Search

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic marked a unique period characterised by an extraordinary global virus spread. The collective effort to halt the transmission of the virus led to various public health initiatives, including a variety of COVID-19 vaccine trials. Many of these trials used adaptive methods to address the pandemic’s challenges, such as the need for rapid recruitment. These adaptive methods allow for modifications to the trial procedures without undermining the trial’s integrity, making the research process more flexible and efficient. However, recruiting participants for vaccine trials remains a considerable challenge. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) is to explore the factors that influence a person’s decision to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine trial. Lessons learned from this could help shape future trials’ design and conduct, particularly those conducted within a pandemic. Methods We conducted a systematic search for qualitative studies and mixed methods studies with a qualitative component in the WHO COVID-19 Research Database, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Epistemomikos, Online Resource for Research in Clinical Trials (ORCCA), and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We used the best-fit framework synthesis approach and the Social Ecological Model as an a priori framework. We used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess our confidence in the review findings. Results Five studies involving 539 participants were included. One of these studies included participants in a COVID-19 vaccine trial. In three of the studies, participants were asked hypothetically about their attitudes. Another study included people who had either not responded to or declined an invitation to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine trial. We developed six themes outlining the factors that influence a person’s decision to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine trial: (1) personal gains, (2) perceived risk, (3) influence of family and community, (4) contributing for others, (5) institutional trust and mistrust, and (6) accessibility of the trial. Conclusion This review sheds light on how people perceive the potential personal, family, and community advantages of trial participation and how these perceptions may be weighed against concerns about vaccine safety. The findings also point toward specific aspects of trial methodology to consider when designing COVID-19 vaccine trials. Graphical Abstract

Abstract Pneumococcal infections are a serious health issue associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy, effectiveness, immunogenicity, and safety of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV)15 compared to other pneumococcal vaccines or no vaccination in children and adults. We identified 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A meta-analysis of six RCTs in infants showed that PCV15 was non-inferior compared with PCV13 for 12 shared serotypes. Based on a meta-analysis of seven RCTs in adults, PCV15 was non-inferior to PCV13 for 13 shared serotypes. For the unique PCV15 serotypes, 22F and 33F, immune responses were higher in infants and adults vaccinated with PCV15 compared to those receiving PCV13. Regarding safety, meta-analyses indicated comparable risks of adverse events between PCV15 and PCV13 in infants. Adults receiving PCV15 had a slightly higher risk of adverse events, though serious events were similar between groups.

Abstract Background The benefits of randomised trials are not shared equally, and people from ethnic minority groups are a key constituency under-served by clinical research and clinical care. The STRIDE project aimed to give trialists practical information about how to decide which ethnic groups should be in their trials, and at what proportion. Methods We considered trials in six clinical areas: cancer, cardiovascular, diabetes, maternal health, mental health, and smoking cessation. We created a summary for each, including participants–intervention–comparators–outcomes, and data on disease prevalence by ethnicity. These were discussed with panels with clinical expertise, trial and methodology expertise, lived experience, funding, and experience of working with and on behalf of ethnic communities. For each trial, we asked panel members to decide which ethnic groups should have been involved and at what proportion. Results We discussed 23 trials with 40 individual panel members. Panels found our questions difficult to answer. The lack of publicly available data on prevalence by ethnicity was central to this. Where data were available, decision-making was easier but not simple. The discussions led to eight STRIDE recommendations. We recommend that discussions involve diverse teams and that discussions need time, with access to the best available data. In the absence of data or consensus, we recommend the adoption of ‘default’ minimum rates of inclusion, with oversampling considered. These discussions should inform site selection, and the practical challenges of recruitment and retention should not determine which groups are to be included. We also suggest five policy initiatives to support implementation of the recommendations. Broadly, these are (1) funders need to signal that ethnic diversity is expected, (2) trial teams need access to better data, (3) funders and others need to signal that ethnic diversity means better science, (4) more funding is needed for evaluation, and (5) Good Clinical Practice training should cover ethnic diversity. Conclusions Agreeing targets for which ethnic groups to involve in a trial is essential but difficult. Our eight recommendations could help to make trials more ethnically diverse if followed, and we suggest five policy initiatives that would create a supportive environment for their implementation.

Abstract Background A dementia diagnosis can lead to a decline in cognitive, social, and physical health, but people with dementia can live meaningful lives and participate actively in society with psychosocial support. This single-arm, non-randomised feasibility study explored the feasibility and acceptability of a Comprehensive REsilience-building psychoSocial intervenTion (CREST) for people with dementia, their caregivers, General Practitioners (GPs), and the public. Methods Nine people with dementia and their primary caregivers living in the community (n = 9 dyads) completed the CREST intervention which had three components (cognitive stimulation therapy [CST], physical exercise, and dementia education). Quantitative secondary outcomes were assessed at baseline and following the 15-week intervention; qualitative interviews were conducted during and post-intervention. All study components were assessed against pre-defined criteria, to determine the feasibility of conducting a future definitive trial. Results Recruitment of people with dementia and their caregiver was a significant challenge and led to considerable delays to the onset and conduct of the intervention. Only 13% of eligible GP practices agreed to assist in recruitment and achieved a 6% enrolment rate; a community-based recruitment strategy proved more effective, yielding a 29% enrolment rate. However, once recruited, participants maintained high attendance and adherence to the content of each component with average adherence rates of 98% for CST, exercise sessions and caregiver education. Adherence to secondary exercise measures was lower, with home exercise diary completion at 37% and Fitbit wear adherence at 80% during the day and 67% at night. The people with dementia felt their concentration and fitness had improved over the 15-week intervention and particularly enjoyed the social aspects (e.g. group classes, exercising with partners from the community). Caregivers felt they had better knowledge and understanding following their education component and reported that the social aspects (interacting and sharing experiences with each other) were important. Overall, participants reported that the three components of the intervention were feasible and acceptable. In addition, the quantitative measures and health economic tools employed were feasible. However, the secondary elements of the exercise component (recording home exercise diaries and Fitbit use) were not considered feasible. Overall, pre-defined criteria for progression to a definitive intervention were fulfilled in terms of acceptability, retention and fidelity but not recruitment. Conclusion While overall, the CREST intervention was feasible and acceptable to participants, significant difficulties with recruitment of people with dementia and their caregiver through GP practices impacted the viability of delivering the intervention. Recruitment through community-based groups proved a more feasible option and further work is needed to overcome barriers to recruiting this cohort before a larger-scale trial can be conducted. Trial registration ISRCTN25294519.

