We present a case study where the re-randomisation design is used in a SWAT., Results: In our case study, the host trial is a dental trial with two available follow-up points. The Sticker SWAT tests whether adding the trial logo's sticker to the questionnaire's envelope will result in a higher response rate compared with not adding the sticker. The primary outcome is the response rate to postal questionnaires. The re-randomisation design could double the available sample size compared to a parallel arm trial, resulting in the ability to detect an effect size around 28% smaller., Conclusion: The re-randomisation design can increase the efficiency and generalisability of SWATs for trials with multiple follow-up time points., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Non-inferiority and equivalence trials aim to determine whether a new treatment is good enough (non-inferior) or as good as (equivalent to) another treatment. To inform the decision about non-inferiority or equivalence, a margin is used. We aimed to identify the current methods used to determine non-inferiority or equivalence margins, as well as the main challenges and suggestions from trialists., Methods: We developed an online questionnaire that included both closed and open-ended questions about methods to elicit non-inferiority or equivalence margins, underlying principles, and challenges and suggestions for improvement. We recruited trialists with experience of determining a margin by contacting corresponding authors for non-inferiority or equivalence trials. We used descriptive statistics and content analysis to identify categories in qualitative data., Results: We had forty-one responses, all from non-inferiority trials. More than half of the trials were non-pharmacological (n = 21, 51%), and the most common primary outcome was clinical (n = 29, 71%). The two most used methods to determine the margin were as follows: a review of the evidence base (n = 27, 66%) and opinion seeking methods (n = 24, 59%). From those using reviews, the majority used systematic reviews or reviews of multiple RCTs to determine the margin (n = 17, 63%). From those using opinion seeking methods, the majority involved clinicians with or without other professionals (n = 19, 79%). Respondents reported that patients' opinions on the margin were sought in four trials (16%). Median confidence in overall quality of the margin was 5 out of 7 (maximum confidence); however, around a quarter of the respondents were "completely unconfident" that the margin reflected patient's views. We identified "stakeholder involvement" as the most common category to determine respondent's confidence in the quality of the margins and whether it reflected stakeholder's views. The most common suggestion to improve the definition of margins was "development of methods to involve stakeholders," and the most common challenge identified was "communication of margins.", Conclusions: Responders highlighted the need for clearer guidelines on defining a margin, more and better stakeholder involvement in its selection, and better communication tools that enable discussions about non-inferiority trials with stakeholders. Future research should focus on developing best practice recommendations., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Randomised trials play a vital role in underpinning evidence-based care. However, trials involving adults with impaired capacity to consent raise a number of ethical and methodological challenges, leading to the frequent exclusion of this group from trials. This includes challenges around involving family members as alternative 'proxy' decision-makers. Family members are often given little information about their role as a consultee or legal representative. Some family members find making a decision about trial participation difficult and may experience an emotional and decisional burden as a result. Families have reported a need for greater support and guidance when making such decisions, leading to the development of a decision aid ('Making decisions about research for others') for family members acting as consultee/legal representative. The decision aid now requires evaluation to determine its effectiveness in supporting families to make more informed decisions., Methods: This protocol describes a prospective, multi-centre, randomised-controlled Study Within a Trial (SWAT) to evaluate the effectiveness of the decision aid. The SWAT will initially be embedded in approximately five host trials. SWAT participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention (decision aid alongside standard information about the host trial provided to consultees/legal representatives) or control (standard information alone). The primary outcome is the quality of proxy consent decision, assessed by the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD). The SWAT design is informed by previous qualitative research. Initial feasibility will be explored in one host trial, followed by the main SWAT. An embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation will enable the SWAT findings to be contextualised and identify factors likely to affect implementation., Discussion: This SWAT will generate the first evidence for recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent and add to knowledge about the use of decision support interventions in trial participation decisions. The SWAT will be embedded in a range of trials, and the heterogenous nature of the host trials, settings and populations involved will enable the intervention to be evaluated in a wide range of contexts. However, a pragmatic and flexible approach to conducting the SWAT is needed., Trial Registration: The SWAT is registered as SWAT #159 with the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository (registered 09.08.2020). Each host trial will be registered on a clinical trials registry., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Despite substantial awareness that certain groups (e.g. ethnic minorities) are under-represented and under-served in trials, limited progress has been made in addressing this. As well as a public service and ethical duty to recruit and engage under-served groups in relevant research, importantly, there are clear scientific benefits, for example, increased generalisability. The key aims of the current study were to explore the following: general barriers and facilitators to enhancing the recruitment of under-served groups into trials, the usability and value of a specific tool (INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework) to support engagement and recruitment of under-served groups, and ways of engaging diverse patient, public and community involvement and engagement (PCIE) groups., Methods: Firstly, researchers completed a brief survey in relation to a specific trial in which they were involved (N = 182, 38% response rate). A second stage involved sampling survey respondents and asking them to complete the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework and then a remote semi-structured interview (N = 15). Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Finally, we conducted a consultation process with PCIE contributors primarily to develop guidelines for discussing the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework with PCIE representatives., Results: Researchers recognised the importance of increasing engagement and recruitment of under-served groups within trials, but varied in their knowledge, ability and commitment to implementation in practice. The INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework was described by some as raising their awareness of how inclusion could be improved. Respondents highlighted a need for shared resources and wider structural change to facilitate such engagement. PCIE was identified, in the survey and interviews, as the most common method of trying to improve recruitment of under-served groups. However, researchers also commonly highlighted that PCIE groups were sometimes not very diverse., Conclusions: There is a need for researchers to consider the funding and time resources required for diverse and inclusive recruitment to trials and for funders to enable this. The INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework can help to raise awareness of inclusion challenges. This study indicates that it is important to take proactive steps to involve relevant under-served groups in PCIE and practical suggestions are made to facilitate this., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Factorial trials offer an efficient method to evaluate multiple interventions in a single trial, however the use of additional treatments can obscure research objectives, leading to inappropriate analytical methods and interpretation of results. We define a set of estimands for factorial trials, and describe a framework for applying these estimands, with the aim of clarifying trial objectives and ensuring appropriate primary and sensitivity analyses are chosen. This framework is intended for use in factorial trials where the intent is to conduct "two-trials-in-one" (ie, to separately evaluate the effects of treatments A and B), and is comprised of four steps: (i) specifying how additional treatment(s) (eg, treatment B) will be handled in the estimand, and how intercurrent events affecting the additional treatment(s) will be handled; (ii) designating the appropriate factorial estimator as the primary analysis strategy; (iii) evaluating the interaction to assess the plausibility of the assumptions underpinning the factorial estimator; and (iv) performing a sensitivity analysis using an appropriate multiarm estimator to evaluate to what extent departures from the underlying assumption of no interaction may affect results. We show that adjustment for other factors is necessary for noncollapsible effect measures (such as odds ratio), and through a trial re-analysis we find that failure to consider the estimand could lead to inappropriate interpretation of results. We conclude that careful use of the estimands framework clarifies research objectives and reduces the risk of misinterpretation of trial results, and should become a standard part of both the protocol and reporting of factorial trials., (© 2022 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The number of interventions to improve recruitment and retention of participants in trials is rising, with a corresponding growth in randomised Studies Within Trials (SWATs) to evaluate their (cost-)effectiveness. Despite recognised challenges in conducting trials involving adults who lack capacity to consent, until now, no individual-level recruitment interventions have focused on this population. Following the development of a decision aid for family members making non-emergency trial participation decisions on behalf of people with impaired capacity, we have designed a SWAT to evaluate the decision aid in a number of host trials (CONSULT). Unlike in recruitment SWATs to date, the CONSULT intervention is aimed at a 'proxy' decision-maker (a family member) who is not a participant in the host trial and does not receive the trial intervention. This commentary explores the methodological and ethical considerations encountered when designing such SWATs, using the CONSULT SWAT as a case example. Potential solutions to address these issues are also presented., Discussion: We encountered practical issues around informed consent, data collection, and follow-up which involves linking the intervention receiver (the proxy) with recruitment and retention data from the host trial, as well as issues around randomisation level, resource use, and maintaining the integrity of the host trial. Unless addressed, methodological uncertainty about differential recruitment and heterogeneity between trial populations could potentially limit the scope for drawing robust inferences and harmonising data from different SWAT host trials. Proxy consent is itself ethically complex, and so when conducting a SWAT which aims to disrupt and enhance proxy consent decisions, there are additional ethical issues to be considered., Conclusions: Designing a SWAT to evaluate a recruitment intervention for non-emergency trials with adults lacking capacity to consent has raised a number of methodological and ethical considerations. Explicating these challenges, and some potential ways to address them, creates a starting point for discussions about conducting these potentially more challenging SWATs. Increasing the evidence base for the conduct of trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent is intended to improve both the ability to conduct these trials and their quality, and so help build research capacity for this under-served population., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To generate stakeholder informed evidence to support recommendations for trialists to implement the dissemination of results summaries to participants., Design: A multiphase mixed-methods triangulation design involving Q-methodology, content analysis, focus groups and a coproduction workshop (the REporting Clinical trial results Appropriately to Participants project)., Setting: Phase III effectiveness trials., Participants: A range of participants were included from ongoing and recently completed trials, public contributors, trialists, sponsors, research funders, regulators, ethics committee members., Results: Fewer than half of the existing trial result summaries contained information on the clinical implications of the study results, an item deemed to be of high importance to participants in the Q-methodology study. Priority of inclusion of a thank you message varied depending on whether considering results for individuals or populations. The need for personally responsive modes of sharing trial result summaries was highlighted as important. Ideally, participants should be the first to know of the results with regard to the timing of sharing results summaries but given this can be challenging it is therefore important to manage expectations. In addition to patients, it was identified that it is important to engage with a range of stakeholders when developing trial results summaries., Conclusions: Results summaries for trial participants should cover four core questions: (1) What question the trial set out to answer?; (2) What did the trial find?; (3) What effect have the trial results had and how will they change National Health Service/treatment?; and (4) How can I find out more? Trial teams should develop appropriately resourced plans and consult patient partners and trial participants on how 'best' to share key messages with regard to content, mode, and timing. The study findings provide trial teams with clear guidance on the core considerations of the 'what, how, when and who' with regard to sharing results summaries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

