Search

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency consulted on proposals "to improve and strengthen the UK clinical trials legislation to help us make the UK the best place to research and develop safe and innovative medicines". The purpose of the consultation was to help finalise the proposals and contribute to the drafting of secondary legislation. We discussed these proposals as members of the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, which is jointly funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Two topics arose frequently in the discussion: the emphasis on legislation, and the absence of questions on data sharing. It is our opinion that the proposals rely heavily on legislation to change practice. However, clinical trials are heterogeneous, and as a result some trials will struggle to comply with all of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, adaptive design clinical trials are even more heterogeneous than their non-adaptive counterparts, and face more challenges. Consequently, it is possible that increased legislation could have a greater negative impact on adaptive designs than non-adaptive designs. Overall, we are sceptical that the introduction of legislation will achieve the desired outcomes, with some exceptions. Meanwhile the topic of data sharing — making anonymised individual-level clinical trial data available to other investigators for further use — is entirely absent from the proposals and the consultation in general. However, as an aspect of the wider concept of open science and reproducible research, data sharing is an increasingly important aspect of clinical trials. The benefits of data sharing include faster innovation, improved surveillance of drug safety and effectiveness and decreasing participant exposure to unnecessary risk. There are already a number of UK-focused documents that discuss and encourage data sharing, for example, the Concordat on Open Research Data and the Medical Research Council's Data Sharing Policy. We strongly suggest that data sharing should be the norm rather than the exception, and hope that the forthcoming proposals on clinical trials invite discussion on this important topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Domiciliary care workers (DCWs) continued to provide care to adults in their own homes throughout the COVID‐19 pandemic. The evidence of the impact of COVID‐19 on health outcomes of DCWs is currently mixed. The OSCAR study will quantify the impact of COVID‐19 upon health outcomes of DCWs in Wales, explore causes of variation and extrapolate to the rest of the UK DCW population. An embedded qualitative study aimed to explore DCW experiences during the pandemic, including factors that may have varied risk of exposure to COVID‐19 and adverse health and wellbeing outcomes. Registered DCWs working throughout Wales were invited to participate in a semi‐structured telephone interview. 24 DCWs were interviewed between February and July 2021. Themes were identified through inductive analysis using thematic coding. Several themes emerged relating to risk of exposure to COVID‐19. First, general changes to the role of the DCW during the pandemic were identified. Second, practical challenges for DCWs in the workplace were reported, including staff shortages, clients and families not following safety procedures, initial shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), DCW criticism of standard use PPE, client difficulty with PPE and management of rapid antigen testing. Third, lack of government/employer preparation for a pandemic was described, including the reorganisation of staff clients and services, inadequate or confusing information for many DCWs, COVID‐19 training and the need for improved practical instruction and limited official standard risk assessments for DCWs. Pressure to attend work and perceptions of COVID‐19 risk and vaccination was also reported. In summary, this paper describes the risk factors associated with working during the pandemic. We have mapped recommendations for each problem using these qualitative findings including tailored training and better support for isolated team members and identified the required changes at several socio‐ecological levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This correction notice is regarding an article titled "Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's 'Consultation on proposals for legislative changes for clinical trials': a response from the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, with a focus on..." published in the journal Trials. The correction states that the affiliation for Graham Wheeler was incorrectly presented in the original article. The correct affiliation is Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, and not Statistics & Data Science Innovation Hub, GSK, Brentford, UK as originally stated. The original article has been corrected. [Extracted from the article]