Objective: The overabundance of health misinformation has undermined people's capacity to make evidence-based, informed choices about their health. Using the Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts (KCs), we are developing a two-stage education programme, Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C), to provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make well-informed choices. Stage 1 seeks to prioritise the most relevant Key Concepts. Methods: A project group and a patient and carer participation group completed a two-round prioritisation process. The process involved disseminating pre-reading materials, training sessions, and a structured judgement form to evaluate concepts for inclusion. Data from each round were analysed to reach a consensus on the concepts to include. Results: Fourteen participants were recruited and completed the first-round prioritisation. Fifteen participants undertook the second-round prioritisation. Nine Key Concepts were selected for the programme across five training sessions and two consensus meetings. Conclusion: The prioritised concepts identified represent the most pertinent aspects of cancer-related information for those impacted by the disease. By incorporating these concepts into educational materials and communication strategies, healthcare providers and organisations can potentially help cancer patients, survivors, and their loved ones to recognise and combat cancer-related misinformation more effectively. Innovation: This study introduces a participatory prioritisation process, which integrates the expertise of healthcare professionals with the insights of patients and carers, thereby enhancing the programme's relevance and applicability.

Background Neonatal encephalopathy (NE) is a multi-organ condition potentially leading to death or long-term neurodisability. Therapeutic hypothermia is the standard treatment for NE; however, long-term impairments remain common. Studies of new treatments for NE often measure and report different outcomes. Core outcome sets (COSs), a minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all studies for a condition, address this problem. This paper aimed to identify outcomes reported (primary, secondary, adverse events and other reported outcomes) in (1) randomised trials and (2) systematic reviews of randomised trials of interventions for the treatment of NE in the process of developing a COS for interventions for the treatment of NE.Methods We completed a systematic search for outcomes used to evaluate treatments for NE using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two reviewers screened all included articles independently. Outcomes were extracted verbatim, similar outcomes were grouped and outcome domains were developed.Results 386 outcomes were reported in 116 papers, from 85 studies. Outcomes were categorised into 18 domains. No outcome was reported by all studies, a single study reported 11 outcomes and it was not explicitly stated that outcomes had input from parents.Discussion Heterogeneity in reported outcomes means that synthesis of studies evaluating new treatments for NE remains difficult. A COS, that includes parental/family input, is needed to ensure consistency in measuring and reporting outcomes, and to enable comparison of randomised trials.

Abstract Background Surgical handover is associated with a significant risk of care failures. Existing research displays methodological deficiencies and little consensus on the outcomes that should be used to evaluate interventions in this area. This paper reports a protocol to develop a core outcome set (COS) to support standardisation, comparability, and evidence synthesis in future studies of surgical handover between doctors. Methods This study adheres to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative guidance for COS development, including the COS-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) and Reporting (COS-STAR) recommendations. It has been registered prospectively on the COMET database and will be led by an international steering group that includes surgical healthcare professionals, researchers, and patient and public partners. An initial list of reported outcomes was generated through a systematic review of interventions to improve surgical handover (PROSPERO: CRD42022363198). Findings of a qualitative evidence synthesis of patient and public perspectives on handover will augment this list, followed by a real-time Delphi survey involving all stakeholder groups. Each Delphi participant will then be invited to take part in at least one online consensus meeting to finalise the COS. Ethics and dissemination This study was approved by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) Research Ethics Committee (202309015, 7th November 2023). Results will be presented at surgical scientific meetings and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. A plain English summary will be disseminated through national websites and social media. The authors aim to integrate the COS into the handover curriculum of the Irish national surgical training body and ensure it is shared internationally with other postgraduate surgical training programmes. Collaborators will be encouraged to share the findings with relevant national health service functions and national bodies. Discussion This study will represent the first published COS for interventions to improve surgical handover, the first use of a real-time Delphi survey in a surgical context, and will support the generation of better-quality evidence to inform best practice. Trial registration Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative 2675. http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2675 .

Abstract Background Evidence synthesis is used by decision-makers in various ways, such as developing evidence-based recommendations for clinical guidelines. Clinical guideline development groups (GDGs) typically discuss evidence synthesis findings in a multidisciplinary group, including patients, healthcare providers, policymakers, etc. A recent mixed methods systematic review (MMSR) identified no gold standard format for optimally presenting evidence synthesis findings to these groups. However, it provided 94 recommendations to help produce more effective summary formats for general evidence syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews). To refine the MMSR recommendations to create more actionable guidance for summary producers, we aimed to explore these 94 recommendations with participants involved in evidence synthesis and guideline development. Methods We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using online focus group workshops in February and March 2023. These groups used a participatory co-design approach with interactive voting activities to identify preferences for a summary format's essential content and style. We created a topic guide focused on recommendations from the MMSR with mixed methods support, ≥ 3 supporting studies, and those prioritized by an expert advisory group via a pragmatic prioritization exercise using the MoSCoW method (Must, Should, Could, and Will not haves). Eligible participants must be/have been involved in GDGs and/or evidence synthesis. Groups were recorded and transcribed. Two independent researchers analyzed transcripts using directed content analysis with 94 pre-defined codes from the MMSR. Results Thirty individuals participated in six focus groups. We coded 79 of the 94 pre-defined codes. Participants suggested a “less is more” structured approach that minimizes methodological steps and statistical data, promoting accessibility to all audiences by judicious use of links to further information in the full report. They emphasized concise, consistently presented formats that highlight key messages, flag readers to indicators of trust in the producers (i.e., logos, websites, and conflict of interest statements), and highlight the certainty of evidence (without extenuating details). Conclusions This study identified guidance based on the preferences of guideline developers and evidence synthesis producers about the format of evidence synthesis summaries to support decision-making. The next steps involve developing and user-testing prototype formats through one-on-one semi-structured interviews to optimize evidence synthesis summaries and support decision-making.