This review introduces a qualitative methodology called institutional ethnography (IE) to healthcare professionals interested in studying complex social healthcare systems. We provide the historical context in which IE was developed, and explain the principles and terminology in IE for the novice researcher. Through the use of worked examples, the reader will be able to appreciate how IE can be used to approach research questions in the healthcare system that other methods would be unable to answer. We show how IE and qualitative research methods maintain quality and rigour in research findings. We hope to demonstrate to healthcare professionals and researchers that healthcare systems can be analysed as social organisations, and IE may be used to identify and understand how higher-level processes and policies affect day-to-day clinical work. This understanding may allow the formulation and implementation of actionable improvements to solve problems on the ground., (Copyright: © Singapore Medical Association.)

Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy and completeness of surgeon-reported radical prostatectomy outcome data across a national health system by comparison with a national dataset gathered independently from clinicians directly involved in patient care., Patients and Methods: Data submitted by surgeons to the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) radical prostatectomy audit for all men undergoing radical prostatectomy between 2015 and 2016 were assessed by cross linkage to the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database. Specific data items collected in both databases were selected for comparison analysis. Data completeness and agreement were assessed by percentages and Cohen's kappa statistic., Results: Data from 4707 men in the BAUS and NPCA databases were matched for comparison. Compared with the NPCA, dataset completeness was higher in the BAUS dataset for type of nerve-sparing procedure (92% vs 42%) and postoperative margin status (89% vs 48%) but lower for readmission (87% vs 100%) and Charlson score (80% vs 100%). For all other variables assessed completeness was comparable. Agreement and data reliability were high for most variables. However, despite good agreement, the inter-cohort reliability was poor for readmission, M stage and Charlson score (κ < 0.30)., Conclusions: For the first time in urology we show that surgeon-reported data from the BAUS radical prostatectomy audit can reliably be used to benchmark peri-operative radical prostatectomy outcomes. For comorbidity data, to assist with risk analysis, and longer-term outcomes, NPCA routinely collected data provide a more comprehensive source., (© 2021 The Authors. BJU International © 2021 BJU International.)

Background: The information given to people considering taking part in a trial needs to be easy to understand if those people are to become, and then remain, trial participants. However, there is a tension between providing comprehensive information and providing information that is comprehensible. User-testing is one method of developing better participant information, and there is evidence that user-tested information is better at informing participants about key issues relating to trials. However, it is not clear if user-testing also leads to changes in the rates of recruitment in trials, compared to standard trial information. As part of a programme of research, we embedded 'studies within a trial' (SWATs) across multiple ongoing trials to see if user-tested materials led to better rates of recruitment., Methods: Seven 'host' trials included a SWAT evaluation and randomised their participants to receive routine information sheets generated by the research teams, or information sheets optimised through user-testing. We collected data on trial recruitment and analysed the results across these trials using random effects meta-analysis, with the primary outcome defined as the proportion of participants randomised in a host trial following an invitation to take part., Results: Six SWATs (n=27,805) provided data on recruitment. Optimised participant information sheets likely result in little or no difference in recruitment rates (7.2% versus 6.8%, pooled odds ratio = 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19, p-value = 0.63, I 2 = 0%)., Conclusions: Participant information sheets developed through user testing did not improve recruitment rates. The programme of work showed that co-ordinated testing of recruitment strategies using SWATs is feasible and can provide both definitive and timely evidence on the effectiveness of recruitment strategies., Trial Registration: Healthlines Depression (ISRCTN14172341) Healthlines CVD (ISRCTN27508731) CASPER (ISRCTN02202951) ISDR (ISRCTN87561257) ECLS (NCT01925625) REFORM (ISRCTN68240461) HeLP Diabetes (ISRCTN02123133)., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Measurement can affect the people being measured; for example, asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour (the 'question-behaviour effect'). The usual methods of conduct and analysis of randomised controlled trials implicitly assume that the taking of measurements has no effect on research participants. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to measurement reactivity may therefore introduce bias in otherwise well-conducted randomised controlled trials, yielding incorrect estimates of intervention effects, including underestimates., Objectives: The main objectives were (1) to promote awareness of how and where taking measurements can lead to bias and (2) to provide recommendations on how best to avoid or minimise bias due to measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health., Methods: We conducted (1) a series of systematic and rapid reviews, (2) a Delphi study and (3) an expert workshop. A protocol paper was published [Miles LM, Elbourne D, Farmer A, Gulliford M, Locock L, McCambridge J, et al. Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance. Trials 2018; 19 :653]. An updated systematic review examined whether or not measuring participants had an effect on participants' health-related behaviours relative to no-measurement controls. Three new rapid systematic reviews were conducted to identify (1) existing guidance on measurement reactivity, (2) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes relating to behaviour and affective outcomes and (3) experimental studies that have investigated the effects of exposure to objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour. The views of 40 experts defined the scope of the recommendations in two waves of data collection during the Delphi procedure. A workshop aimed to produce a set of recommendations that were formed in discussion in groups., Results: Systematic reviews - we identified a total of 43 studies that compared interview or questionnaire measurement with no measurement and these had an overall small effect (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.09; n  = 104,096, I 2  = 54%). The three rapid systematic reviews identified no existing guidance on measurement reactivity, but we did identify five systematic reviews that quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes (all focused on the question-behaviour effect, with all standardised mean differences in the range of 0.09-0.28) and 16 studies that examined reactive effects of objective measurement of behaviour, with most evidence of reactivity of small effect and short duration. Delphi procedure - substantial agreement was reached on the scope of the present recommendations. Workshop - 14 recommendations and three main aims were produced. The aims were to identify whether or not bias is likely to be a problem for a trial, to decide whether or not to collect further quantitative or qualitative data to inform decisions about if bias is likely to be a problem, and to identify how to design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias., Limitation: The main limitation was the shortage of high-quality evidence regarding the extent of measurement reactivity, with some notable exceptions, and the circumstances that are likely to bring it about., Conclusion: We hope that these recommendations will be used to develop new trials that are less likely to be at risk of bias., Future Work: The greatest need is to increase the number of high-quality primary studies regarding the extent of measurement reactivity., Study Registration: The first systematic review in this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018102511., Funding: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research Programme.