Background: The evidence-base for whole school approaches aimed at improving student mental health and wellbeing remains limited. This may be due to a focus on developing and evaluating de-novo, research-led interventions, while neglecting the potential of local, contextually-relevant innovation that has demonstrated acceptability and feasibility. This study reports a novel approach to modelling and refining the programme theory of a whole-school restorative approach, alongside plans to scale up through a national educational infrastructure in order to support robust scientific evaluation.Methods: A pragmatic formative process evaluation was conducted of a routinized whole-school restorative approach aimed at improving student mental health and wellbeing in Wales.Results: The study reports the six phases of the pragmatic formative process evaluation. These are: 1) identification of innovative local practice; 2) scoping review of evidence-base to identify potential programme theory; outcomes; and contextual characteristics that influence implementation; 3) establishment of a Transdisciplinary Action Research (TDAR) group; 4) co-production and confirmation of an initial programme theory with stakeholders; 5) planning to optimise intervention delivery in local contexts; and 6) planning for feasibility and outcome evaluation. The phases of this model may be iterative and not necessarily sequential.Conclusions: Formative, pragmatic process evaluations can support researchers, policy-makers and practitioners in developing robust scientific evidence-bases for acceptable and feasible local innovations that do not already have a clear evidence base. The case of a whole-school restorative approach provides a case example of how such an evaluation may be undertaken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore the delivery of home and hospital management at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in childhood and any impact this had on health professionals delivering care. Methods: This qualitative study was undertaken as part of the Delivering Early Care in Diabetes Evaluation randomized controlled trial where participants were individually randomized to receive initiation of management at diagnosis, to home or hospital. Semi‐structured telephone interviews were planned with a purposive sample of health professionals involved with the delivery of home and hospital management, to include consultants, diabetes and research nurses, and dieticians from the eight UK centres taking part. The interview schedule focused on their experiences of delivering the two models of care; preferences, impact, and future plans. Data were subject to thematic analysis. Results: Twenty‐two health professionals participated, represented by consultants, diabetes and research nurses, and dieticians. Overall, nurses preferred home management and perceived it to be beneficial in terms of facilitating a unique opportunity to understand family life and provide education to extended family members. Nurses described a special bond and lasting relationship that they developed with the home managed children and families. Consultants expressed concern that it jeopardized their relationship with families. Dieticians reported being unable to deliver short bursts of education to families in the home managed arm. All health professionals were equally divided over which was logistically easier to deliver. Conclusions: A hybrid approach, of a brief stay in hospital and early home management, offers a pragmatic solution to the advantages and challenges presented by both systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many countries now offer support to teenage mothers to help them to achieve long-term socioeconomic stability and to give a successful start to their children. The Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) is a licensed intensive home-visiting intervention developed in the USA and introduced into practice in England that involves up to 64 structured home visits from early pregnancy until the child's second birthday by specially recruited and trained family nurses. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of giving the programme to teenage first-time mothers on infant and maternal outcomes up to 24 months after birth.Methods: We did a pragmatic, non-blinded, randomised controlled, parallel-group trial in community midwifery settings at 18 partnerships between local authorities and primary and secondary care organisations in England. Eligible participants were nulliparous and aged 19 years or younger, and were recruited at less than 25 weeks' gestation. Field-based researchers randomly allocated mothers (1:1) via remote randomisation (telephone and web) to FNP plus usual care (publicly funded health and social care) or to usual care alone. Allocation was stratified by site and minimised by gestation (<16 weeks vs ≥16 weeks), smoking status (yes vs no), and preferred language of data collection (English vs non-English). Mothers and assessors (local researchers at baseline and 24 months' follow-up) were not masked to group allocation, but telephone interviewers were blinded. Primary endpoints were biomarker-calibrated self-reported tobacco use by the mother at late pregnancy, birthweight of the baby, the proportion of women with a second pregnancy within 24 months post-partum, and emergency attendances and hospital admissions for the child within 24 months post-partum. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN23019866.Findings: Between June 16, 2009, and July 28, 2010, we screened 3251 women. After enrolment, 823 women were randomly assigned to receive FNP and 822 to usual care. All follow-up data were retrieved by April 25, 2014. 