Abstract Background Delphi surveys are commonly used to prioritise critical outcomes in core outcome set (COS) development. This trial aims to compare a three-round (Multi-Round) Delphi (MRD) with a Real-Time Delphi (RTD) in the prioritisation of outcomes for inclusion in a COS for neonatal encephalopathy treatments and explore whether ‘feedback’, ‘iteration’, and ‘initial condition’ effects may occur in the two survey methods. Methods We recruited 269 participants (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers/academics) of which 222 were randomised to either the MRD or the RTD. We investigated the outcomes prioritised in each survey and the ‘feedback’, ‘iteration’, and ‘initial condition’ effects to identify differences between the two survey methods. Results In the RTD, n = 92 participants (83%) fully completed the survey. In the MRD, n = 60 participants (54%) completed all three rounds. Of the 92 outcomes presented, 26 (28%) were prioritised differently between the RTD and MRD. Significantly fewer participants amended their scores when shown stakeholder responses in the RTD compared to the MRD (‘feedback effect’). The ‘iteration effect’ analysis found most experts appeared satisfied with their initial ratings in the RTD and did not amend their scores following stakeholder response feedback. Where they did amend their scores, ratings were amended substantially, suggesting greater convergence. Variance in scores reduced with subsequent rounds of the MRD (‘iteration effect’). Whilst most participants did not change their initial scores in the RTD, of those that did, later recruits tended to align their final score more closely to the group mean final score than earlier recruits (an ‘initial condition’ effect). Conclusion The feedback effect differed between the two Delphi methods but the magnitude of this difference was small and likely due to the large number of observations rather than because of a meaningfully large difference. It did not appear to be advantageous to require participants to engage in three rounds of a survey due to the low change in scores. Larger drop-out through successive rounds in the MRD, together with a lesser convergence of scores and longer time to completion, indicate considerable benefits of the RTD approach. Trial registration NCT04471103. Registered on 14 July 2020.

Abstract Background Public and patient involvement aims to improve research quality, relevance, and appropriateness. Despite an increasing evidence base on the influence of public involvement in health research, the role of involvement in methodology research (i.e. research that aims to enhance the quality and rigour of research) is less clear. Using a qualitative case study, we explored public involvement in a research priority-setting partnership in rapid review methodology (Priority III) to give practical insights to inform public involvement in priority-setting for future methodological research. Methods Participant observation, documentary analysis, interviews and focus groups were used to explore the processes of Priority III and identify the views and experiences of the participants of a steering group (n = 26) regarding public involvement in Priority III. We used a case study research design and conducted two focus groups with five public partners; one focus group with four researchers; and seven one-to-one interviews with researchers and public partners. Nine episodes of participant observation of meetings were conducted. All data were analysed using template analysis. Results The findings of this case study present three themes and six subthemes: Theme 1 We all bring unique qualities to the table. Subtheme 1.1—Coming from different perspectives towards shared-decision making; Subtheme 1.2—Public partners bring pragmatism and grounding in reality; Theme 2 We need support and space at the table. Subtheme 2.1—Define and develop support needed for meaningful involvement; Subtheme 2.2—Creating safe space to listen, challenge and learn; Theme 3 We all benefit from working together. Subtheme 3.1—Reciprocity in mutual learning and capacity building; Subtheme 3.2—Relationships as partners in research, with a feeling of togetherness. Communication and trust, as inclusive ways of working, underpinned the partnership approach to involvement. Conclusions This case study contributes to knowledge on public involvement in research by explaining the supportive strategies, spaces, attitudes and behaviours that enabled a productive working partnership to develop between a team of researchers and public partners in this research context.

BackgroundEffective antiretroviral therapy (ART) has improved the life expectancy of people with HIV (PWH). However, this population is now experiencing accelerated age-related comorbidities, contributed to by chronic immune activation and inflammation, with dysbiosis of the gut microbiome also implicated.MethodWe conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane reviews and international conference abstracts for articles that examined for the following non-communicable diseases (NCDs); cardiovascular disease, cancer, frailty, metabolic, bone, renal and neurocognitive disease, in PWH aged >18 years. Studies were included that measured gut microbiome diversity and composition, microbial translocation markers or microbial metabolite markers.ResultsIn all, 567 articles were identified and screened of which 87 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 56 were included in the final review. The data suggest a high burden NCD, in particular cardiovascular and metabolic disease in PWH. Alterations in bacterial diversity and structure varied by NCD type, but a general trend in reduced diversity was seen together with alterations in bacterial abundances between different NCD. Lipopolysaccharide was the most commonly investigated marker of microbial translocation across NCD followed by soluble CD14. Short-chain fatty acids, tryptophan and choline metabolites were associated with cardiovascular outcomes and also associated with chronic liver disease (CLD).ConclusionsThis systematic review is the first to summarise the evidence for the association between gut microbiome dysbiosis and NCDs in PWH. Understanding this interaction will provide insights into the pathogenesis of many NCD and help develop novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for PWH.

Background Misinformation represents a serious and growing concern for public health and healthcare health; and has attracted much interest from researchers, media, and the public over recent years. Despite increased concern about the impacts of misinformation on health and wellbeing, however, the concept of health misinformation remains underdeveloped. In particular, there is a need to clarify how certain types of health information come to be designated as “misinformation,” what characteristics are associated with this classification, and how the concept of misinformation is applied in health contexts. Aim Developing a shared understanding of what it means for health information to be “misinformation” is an important first step to accurately identifying at-risk groups, clarifying pathways of vulnerability, and agreeing goals for intervention. It will also help to ensure that misinformation interventions are accessible, acceptable, and of benefit to the populations to which they are directed. We will therefore examine the characteristics, measurement, and applications of misinformation in health contexts. Methods We will undertake a hybrid concept analysis, following a framework from Schwartz-Barcott & Kim (2000). This framework comprises three phases: a theoretical phase, fieldwork phase, and final analysis phase. In the theoretical phase, a search of seven electronic citation databases (PsycInfo, socINDEX, JSTOR, CINAHL, Scopus, MEDLINE and PubMed Central via PubMed, and ScienceDirect) will be conducted in order to identify original research, review, and theoretical papers, published in English between 2016 and 2022, which examine “health misinformation.” Data from the literature will be synthesised using evolutionary concept analysis methods from Rodgers (2000). In the fieldwork phase, a purposive sampling strategy will be employed to recruit stakeholders for participation in semi-structured interviews. Interviews will be analysed using thematic analysis. The final phase will integrate findings from the theoretical and fieldwork analyses.