Objectives: Randomised controlled trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data, including registries, electronic health records and administrative databases, are increasingly used in healthcare intervention research. A Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement extension for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) has been developed with the goal of improving reporting quality. This article describes the processes and methods used to develop the extension and decisions made to arrive at the final checklist., Methods: The development process involved five stages: (1) identification of the need for a reporting guideline and project launch; (2) conduct of a scoping review to identify possible modifications to CONSORT 2010 checklist items and possible new extension items; (3) a three-round modified Delphi study involving key stakeholders to gather feedback on the checklist; (4) a consensus meeting to finalise items to be included in the extension, followed by stakeholder piloting of the checklist; and (5) publication, dissemination and implementation of the final checklist., Results: 27 items were initially developed and rated in Delphi round 1, 13 items were rated in round 2 and 11 items were rated in round 3. Response rates for the Delphi study were 92 of 125 (74%) invited participants in round 1, 77 of 92 (84%) round 1 completers in round 2 and 62 of 77 (81%) round 2 completers in round 3. Twenty-seven members of the project team representing a variety of stakeholder groups attended the in-person consensus meeting. The final checklist includes five new items and eight modified items. The extension Explanation & Elaboration document further clarifies aspects that are important to report., Conclusion: Uptake of CONSORT-ROUTINE and accompanying Explanation & Elaboration document will improve conduct of trials, as well as the transparency and completeness of reporting of trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: We aimed to find out if trialists involve patients and the public in numerical aspects of trials, how and what are the barriers and facilitators to doing it., Design: We developed a survey based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. We used a mixed methods approach to analyse the data and to identify important domains., Setting: Online survey targeting UK-based trial units., Participants: Stakeholders working in UK-based clinical trials, 18 years old or over, understand English and agree to take part in the study., Outcome Measures: Trialists' behaviour of involving patients and the public in numerical aspects of trials and its determinants., Results: We included 187 respondents. Majority were female (70%), trial managers (67%) and involved public and patient partners in numerical aspects of trials (60%). We found lack of knowledge, trialists' perception of public and patient partners' skills, capabilities and motivations, scarce resources, lack of reinforcement, and lack of guidance were barriers to involving public and patient partners in numerical aspects of trials. Positive beliefs about consequences were an incentive to doing it., Conclusions: More training, guidance and funding can help trialists involve patient and public partners in numerical aspects, although they were uncertain about public and patient partners' motivation to be involved. Future research should focus on identifying public and patient partners' motivations and develop strategies to improve the communication of numerical aspects., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Retention is considered the second highest trial methods priority in the UK after recruitment.   Methods: This Study Within A Trial (SWAT) evaluated whether sending a pre-notification card around one month before a face-to-face primary outcome measurement visit compared to not sending the card increased trial retention. The SWAT was a two-arm, parallel randomised (1:1 allocation ratio), stratified by centre, study. It was embedded within the ActWELL host trial, which evaluated whether women receiving lifestyle change counselling from volunteer coaches improved outcomes including weight and physical activity. The text on the card was not developed using formal behavioural change theory but did target factors thought to influence attendance. The SWAT primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of participants attending the host trial primary outcome measurement visit. The secondary outcome was the direct cost of sending cards. Host trial participants and research staff at the primary outcome visit were blind to the SWAT. Analysis was intention-to-treat. GRADE was used the assess the certainty of evidence. Results: 558 host trial participants took part in the SWAT and were included in the analysis. Sending a pre-notification card may result in a slight increase in attendance at a face-to-face primary outcome measurement visit: risk difference = 3.3% (95% confidence interval = -3.0% to 9.6%). This is GRADE low certainty evidence. A recording error meant it was unclear whether 17 participants allocated to the card were actually sent one but a sensitivity analysis did not change the overall result or conclusion. The direct cost of producing and sending the cards was £192 GBP (€213 EUR; $260 USD).   Discussion: Trialists could consider using pre-notification as they may gain a slight increase in retention to face-to-face trial measurement visits but further evaluations are needed., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2021 Treweek S et al.)

Background: Retention is considered the second highest trial methods priority in the UK after recruitment.   Methods: This Study Within A Trial (SWAT) evaluated whether sending a pre-notification card around one month before a face-to-face primary outcome measurement visit compared to not sending the card increased trial retention. The SWAT was a two-arm, parallel randomised (1:1 allocation ratio), stratified by centre, study. It was embedded within the ActWELL host trial, which evaluated whether women receiving lifestyle change counselling from volunteer coaches improved outcomes including weight and physical activity. The SWAT primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of participants attending the host trial primary outcome measurement visit. The secondary outcome was the direct cost of sending cards. Host trial participants and research staff at the primary outcome visit were blind to the SWAT. Analysis was intention-to-treat. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: 558 host trial participants took part in the SWAT and were included in the analysis. Of the 274 women sent a card, 231 attended the primary outcome visit (84.3%) compared to 230/284 (81.0%) for those not receiving a card. Sending a pre-notification card may result in a slight increase in attendance at a face-to-face primary outcome measurement visit at 1-year: risk difference = 3.3% (95% confidence interval = -3.0% to 9.6%). This is GRADE low certainty evidence. A recording error meant it was unclear whether 17 participants allocated to the card were actually sent one but a sensitivity analysis did not change the overall result or conclusion. The direct cost of producing and sending the cards was £192 GBP (€213 EUR; $260 USD), or £21.33 (€23.55; $28.77 per additional retained participant.   Discussion: Trialists could consider using pre-notification as they may gain a slight increase in retention to face-to-face trial measurement visits but further evaluations are needed., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2021 Treweek S et al.)