304 (56%) of 547 women assigned to FNP and 306 (56%) of 545 assigned to usual care smoked at late pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0·90, 97·5% CI 0·64-1·28). Mean birthweight of 742 babies with mothers assigned to FNP was 3217·4 g (SD 618·0), whereas birthweight of 768 babies assigned to usual care was 3197·5 g (SD 581·5; adjusted mean difference 20·75 g, 97·5% CI -47·73 to 89·23. 587 (81%) of 725 assessed children with mothers assigned to FNP and 577 (77%) of 753 assessed children assigned to usual care attended an emergency department or were admitted to hospital at least once before their second birthday (AOR 1·32, 97·5% CI 0·99-1·76). 426 (66%) of 643 assessed women assigned to FNP and 427 (66%) 646 assigned to usual care had a second pregnancy within 2 years (AOR 1·01, 0·77-1·33). At least one serious adverse event (mainly clinical events associated with pregnancy and infancy period) was reported for 310 (38%) of 808 participants (mother-child) in the usual care group and 357 (44%) of 810 in the FNP group, none of which were considered related to the intervention.Interpretation: Adding FNP to the usually provided health and social care provided no additional short-term benefit to our primary outcomes. Programme continuation is not justified on the basis of available evidence, but could be reconsidered should supportive longer-term evidence emerge.Funding: Department of Health Policy Research Programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim This paper focuses on stakeholders' active involvement at key stages of the research as members of a Stakeholder Action Group (SAG), particularly in the context of lay stakeholder involvement. Some challenges that can arise and wider issues (e.g. empowerment, the impact of user involvement) are identified and explored within the literature on service user involvement in health care research, reflecting on the implications for researchers. Background In the DEPICTED study, lay and professional stakeholders were actively involved in developing a complex research intervention. Lay stakeholders comprised teenage and adult patients with diabetes, parents and patient organization representatives. Professional stakeholders were from a range of disciplines. Methods Three 1-day research meetings were attended by 13-17 lay stakeholders and 10-11 professional stakeholders (plus researchers). The SAG was responsible for reviewing evidence, advising on developing ideas for the research intervention and guiding plans for evaluation of the intervention in a subsequent trial. Formal evaluations were completed by stakeholders following each SAG meeting. Results Throughout the first (developmental) stage of this two-stage study, lay and professional stakeholders participated or were actively involved in activities that provided data to inform the research intervention. Lay stakeholders identified the need for and contributed to the design of a patient-held tool, strongly influenced the detailed design and content of the research intervention and outcome questionnaire, thus making a major contribution to the trial design. Conclusion Stakeholders, including teenagers, can be actively involved in designing a research intervention and impact significantly on study outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An uncontrolled study with process evaluation was conducted in three U.K. community maternity sites to establish the feasibility and acceptability of delivering a novel breastfeeding peer‐support intervention informed by motivational interviewing (MI; Mam‐Kind). Peer‐supporters were trained to deliver the Mam‐Kind intervention that provided intensive one‐to‐one peer‐support, including (a) antenatal contact, (b) face‐to‐face contact within 48 hr of birth, (c) proactive (peer‐supporter led) alternate day contact for 2 weeks after birth, and (d) mother‐led contact for a further 6 weeks. Peer‐supporters completed structured diaries and audio‐recorded face‐to‐face sessions with mothers. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of mothers, health professionals, and all peer‐supporters. Interview data were analysed thematically to assess intervention acceptability. Audio‐recorded peer‐support sessions were assessed for intervention fidelity and the use of MI techniques, using the MITI 4.2 tool. Eight peer‐supporters delivered the Mam‐Kind intervention to 70 mothers in three National Health Service maternity services. Qualitative interviews with mothers (n = 28), peer‐supporters (n = 8), and health professionals (n = 12) indicated that the intervention was acceptable, and health professionals felt it could be integrated with existing services. There was high fidelity to intervention content; 93% of intervention objectives were met during sessions. However, peer‐supporters reported difficulties in adapting from an expert‐by‐experience role to a collaborative role. We have established the feasibility and acceptability of providing breastfeeding peer‐support using a MI‐informed approach. Refinement of the intervention is needed to further develop peer‐supporters' skills in providing mother‐centred support. The refined intervention should be tested for effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]