Background Randomised controlled trials (‘trials’) are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted. Objectives PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial. Design A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Setting Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible. Participants Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom. Interventions Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial. Main outcome measures Number of host trials funded. Results Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials. Limitations The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed (n = 2) or prematurely terminated (n = 3). Conclusions PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial. Future work Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice. Study registration All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Aims of the research A Study Within A Trial is a research study nested inside a larger ‘host trial’, promoting the use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to do Study Within A Trial routine practice in clinical trial units by funding and supporting at least 25 Studies Within A Trial. Background The best way to test health and social care treatments is to do a randomised controlled trial (‘trial’), where some patients get the treatment being tested and some do not. The results of different groups are compared to see if the treatment improves care. Recruiting patients and keeping them involved in trials is often very difficult. Research teams often do not know how best to recruit and keep patients engaged as the methods have not been tested to see if they work. The best way to test these methods is by doing a Study Within A Trial. We test a programme of Studies Within A Trial for recruiting and keeping patients engaged in trials. Methods Trial teams were able to apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from Promoting the use of Study Within A Trial team to do Studies Within A Trial. We used our experience of doing Studies Within A Trial to outline lessons learnt for doing Studies Within A Trial. Results We funded 42 Studies Within A Trial and gave teams necessary advice to do them. We significantly increased the knowledge for both recruitment and retention strategies, and found ‘pre-notifying’ before sending questionnaires, sending pens and personalised text messages were all effective for increasing responses by participants. We tested Studies Within A Trial across several different trials at the same time to find out more quickly whether their methods worked. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others doing Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient partners; picking the right strategy to test; getting ethical approvals; how to do and report Studies Within A Trial. Conclusions Promoting the use of studies within a trial was successful and supported more Studies Within A Trial than planned. We hope our experience will support those doing Studies Within A Trial in the future. Scientific summary Background Many delivery aspects of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have not been subjected to rigorous evaluation. Strategies to enhance recruitment and retention often tend to not be based on evidence. However, there is an increasing interest in embedding RCTs of such strategies. The Medical Research Council (MRC) funded systematic techniques for assisting recruitment to trials (START), which found it feasible to test two strategies for recruitment and retention across a number of trials by performing randomised ‘Studies Within A Trial (SWATs)’. Aims The aim of the PROMoting THE USE of Studies Within A Trial (PROMETHEUS) programme was to build on the START initiative and make embedding SWATs standard practice across Clinical Trials Units (CTUs). We intended to pump prime and facilitate the start of at least 25 SWATs across multiple CTUs within 30 months. The ultimate aim was to make the inclusion of SWATs routine when conducting a trial in a CTU. We share our experience of delivering the PROMETHEUS programme, along with the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised SWATs of recruitment and retention methods. Methods A network of 10 CTUs and one primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled SWATs of recruitment and/or retention interventions was established by the PROMETHEUS team. We identified promising recruitment and retention interventions from a variety of sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Northern Ireland Network for Trial Methodology Research SWAT Repository Store, and existing prioritisation exercises. Promising strategies were reviewed by our patient and public (PPI) members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. The programme allowed host trial teams to apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from the PROMETHEUS team to design, implement and report SWATs. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated SWATs, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Results The PROMETHEUS programme funded 42 SWATs, embedded within 31 host trials, across 12 CTUs. The mean cost of a funded SWAT was £3535. Of the 42 SWATs, 12 tested the same SWAT across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated SWAT design and four tested more than one strategy in a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. In the space of just 4 years, PROMETHEUS will add 18% more SWATs to the Cochrane review of global recruitment strategies, and 79% more SWATs to the Cochrane review of global retention strategies. The results from the SWATs reported to date found there was no evidence of a significant difference in recruitment for any of the strategies tested. For retention, pre-notifying participants by card prior to sending questionnaires was effective [risk difference 3.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) −3.0% to 9.6%]; as was pre-notifying participants by letter or e-mail (risk difference 3.8%, 95% CI −6.1% to 13.6%). Sending personalised text messages was more effective for improving the return of postal questionnaires compared to non-personalised text messages (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); and resulted in fewer completions via telephone compared with a non-personalised text [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.87]. Including a pen with a questionnaire probably increases retention and response rate (pooled OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.35). We highlight key lessons learnt below (see Recommendations section). Conclusions The PROMETHEUS programme significantly increased the international evidence base for both recruitment and retention strategies within RCTs. The funded SWATs evaluated a wide range of recruitment and retention strategies; however, the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five funded SWATs, with two being delayed and three prematurely terminated. Through this project, we identified that when provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented SWATs. PROMETHEUS led to an overall increase in the evidence base; however, ongoing ‘routine’ application of SWATs across RCTs employing the lessons learnt is required to ensure that efficient trial conduct strategies are identified. Recommendations Recommendations for funders All trial funders should contribute to the effort to improve the efficiency of trials. Funders should encourage the teams that they fund to undertake SWATs. Funding streams specifically designed to support SWATs must be made available to trial teams to continue building the trial process evidence base, for recruitment and retention as well as for other stages of the trial design and delivery process. This includes funding streams for undertaking specific SWATs, as well as infrastructure funding to support CTUs and other centres to undertake co-ordination activities that will support the design, conduct, reporting, and implementation of SWATs and their findings to inform the work of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the MRC, and other funders. PROMETHEUS has demonstrated that co-ordination of activity remains crucial to the delivery of SWATs. A central, national co-ordination point that provides hands-on support needs to continue and funding should be allocated for this. Additionally, CTUs should identify a lead for SWATs, to support SWAT activities and evidence-based trial conduct within the CTU, as well as links with others undertaking SWATs elsewhere to share best practice. The funding for both central and CTU-based support should be ongoing. SWAT priorities need to be identified and communicated clearly to funders, and funders should use these priorities to inform their funding decisions. Funders should develop a mechanism to promote SWAT questions that have been identified as a priority during the funding application process. The mean cost of funding requested for a standalone SWAT within PROMETHEUS was £3535 (range £500–5000). The co-ordinated SWATs cost was £10,668 (training SWAT) and £1306.40 (Christmas cards); however, these did not include costs for central co-ordination, data preparation and sharing by the host trial teams, data cleaning, analysis and write-up. These costs suggest that the £10,000 being offered by the NIHR for trial teams to include a SWAT should be sufficient for most planned SWATs. However, there may be occasions where trial teams may wish to test strategies that may be more expensive. When applying for SWAT funding, trial teams should be asked to indicate whether the question they are addressing is a priority SWAT question, and to provide a clear rationale for selecting that particular question. If teams are unable to undertake a SWAT, funders should ask that recruitment and retention methods are clearly reported to support the evidence base. Recommendations for Sponsors Our experience suggests that there is a need for clear, easily accessible information about the nature of SWATs, as well as the role of the funder in supporting SWATs. Any future changes proposed by the Health Research Authority (HRA) to the approvals process need to be communicated clearly and applied consistently to each SWAT. Recommendations for involving patient and public involvement partners in Studies Within A Trial research PPI should be considered when undertaking a SWAT, in the same way PPI is expected to be undertaken in the main trial. PPI partners should be involved to develop novel and untested recruitment and retention strategies, as well as to adapt existing strategies to the context of their specific host trial and the population being enrolled. Recommendations for oversight committees Our experience suggests that Trial Management Groups (TMGs) play a key role in decisions about whether a SWAT is undertaken and continued in the host trial or not. TMG members should encourage the uptake of SWATs in their trials. While the findings of SWATs may not always directly inform their host trial, the findings of SWATs undertaken during the early, or internal pilot, phase of the trial may inform the decisions about which strategies should be used at a later stage, such as in the main trial. Trial Steering Committees should review the SWAT activity and progress, in the same way that they review substudies in a trial. Data Monitoring Committee review is dependent on the specific host trial and SWAT strategy being evaluated. Recommendations for journals and reviewers Journal peer reviewer profiles should be updated to include methodological interests and expertise, to support evidence of suitability to undertake a peer review for a SWAT. When selecting peer reviewers, the SWAT and methodology interests as registered by reviewers should be used where possible. SWATs are a niche area and so to increase the pool of reviewers, journals should consider being more flexible when assessing reviewer credentials to review a SWAT, such as allowing relevant experience in place of a PhD. Reviewers should be advised that in many instances informed consent from participants need not be obtained when undertaking a SWAT, due to the low risk associated with the intervention and in the case of retention SWATs due to existing consent for further research being in place. This may depend on the jurisdiction. In the UK, this approach is supported by HRA guidance in relation to grading for SWAT interventions and approvals. Robust and transparent reporting is necessary, that is compliant with CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Recommendations for trial teams and methodologists undertaking SWAT research There remains a need for continually updated research priorities to allow researchers to address the questions relevant at that time. When SWAT priorities are set, methodologists need to provide enough information to enable teams to make informed decisions about evaluating the priorities set. Further work is needed to help teams identify suitable SWAT strategies for their host trials. SWAT priorities need to be communicated clearly and consistently to trial teams. Recommendation for trial conduct and using SWAT evidence As the evidence base develops for effective and cost-effective recruitment and retention strategies, it will become increasingly important for trial teams to use this evidence base to inform their recruitment and retention activities. Trial teams need to actively engage with the evidence base to inform their practice. Funders will need to actively support the trials they fund to use evidence-informed recruitment and retention strategies. Recommendations for future research There remains a substantial need for more high-quality SWAT evidence and so Chief Investigators should be encouraged to consider the embedding of a SWAT at the funding stage. Further work is therefore needed to increase the awareness of the methodological importance of SWAT research with research teams, and to develop engagement strategies to increase SWAT activity. Future research needs to focus on identifying whether further replications are needed for existing evidence. If so, the gaps in the evidence base should be targeted. More co-ordination and replication of SWAT evaluations are encouraged. A ‘real-time’ and dynamic communication strategy including a clear cost and resource breakdown for each suggested SWAT should be developed. This will alleviate the burden on trials teams to begin costing exercises and enable them to make an informed decision more quickly as to whether they can embed a given SWAT. There is a need to aid teams to identify and select a suitable SWAT for their host trial populations. Pragmatic decisions on which SWAT may be appropriate and feasible to include should be taken as required. A mechanism to communicate SWAT research priorities is needed, and this information needs to be readily accessible for all trialists to refer to. Our findings demonstrate that within an individual host trial, there is often a capacity to address more than one SWAT question, either separately, or simultaneously using a factorial design. This suggests that there is a capacity to significantly speed up and strengthen the evidence base through teams undertaking more than one SWAT in their trials where relevant. For certain strategies, co-ordinated SWATs should be encouraged. This method could be used to rapidly replicate SWAT evaluations to plug the evidence gap, as well as to evaluate more complex recruitment and retention strategies that may be more challenging to undertake using individual SWATs. Materials should be developed to advise teams on how to undertake co-ordinated SWATs, as well as a method of networking to enable teams to promote their co-ordinated SWAT and collaborate. As the evidence base develops, it will become increasingly important for trialists to utilise the evidence base in a systematic way to identify both effective and ineffective strategies to inform their practice. Future work should therefore consider issues around the dissemination and implementation of SWATs and develop guidance to enable the wider trials community to undertake, report and adopt the findings of SWATs. Implementation science, the study of methods to promote the uptake of evidence-based practice, could be used to inform any such future work. Funders can also help by questioning strategies proposed by trial teams that are known to be either ineffective or not cost-effective. Improving the knowledge of the potential ‘harms’ from implementing interventions that have no evidence of benefit is an important next step to help improve uptake. While establishing the effectiveness of recruitment or retention strategies is important, the high costs of research waste and limited public finance mean that cost considerations around SWATs are just as important. With only one retention strategy having high Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) certainty of cost effectiveness, we encourage trial teams to undertake streamlined economic evaluations alongside all their SWATs in the future, for strategies shown to be effective, as well as those that are ineffective. For cost effectiveness, trial teams should look to report the cost per additional participant recruited or retained (i.e. the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). Value of information analyses can help determine the need for further SWAT evidence where several SWATs already exist. Many trial teams wish to contribute to developing the evidence base by undertaking non-randomised SWATs. Future work that informs the development of guidance for undertaking non-randomised SWATs would be helpful. Working with trial teams to develop engagement strategies and training to undertake SWATs would be beneficial. Audience specific guidance should be developed to support SWAT research. Trial teams have expressed they want to undertake SWATs that are important and necessary to increase the evidence base. Collaboration with funders, working groups involved in priority setting, and trial teams is needed to develop a mechanism to communicate this dynamic and evolving information once priority SWATs have been identified. Work is needed to identify the barriers that teams have when undertaking a SWAT, and strategies and solutions for addressing these barriers should be identified and implemented. Continued and proactive collaboration is needed with working groups to enable networking, and collaboration with teams undertaking SWAT research. Reporting guidance is needed to support teams when writing publications to ensure sufficient information is included to GRADE evaluation can be undertaken. Study registration All SWATs in the PROMETHEUS programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository. Funding details This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Summary: Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)—thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded.