Background and Objectives: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) may be intended either to support real-world decisions on choice between alternative interventions or to help researchers understand mechanisms of action of an intervention. PRECIS-2 is widely used to help investigators match detailed design elements to their main intention for that RCT. PRECIS-2 is increasingly being used retrospectively for assessing RCTs within reviews. In this commentary, we counter arguments that RCTs with a placebo control group, masking/blinding of participants or providers, or conducted in a single center should be retrospectively assessed as completely explanatory, overriding a detailed PRECIS-2 assessment. We also counter arguments that a trial cannot be assessed using only the main peer-reviewed trial report., Study Design and Setting: This is a commentary on the use of PRECIS-2 for systematic reviews., Results: Although placebos are seldom openly prescribed in real-world care, knowing that an intervention achieves its impact via the placebo effect might change some clinical and policy decisions, which means that this feature does not always preclude decision-making use and so should not override a full PRECIS-2 assessment. A domain describing the comparator should be added to PRECIS-2. Conduct of an RCT in only a single centre should also not override PRECIS-2 as the decision support value of a single-centre RCT could be high for decision makers in that centre and others like it. Many journals require that submitted RCT reports meet CONSORT reporting guidelines, which standardizes the available information for all RCTs in systematic reviews; whereas information from registration and protocol documents is unstandardized and undermines comparison between RCTs and across reviews. Published RCT reports are thus more suitable for retrospective PRECIS-2 assessments, but PRECIS-2 domains with missing information should be scored as blank. Wider use of the CONSORT extension specific to pragmatic trials may reduce domains with missing data., Conclusions: PRECIS-2 can be used for retrospective assessments of trials in systematic reviews. The PRECIS-2 instrument should be expanded by including a domain describing the control group(s). Published RCT reports are suitable for retrospective PRECIS-2 assessments., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Poor recruitment of patients is the predominant reason for early termination of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Systematic empirical investigations and validation studies of existing recruitment models, however, are lacking. We aim to provide evidence-based guidance on how to predict and monitor recruitment of patients into RCTs. Our specific objectives are the following: (1) to establish a large sample of RCTs (target n = 300) with individual patient recruitment data from a large variety of RCTs, (2) to investigate participant recruitment patterns and study site recruitment patterns and their association with the overall recruitment process, (3) to investigate the validity of a freely available recruitment model, and (4) to develop a user-friendly tool to assist trial investigators in the planning and monitoring of the recruitment process., Methods: Eligible RCTs need to have completed the recruitment process, used a parallel group design, and investigated any healthcare intervention where participants had the free choice to participate. To establish the planned sample of RCTs, we will use our contacts to national and international RCT networks, clinical trial units, and individual trial investigators. From included RCTs, we will collect patient-level information (date of randomization), site-level information (date of trial site activation), and trial-level information (target sample size). We will examine recruitment patterns using recruitment trajectories and stratifications by RCT characteristics. We will investigate associations of early recruitment patterns with overall recruitment by correlation and multivariable regression. To examine the validity of a freely available Bayesian prediction model, we will compare model predictions to collected empirical data of included RCTs. Finally, we will user-test any promising tool using qualitative methods for further tool improvement., Discussion: This research will contribute to a better understanding of participant recruitment to RCTs, which could enhance efficiency and reduce the waste of resources in clinical research with a comprehensive, concerted, international effort.

Objectives: This study investigated trial consultations to identify whether and to what extent discussions of retention are present., Study Design and Setting: This embedded mixed-methods study design included a purposive sample of audio-recorded trial consultations obtained from four sites of a large multicenter UK-based surgical RCT. Study participants included potential trial participants, trial surgeons (TSs), and research nurses (RNs)., Results: Forty-four participants were included in this study: potential trial participants (n = 37); TSs (n = 4); and RNs (n = 3). Analysis revealed no discussion of retention across 79% of consultations. Of the remaining 21% where discussions of retention were present, only 3% (maximum) of the conversation related to retention. There was some evidence of good practice, but on the whole the discussions contained inaccuracies about timing and delivery of questionnaires and the right to withdraw often highlighted without providing trial consequences., Conclusion: This study is the first to explore trial consultations for discussions of retention. It suggests that there may be room for improvement within current practice. Further research is required to determine the generalizability of the findings reported to other clinical trials., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Our aim was to design and evaluate a novel behavior change approach to increase response rates to an annual postal questionnaire in three randomized studies within a trial (SWAT) and replicate the most promising SWAT., Study Design and Setting: SWAT1 tested a trial logo sticker on questionnaire envelopes vs. no sticker; SWAT2 tested a theoretically informed letter sent with the questionnaire vs. a standard letter; SWAT3 tested a theoretically informed newsletter sent before the questionnaire vs. no newsletter. The SWATs were conducted within a large dental trial (N = 1,877 adults), and SWAT2 replicated in a different trial in a similar setting (N = 2,372)., Results: SWAT1 improved response rates by 1.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-7.2%, 10.0%). SWAT2 improved response rates by 7.0%, 95% CI (1.7%, 12.3%). SWAT3 improved response rates by 0.8%, 95% CI (-5.1%, 6.7%). Replication of SWAT2 as the most promising SWAT showed improvement in response rates of 1.0%, 95% CI (-3.2%, 5.3%). Pooled results from SWAT2 showed an overall improvement in response rates of 3.4%, 95% CI (0.1%, 6.7%)., Conclusion: A theory-based behavioral approach to design interventions to improve trial response rates showed small but meaningful improvements. The approach presented here can be easily implemented and adapted to address other identified barriers to trial retention., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background:  Many randomised trials have serious methodological flaws that fatally undermine their results, which makes the research wasteful. This is of concern for many, including those doing systematic reviews that include trials. Cochrane systematic reviews have a section called '  Implications for research ', which allows authors of the review to present their conclusions on how future research might be improved. Looking at these conclusions might highlight priority areas for improvement. Methods:  We focused on the Cochrane Schizophrenia Review Group and the Multiple sclerosis and rare diseases of the central nervous system Review Group (the MS Review Group).  Reviews with citation dates between 2009 and 2019 were identified and the recommendations of review authors in '  Implications for research'  were put into categories. Results:  Between 2009 and 2019 we identified 162 reviews for the Schizophrenia Review Group and 43 reviews for the MS Review Group. We created 22 categories of recommendations in total, of which 12 were common to both groups. The five most used categories were the same for both: better choice of outcomes; better choice of intervention/comparator; longer follow-up; larger sample size; use of validated scales.  Better choice of outcomes and/or intervention/comparator was recommended in over 50% of reviews. Longer follow-up and larger sample size were recommended in over a third, with use of validated scales being suggested in around a fifth of reviews. There was no obvious pattern of improvement over time for trials included in systematic reviews published by both groups. Conclusions:  We suggest that trialists working in these and other areas ask themselves, or are compelled to do so by others (e.g. funders), why they have chosen their outcomes, intervention and comparator, whether follow-up is long enough, if the sample size is big enough and whether the scales they choose to measure their outcomes are appropriate., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MC is the Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane Methodology Review Group. ST is an editor (similar to being on an editorial board of a journal) for the Cochrane Incontinence Review Group., (Copyright: © 2020 Pirosca S et al.)