Abstract Introduction Clinical guideline development often involves a rigorous synthesis of evidence involving multidisciplinary stakeholders with different priorities and knowledge of evidence synthesis; this makes communicating findings complex. Summary formats are typically used to communicate the results of evidence syntheses; however, there is little consensus on which formats are most effective and acceptable for different stakeholders. Methods This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability (e.g. preferences and attitudes and preferences towards) of evidence synthesis summary formats for GDG members. We followed the PRISMA 2020 guideline and Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis for MMSRs. We searched six databases (inception to April 20, 2021) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RCTs with a qualitative component, and qualitative studies. Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed in duplicate. Qualitative findings were synthesised using meta-aggregation, and quantitative findings are described narratively. Results We identified 17,240 citations and screened 54 full-text articles, resulting in 22 eligible articles (20 unique studies): 4 articles reported the results of 5 RCTs, one of which also had a qualitative component. The other 18 articles discussed the results of 16 qualitative studies. Therefore, we had 5 trials and 17 qualitative studies to extract data from. Studies were geographically heterogeneous and included a variety of stakeholders and summary formats. All 5 RCTs assessed knowledge or understanding with 3 reporting improvement with newer formats. The qualitative analysis identified 6 categories of recommendations: ‘presenting information’, ‘tailoring information’ for end users, ‘trust in producers and summary’, ‘knowledge required’ to understand findings, ‘quality of evidence’, and properly ‘contextualising information’. Across these categories, the synthesis resulted in 126 recommendations for practice. Nine recommendations were supported by both quantitative and qualitative evidence and 116 by only qualitative. A majority focused on how to present information (n = 64) and tailor content for different end users (n = 24). Conclusions This MMSR provides guidance on how to improve evidence summary structure and layout. This can be used by synthesis producers to better communicate to GDGs. Study findings will inform the co-creation of evidence summary format prototypes based on GDG member’s needs. Trial registration The protocol for this project was previously published, and the project was preregistered on Open Science Framework (Clyne and Sharp, Evidence synthesis and translation of findings for national clinical guideline development: addressing the needs and preferences of guideline development groups, 2021; Sharp and Clyne, Evidence synthesis summary formats for decision-makers and Clinical Guideline Development Groups: A mixed-methods systematic review protocol, 2021).

Objectives We aimed to develop a video animation knowledge translation (KT) resource to explain the purpose, use and importance of evidence synthesis to the public regarding healthcare decision-making. Methods We drew on a user-centred design approach to develop a spoken animated video (SAV) by conducting two cycles of idea generation, prototyping, user testing, analysis, and refinement. Six researchers identified the initial key messages of the SAV and informed the first draft of the storyboard and script. Seven members of the public provided input on this draft and the key messages through think-aloud interviews, which we used to develop an SAV prototype. Seven additional members of the public participated in think-aloud interviews while watching the video prototype. All members of the public also completed a questionnaire on perceived usefulness, desirability, clarity and credibility. We subsequently synthesised all data to develop the final SAV. Results Researchers identified the initial key messages as 1) the importance of evidence synthesis, 2) what an evidence synthesis is and 3) how evidence synthesis can impact healthcare decision-making. Members of the public rated the initial video prototype as 9/10 for usefulness, 8/10 for desirability, 8/10 for clarity and 9/10 for credibility. Using their guidance and feedback, we produced a three-and-a-half-minute video animation. The video was uploaded on YouTube, has since been translated into two languages, and viewed over 12,000 times to date. Conclusions Drawing on user-centred design methods provided a structured and transparent approach to the development of our SAV. Involving members of the public enhanced the credibility and usefulness of the resource. Future work could explore involving the public from the outset to identify key messages in developing KT resources explaining methodological topics. This study describes the systematic development of a KT resource with limited resources and provides transferrable learnings for others wishing to do similar.

Plain English summary Women/couples who have recurrent/repeated miscarriages should receive care that meets their needs, through agreed care pathways. This is often not the case. Key performance indicators (KPIs) are measures of specific elements of care (structures, processes and/or outcomes), which can help us to judge the quality of care given. In this paper, we describe how we worked with women and men with lived experience, doctors, nurses, managers, and others, to develop and agree on a list KPIs for recurrent miscarriage care in Ireland. We will use these to check what services are doing across the country and what could be done better. Participants filled out surveys and took part in meetings to vote on and agree on what KPIs were important to include. They also shared their views and experiences of taking part in this work. Together, we developed 110 KPIs for recurrent miscarriage care. These include measures of how care is structured, counselling and supports, investigations and treatments provided, and health-related outcomes. Participants’ valued the different views that people brought to discussions and what they learned. They suggested ways that the process could be made more participant-friendly. For example, being up-front about the time it would take, explaining medical terms more, and cutting down on the number of items to be rated in surveys. It is important and possible to develop KPIs with different groups, particularly those with lived experience. Learning from our study may help others who want to do similar projects, such as develop KPIs or guidelines for care.

Abstract Background Randomised trials are considered the gold standard in providing robust evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. However, there are relatively few initiatives to help increase public understanding of what randomised trials are and why they are important. This limits the overall acceptance of and public participation in clinical trials. The People’s Trial aims to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims by actively involving them in all aspects of trial design. This was done by involving the public in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial. Methods Using a reflexive approach, we describe the processes of development, conduct, and dissemination of The People’s Trial. Results Over 3000 members of the public, from 72 countries, participated in The People’s Trial. Through a series of online surveys, the public designed a trial called The Reading Trial. They chose the question the trial would try to answer and decided the components of the trial question. In December 2019, 991 participants were recruited to a trial to answer the question identified and prioritised by the public, i.e. ‘Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison with not reading a book in bed?’ We report the processes of The People’s Trial in seven phases, paralleling the steps of a randomised trial, i.e. question identification and prioritisation, recruitment, randomisation, trial conduct, data analysis, and sharing of findings. We describe the decisions we made, the processes we used, the challenges we encountered, and the lessons we learned. Conclusion The People’s Trial involved the public successfully in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial demonstrating the potential for such initiatives to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818 . Registered on 4 December 2019