Background: Many randomised trials have serious methodological flaws that fatally undermine their results, which makes the research wasteful. This is of concern for many, including those doing systematic reviews that include trials. Cochrane systematic reviews all have a section called ' Implications for research ', which allows authors of the review to present their conclusions on how future research might be improved. Looking at these conclusions might highlight priority areas for improvement. Methods: We focused on the Cochrane Schizophrenia Review Group and the Multiple sclerosis and rare diseases of the central nervous system Review Group (the MS Review Group).  Reviews with citations between 2009 and 2019 were identified and the recommendations given by review authors in ' Implications for research' were put into categories. Results: Between 2009 and 2019 we identified 162 reviews for the Schizophrenia Review Group and 43 reviews for the MS Review Group. We created 22 categories in total, of which 12 were common to both groups. The five most used categories were the same for both: better choice of outcomes; better choice of intervention/comparator; longer follow-up; larger sample size; use of validated scales.  Better choice of outcomes and/or intervention/comparator was recommended in over 50% of reviews. Longer follow-up and larger sample size were recommended in over a third, with use of validated scales being suggested in around a fifth of reviews. There was no obvious pattern of improvement over time for trials included in systematic reviews published by both groups. Conclusions: We suggest that trialists working in these areas (and others too) ask themselves why they have chosen their particular outcomes, intervention and comparator, whether follow-up is long enough, if the sample size is big enough and whether the scales  they choose to measure their outcomes are appropriate., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MC is the Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane Methodology Review Group. ST is an editor (similar to being on an editorial board of a journal) for the Cochrane Incontinence Review Group., (Copyright: © 2020 Pirosca S et al.)

Objectives: To examine key methodological considerations for using a placebo intervention in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating invasive procedures, including surgery., Study Design and Setting: RCTs comparing an invasive procedure with a placebo were included in this systematic review. Articles published from database inception to December 31, 2017, were retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and CENTRAL electronic databases, by handsearching references and expert knowledge. Data on trial characteristics (clinical area, nature of invasive procedure, number of patients and centers) and key methodological (rationale for using placebos, minimization of risk, information provision, offering the treatment intervention to patients randomized to placebo, delivery of cointerventions, and intervention standardization and fidelity) were extracted and summarized descriptively., Results: One hundred thirteen articles reporting 96 RCTs were identified. Most were conducted in gastrointestinal surgery (n = 40, 42%) and evaluated minimally invasive procedures (n = 44, 46%). Over two-thirds randomized fewer than 100 patients (n = 65, 68%) and a third were single center (n = 31, 32%). A third (n = 33, 34%) did not report a rationale for using a placebo. Most common strategies to minimize patient risk were operator skill (n = 22, 23%) and independent data monitoring (n = 28, 29%). Provision of patient information regarding placebo use was infrequently reported (n = 11, 11%). Treatment interventions were offered to patients randomized to placebo in 43 trials (45%). Cointerventions were inconsistently reported, but 64 trials (67%) stated that anesthesia was matched between groups. Attempts to standardize interventions and monitor their delivery were reported in n = 7, (7%) and n = 4, (4%) trials, respectively., Conclusion: Most placebo-controlled trials in surgery evaluate minor surgical procedures and currently there is inconsistent reporting of key trial methods. There is a need for guidance to optimize the transparency of trial reporting in this area., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background : Recruitment to trials can be challenging. Currently, non-randomised evaluations of trial recruitment interventions are rejected due to poor methodological quality, but systematic assessment of this substantial body of work may inform trialists' decision-making about recruitment methods. Our objective was to quantify the effects of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised trials evaluated using non-randomised study designs. Methods : We searched relevant databases for non-randomised studies that included two or more interventions evaluating recruitment to trials. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts for eligible studies, then extracted data on: recruitment intervention, setting, participant characteristics, number of participants in intervention and comparator groups. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias. The primary outcome was the number of recruits to a trial. Results : We identified 92 studies for inclusion; 90 studies aimed to improve the recruitment of participants, one aimed to improve the recruitment of GP practices, and one aimed to improve recruitment of GPs. Of the 92 included studies, 20 were at high risk of bias due to confounding; the remaining 72 were at high risk of bias due to confounding and at least one other category of the ROBINS-I tool. The 20 studies at least risk of bias were synthesised narratively based on seven broad categories; Face to face recruitment initiatives, postal invitations and responses, language adaptations, randomisation methods, trial awareness strategies aimed at the recruitee, trial awareness strategies aimed at the recruiter, and use of networks and databases. The utility of included studies is substantially limited due to small sample sizes, inadequate reporting, and a lack of coordination around deciding what to evaluate and how. Conclusions : Careful thought around planning, conduct, and reporting of non-randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions is required to prevent future non-randomised studies contributing to research waste. Registration : PROSPERO CRD42016037718., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2020 Gardner HR et al.)