Abstract Background The best way of comparing healthcare treatments is through a randomised trial. In a randomised trial, we compare something (a treatment or intervention) to something else, often another treatment. Who gets what is decided at random, meaning everyone has an equal chance of getting any of the treatments. This means any differences found can be put down to the treatment received rather than other things, such as where people live, or health conditions they might have. The People’s Trial aimed to help the public better understand randomised trials by inviting them to design and carry out a trial. The question chosen by the public for The People’s Trial was: ‘Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep, in comparison to not reading a book in bed?’ This paper describes that trial, called ‘The Reading Trial’. Methods The Reading Trial was an online, randomised trial. Members of the public were invited to take part through social media campaigns. People were asked to either read a book in bed before going to sleep (intervention group) or not read a book in bed before going to sleep (control group). We asked everyone to do this for 7 days, after which they measured their sleep quality. Results During December 2019, a total of 991 people took part in The Reading Trial, half (496 (50%)) in the intervention group and half (495 (50%)) in the control group. Not everyone finished the trial: 127 (25.6%) people in the intervention group and 90 (18.18%) people in the control group. Of those providing data, 156/369 (42%) people in the intervention group felt their sleep improved, compared to 112/405 (28%) of those in the control group, a difference of 14%. When we consider how certain we are of this finding, we estimate that, in The Reading Trial, sleep improved for between 8 and 22% more people in the intervention group compared to the control group. Conclusions Reading a book in bed before going to sleep improved sleep quality, compared to not reading a book in bed. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818. Registered on 4 December 2019.

Abstract Background Concerns regarding reduced fetal movements (RFM) are reported in 5–15% of pregnancies, and RFM are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes including fetal growth restriction and stillbirth. Studies have aimed to improve pregnancy outcomes by evaluating interventions to raise awareness of RFM in pregnancy, such as kick counting, evaluating interventions for the clinical management of RFM, or both. However, there is not currently a core outcome set (COS) for studies of RFM. This study aims to create a COS for use in research studies that aim to raise awareness of RFM and/or evaluate interventions for the clinical management of RFM. Methods A systematic review will be conducted, to identify outcomes used in randomised and non-randomised studies with control groups that aimed to raise awareness of RFM (for example by using mindfulness techniques, fetal movement counting, or other tools such as leaflets or mobile phone applications) and/or that evaluated the clinical management of RFM. An international Delphi consensus will then be used whereby stakeholders will rate the importance of the outcomes identified in the systematic review in (i) awareness and (ii) clinical management studies. The preliminary lists of outcomes will be discussed at a consensus meeting where one final COS for awareness and management, or two discrete COS (one for awareness and one for management), will be agreed upon. Discussion A well-developed COS will provide researchers with the minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in studies that aim to quantify the effects of interventions.

Introduction: The health of women in rural communities is adversely impacted by increased rates of tobacco use linked to socio-economic disadvantage (SED) and by limited access to services. We Can Quit (WCQ) is a smoking cessation programme delivered by trained lay women (community facilitators) in local communities, which was developed using a Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach and tailored to women living in SED areas of Ireland.Methods: The We Can Quit2 (WCQ2) pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with an inbuilt process evaluation was conducted in four matched pairs of urban and semi-rural SED districts (8-10,000 women per district) to assess feasibility. Districts were independently randomised to WCQ (group support +/- nicotine replacement therapy), or to individual support delivered by health professionals.Results: Findings showed that that the WCQ outreach programme is acceptable and feasible to implement for smoking women living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. A secondary outcome of smoking abstinence (self-report + biochemical validation) demonstrated 27% abstinence in the intervention group versus 17% in usual care at end of programme. Low literacy was highlighted as a major barrier to participants’ acceptability.Discussion: The design of our project provides an affordable solution for governments in prioritising outreach smoking cessation in vulnerable populations in countries with rising rates of female lung cancer. Our community-based model using a CBPR approach empowers local women to become trained to deliver smoking cessation programmes within their own local communities. This provides a foundation to create a sustainable and equitable way to address tobacco use in rural communities.

Background Paediatric trials must contend with many challenges that adult trials face but often bring additional obstacles. Decentralised trials, where some or all trial methods occur away from a centralised location, are a promising strategy to help meet these challenges. This scoping review aims to (a) identify what methods and tools have been used to create and conduct entirely online-decentralised trials with children and (b) determine the gaps in the knowledge in this field. This review will describe the methods used in these trials to identify their facilitators and the gaps in the knowledge. Methods The methods were informed by guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. We systematically searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Embase databases, trial registries, pre-print servers, and the internet. We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials conducted entirely online with participants under 18 published in English. A risk of bias assessment was completed for all included studies. Results Twenty-one trials met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants was 14.6 years. Social media was the most common method of online recruitment. Most trials employed an external host website to store and protect their data. Duration of trials ranged from single-session interventions up to ten weeks. Fourteen trials compensated participants. Eight trials involved children in their trial design process; none reported compensation for this. Most trials had a low risk of bias in “random sequence generation”, “selective reporting”, and “other”. Most trials had a high risk of bias in “blinding participants and personnel”, “blinding of outcome assessment”, and “incomplete outcome data”. “Allocation concealment” was unclear in most studies. Conclusions There was a lack of transparent reporting of the recruitment, randomisation, and retention methods used in many of the trials included in this review. Patient and public involvement (PPI) was not common, and the compensation of PPI partners was not reported in any study. Consent methods and protection against fraudulent entries to trials were creative and thoroughly discussed by some trials and not addressed by others. More work and thorough reporting of how these trials are conducted is needed to increase their reproducibility and quality. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was not necessary since all data sources used are publicly available.

Background: Few areas of health have been as insidiously influenced by misinformation as cancer. Thus, interventions that can help people impacted by cancer reduce the extent to which they are victims of misinformation are necessary. The Informed Health Choices (IHC) initiative has developed Key Concepts that can be used in the development of interventions for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of health treatments. We are developing an online education programme called Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C) based on the IHC Key Concepts. We will provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make informed choices. Methods: We will establish a steering group (SG) of 12 key stakeholders, including oncology specialists and academics. In addition, we will establish a patient and public involvement (PPI) panel of 20 people impacted by cancer. After training the members on the Key Concepts and the prioritisation process, we will conduct a two-round prioritisation process. In the first round, 12 SG members and four PPI panel members will prioritise Key Concepts for inclusion. In the second round, the remaining 16 PPI members will undertake the prioritisation based on the prioritised Key Concepts from the first round. Participants in both rounds will use a structured judgement form to rate the importance of the Key Concepts for inclusion in the online IHC-C programme. A consensus meeting will be held, where members will reach a consensus on the Key Concepts to be included and rank the order in which the prioritised Key Concepts will be addressed in the IHC-C programme. Conclusions: At the end of this process, we will identify which Key Concepts should be included and the order in which they should be addressed in the IHC-C programme.