The evidence base available to trialists to support trial process decisions-e.g. how best to recruit and retain participants, how to collect data or how to share the results with participants-is thin. One way to fill gaps in evidence is to run Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. These are self-contained research studies embedded within a host trial that aim to evaluate or explore alternative ways of delivering or organising a particular trial process.SWATs are increasingly being supported by funders and considered by trialists, especially in the UK and Ireland. At some point, increasing SWAT evidence will lead funders and trialists to ask: given the current body of evidence for a SWAT, do we need a further evaluation in another host trial? A framework for answering such a question is needed to avoid SWATs themselves contributing to research waste.This paper presents criteria on when enough evidence is available for SWATs that use randomised allocation to compare different interventions.

Introduction: Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is a common late-stage complication of diabetes with a large impact on health status and quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a standardised method of obtaining patients' views on their well-being. The DFU Scale Short Form (DFS-SF) is a validated disease-specific PROM for measuring health-related quality of life among DFU patients. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) is another PROM that can be used to measure physical functioning in patients with lower extremity disorders. The LEFS is not yet validated for DFU. Both instruments are not validated in the Dutch language. The purpose of this study is to culturally adapt and validate the DFS-SF and LEFS questionnaires for Belgian Dutch-speaking patients with DFU., Methods and Analysis: This study will be conducted as a monocentre observational cohort study in DFU patients presenting at a hospital-based multidisciplinary diabetic foot clinic. Data will be collected from the medical electronic files and from DFS-SF, LEFS and five-level EuroQol five-dimension questionnaires that will be presented to the patients at defined time points. Reproducibility, internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects, construct validity and responsiveness will be assessed for the DFS-SF and LEFS., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Hospital (Aalst, Belgium). The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Recruitment and retention of participants are both critical for the success of trials, yet both remain significant problems. The use of incentives to target participants and trial staff has been proposed as one solution. The effects of incentives are complex and depend upon how they are designed, but these complexities are often overlooked. In this paper, we used a scoping review to 'map' the literature, with two aims: to develop a checklist on the design and use of incentives to support recruitment and retention in trials; and to identify key research topics for the future., Methods: The scoping review drew on the existing economic theory of incentives and a structured review of the literature on the use of incentives in three healthcare settings: trials, pay for performance, and health behaviour change. We identified the design issues that need to be considered when introducing an incentive scheme to improve recruitment and retention in trials. We then reviewed both the theoretical and empirical evidence relating to each of these design issues. We synthesised the findings into a checklist to guide the design of interventions using incentives., Results: The issues to consider when designing an incentive system were summarised into an eight-question checklist. The checklist covers: the current incentives and barriers operating in the system; who the incentive should be directed towards; what the incentive should be linked to; the form of incentive; the incentive size; the structure of the incentive system; the timing and frequency of incentive payouts; and the potential unintended consequences. We concluded the section on each design aspect by highlighting the gaps in the current evidence base., Conclusions: Our findings highlight how complex the design of incentive systems can be, and how crucial each design choice is to overall effectiveness. The most appropriate design choice will differ according to context, and we have aimed to provide context-specific advice. Whilst all design issues warrant further research, evidence is most needed on incentives directed at recruiters, optimal incentive size, and testing of different incentive structures, particularly exploring repeat arrangements with recruiters.

Background: One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders., Methods: This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials., Results: A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The 'Top 10' of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was 'What motivates a participant's decision to complete a clinical trial?' The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie ., Conclusion: The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.

Objective: Comparing observed and expected distributions of baseline variables in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been used to investigate possible research misconduct, although the validity of this approach has been questioned. We explored this technique and introduced a novel metric to compare P values from baseline variables between treatment arms., Study Design and Setting: We compared observed with expected distributions of baseline P values using a one-way chi-square test and by comparing the area under the curve (AUC) of the cumulative distribution function in 13 RCTs conducted by our group, two groups of RCTs known to contain fabricated data, and simulations., Results: In our 13 RCTs, the distribution of P values from baseline continuous variables was consistent with the expected theoretical uniform distribution (P = 0.19, difference from expected AUC -0.03, 95% confidence interval [-0.04, 0.04]). For categorical variables, the P value distribution was not uniform. The distributions of P values from RCTs with fabricated data were highly unusual and not consistent with the uniform distribution for continuous variables, nor with the expected distribution for categorical variables, nor with the distribution of P values in genuine RCTs., Conclusions: Assessing baseline P values in groups of RCTs can identify highly unusual distributions that might raise or reinforce concerns about randomization and data integrity., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard when evaluating the causal effects of healthcare interventions. When RCTs cannot be used (e.g. ethically difficult), the interrupted time series (ITS) design is a possible alternative. ITS is one of the strongest quasi-experimental designs. The aim of this methodological study was to describe how ITS designs were being used, the design characteristics, and reporting in the healthcare setting., Methods: We searched MEDLINE for reports of ITS designs published in 2015 which had a minimum of two data points collected pre-intervention and one post-intervention. There was no restriction on participants, language of study, or type of outcome. Data were summarised using appropriate summary statistics., Results: One hundred and sixteen studies were included in the study. Interventions evaluated were mainly programs 41 (35%) and policies 32 (28%). Data were usually collected at monthly intervals, 74 (64%). Of the 115 studies that reported an analysis, the most common method was segmented regression (78%), 55% considered autocorrelation, and only seven reported a sample size calculation. Estimation of intervention effects were reported as change in slope (84%) and change in level (70%) and 21% reported long-term change in levels., Conclusions: This methodological study identified problems in the reporting of design features and results of ITS studies, and highlights the need for future work in the development of formal reporting guidelines and methodological work.

Objectives: To investigate whether comparing observed with expected P-value distributions for baseline continuous variables in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) might be limited by randomization methods, normality and correlation of variables, or calculation of P-values from rounded summary statistics., Study Design and Setting: We assessed how each factor affects differences from expected for P-value distributions and area under the curve of the cumulative distribution function (AUC-CDF) of baseline P-values in 13 RCTs and in simulations., Results: The P-value distributions and AUC-CDF for variables with possible non-normal distribution and in simulations using eight different randomization methods were consistent with the theoretical uniform distribution and AUC-CDF, respectively, although stratification and minimization produced smaller-than-expected proportions of P-values <0.10. Seventy-seven percentage of 3,813 pairwise correlations between baseline variables in the 13 individual RCTs were between -0.2 and 0.2. P-value distribution and AUC-CDF remained consistent with the uniform distribution in simulations with incrementally increasing correlation strength. The P-value distributions calculated from rounded summary statistics were not uniform, but expected distributions could be empirically generated., Conclusions: Randomization methods, non-normality, and strength of correlation of baseline variables did not have important effects on baseline P-value distribution or AUC-CDF, but baseline P-values calculated from rounded summary statistics are non-uniformly distributed., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Historically, patient and public involvement (PPI) in the design and conduct of surgical trials has been absent or minimal, but it is now routinely recommended and even required by some research funders. We aimed to identify and describe current PPI practice in surgical trials in the United Kingdom, and to explore the views and experiences of surgical trial staff and patient or public contributors in relation to these practices. This was part of a larger study to inform development of a robust PPI intervention aimed at improving recruitment and retention in surgical trials., Methods: Our study had two stages: 1) an online survey to identify current PPI practice in active UK-led, adult surgical trials; and 2) focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders (surgical trial investigators, administrators, and patient or public contributors) to explore their views and experiences of PPI., Results: Of 129 eligible surgical trial teams identified, 71 (55%) took part in the survey. In addition, 54 stakeholders subsequently took part in focus groups or interviews. Sixty-five (92%) survey respondents reported some kind of PPI, most commonly at the design and dissemination stages and in oversight or advisory roles. The single most common PPI activity was developing participant information sheets (72%). Participants reported mixed practice and views on a variety of issues including the involvement of patients versus lay members of the public, recruitment methods, use of role descriptions and payment for the time of PPI contributors. They suggested some solutions, including the use of written role descriptions and databases of potential PPI contributors to aid recruitment., Conclusions: UK surgical trials involve patients and members of the public in a variety of different ways, most commonly at the beginning and end of the trial lifecycle and in oversight or advisory roles. These are not without challenges and there remain uncertainties about who best to involve, why, and how. Future research should aim to address these issues.

Scope: Antibiotic stewardship programmes (ASPs) are necessary in hospitals to improve the judicious use of antibiotics. While ASPs require complex change of key behaviours on individual, team organization and policy levels, evidence from the behavioural sciences is underutilized in antibiotic stewardship studies across the world, including high-income countries (HICs). A consensus procedure was performed to propose research priority areas for optimizing effective implementation of ASPs in hospital settings using a behavioural perspective., Methods: A workgroup for behavioural approaches to ASPs was convened in response to the fourth call for leading expert network proposals by the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance (JPIAMR). Eighteen clinical and academic specialists in antibiotic stewardship, implementation science and behaviour change from four HICs with publicly funded healthcare systems (e.g. Canada, Germany, Norway and the UK) met face-to-face to agree on broad research priority areas using a structured consensus method. Question addressed and recommendations: The consensus process assessing the ten identified research priority areas resulted in recommendations that need urgent scientific interest and funding to optimize effective implementation of ASPs for hospital inpatients in HICs with publicly funded healthcare systems. We suggest and detail behavioural science evidence-guided research efforts in the following areas: (a) comprehensively identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing ASPs and clinical recommendations intended to optimize antibiotic prescribing; (b) identifying actors ('who') and actions ('what needs to be done') of ASPs and clinical teams; (c) synthesizing available evidence to support future research and planning for ASPs; (d) specifying the activities in current ASPs with the purpose of defining a control group for comparison with new initiatives; (e) defining a balanced set of outcomes and measures to evaluate the effects of interventions focused on reducing unnecessary exposure to antibiotics; (f) conducting robust evaluations of ASPs with built-in process evaluations and fidelity assessments; (g) defining and designing ASPs; (h) establishing the evidence base for impact of ASPs on resistance; (i) investigating the role and impact of government and policy contexts on ASPs; and (j) understanding what matters to patients in ASPs in hospitals., Conclusions: Assessment, revisions and updates of our priority-setting exercise should be considered at intervals of 2 years. To propose research priority areas in low- and middle-income countries, the methodology reported here could be applied., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)