Abstract Background Ensuring that a trial is designed so that its participants reflect those who might benefit from the results, or be spared harms, is key to the potential benefits of the trial reaching all they should. This paper describes the process, facilitated by Trial Forge, that was used between July 2019 and October 2020 to develop the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework, part of the wider INCLUDE initiative from the National Institute for Health Research to improve inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research studies. Methods Development of the Framework was done in seven phases: (1) outline, (2) initial draft, (3) stakeholder meeting, (4) modify draft, (5) Stakeholder feedback, (6) applying the Framework and (7) packaging. Phases 2 and 3 were face-to-face meetings. Consultation with stakeholders was iterative, especially phases 4 to 6. Movement to the next phase was done once all or most stakeholders were comfortable with the results of the current phase. When there was a version of the Framework that could be considered final, the Framework was applied to six trials to create a set of examples (phase 6). Finally, the Framework, guidance and examples were packaged ready for dissemination (phase 7). Results A total of 40 people from stakeholder groups including patient and public partners, clinicians, funders, academics working with various ethnic groups, trial managers and methodologists contributed to the seven phases of development. The Framework comprises two parts. The first part is a list of four key questions: 1. Who should my trial apply to? 2. Are the groups identified likely to respond in different ways? 3. Will my study intervention make it harder for some groups to engage? 4. Will the way I have designed the study make it harder for some groups to engage? The second part is a set of worksheets to help trial teams address these questions. The Framework can be used for any stage of trial, for a healthcare intervention in any disease area. The Framework was launched on 1st October 2020 and is available open access at the Trial Forge website: https://www.trialforge.org/trial-forge-centre/include/ . Conclusion Thinking about the number of people in our trials is not enough: we need to start thinking more carefully about who our participants are.

Abstract Background The Delphi method is used in a wide variety of settings as a method of building consensus on important issues. Traditionally, the Delphi method uses multiple rounds of a survey to allow for feedback of other participants’ survey responses in between rounds. By informing participants about how others answer a question or prioritise specific topics, it allows for diverse opinions to inform the consensus process. For this reason, the Delphi method is popular as a consensus building approach in developing core outcome sets (COS), i.e. the minimum agreed set of standardised outcomes that should be measured and reported in studies on a specific health condition. In a COS setting, participants prioritise the importance of outcomes for inclusion in a COS. This usually involves participating in multiple rounds of a survey that can span several weeks or months. Challenges with participant retention have been highlighted in previous COS. We will compare a three-round with a Real-Time Delphi approach on prioritised outcomes. This trial is embedded within the COHESION study which is developing a COS for interventions treating neonatal encephalopathy. Methods One hundred and eighty stakeholders (parents/caregivers of infants diagnosed and treated with neonatal encephalopathy, healthcare providers and researchers) will be randomised using stratified randomisation to take part in either the Multi-Round or Real-Time Delphi. Stakeholders will rate the importance of the same set of outcomes in both arms. We will compare the prioritised outcomes at the end of both surveys as well as other parameters such as feedback, initial condition and iteration effects. Discussion This trial will provide evidence to inform decisions on the use of Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi survey methods. Trial registration NCT04471103 . Registered on 14 July 2020.

Abstract Background Post-term pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of maternal complications, respiratory distress and trauma to the neonate. Amniotic membrane sweeping has been recommended as a simple procedure to promote the spontaneous onset of labour. However, despite its widespread use, there is an absence of evidence on (a) its effectiveness and (b) its optimal timing and frequency. The primary aim of the MILO Study is to inform the optimal design of a future definitive randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness (including optimal timing and frequency) of membrane sweeping to prevent post-term pregnancy. We will also assess the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed trial interventions to clinicians and women (through focus group interviews). Methods/design Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial with an embedded factorial design. Pregnant women with a live, singleton foetus ≥ 38 weeks gestation; cephalic presentation; longitudinal lie; intact membranes; English speaking and ≥ 18 years of age will be randomised in a 2:1 ratio to membrane sweep versus no membrane sweep. Women allocated randomly to a sweep will then be randomised further (factorial component) to early (from 39 weeks) versus late (from 40 weeks) sweep commencement and a single versus weekly sweep. The proposed feasibility study consists of four work packages, i.e. (1) a multicentre, pilot randomised trial; (2) a health economic analysis; (3) a qualitative study; and (4) a study within the host trial (a SWAT). Outcomes to be collected include recruitment and retention rates, compliance with protocol, randomisation and allocation processes, attrition rates and cost-effectiveness. Focus groups will be held with women and clinicians to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed intervention, study procedures and perceived barriers and enablers to recruitment. Discussion The primary aim of the MILO Study is to inform the optimal design of a future definitive randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness (including optimal timing and frequency) of membrane sweeping to prevent post-term pregnancy. Results will inform whether and how the design of the definitive trial as originally envisaged should be delivered or adapted. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04307199 . Registered on 12 March 2020

Abstract Background Neonatal encephalopathy is a complex syndrome in infants that predominantly affects the brain and other organs. The leading cause is a lack of oxygen in the blood reaching the brain. Neonatal encephalopathy can result in mortality or complications later in life, including seizures, movement disorders and cerebral palsy. Treatment options for neonatal encephalopathy are limited mainly to therapeutic hypothermia, although other potential treatments are emerging. However, evaluations of the effectiveness of treatments are challenging because of heterogeneity and inconsistency in outcomes measured and reported between trials. In this paper, we detail how we will develop a core outcome set to standardise outcomes measured and reported upon for interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. Methods We will systematically review the literature to identify outcomes reported previously in randomised trials and systematic reviews of randomised trials. We will identify outcomes important to parents or caregivers of infants diagnosed with and who have received treatment for neonatal encephalopathy. We will do this by conducting in person or by video teleconferencing interviews with parents or caregivers in high-income and low- to middle-income countries. Stakeholders with expertise in neonatal encephalopathy (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers) will rate the importance of identified outcomes in an online Delphi survey using either a three-round Delphi survey or a “Real-Time” Delphi survey to which stakeholders will be allocated at random. Consensus meetings will take place by video conference to allow for an international group of stakeholder representatives to discuss and vote on the outcomes to include in the final core outcome set (COS). Discussion More research is needed on treatments for neonatal encephalopathy. Standardising outcomes measured and reported in evaluations of the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy will improve evidence synthesis and improve results reported in systematic reviews and meta-analysis in this area. Overall, this COS will allow for improved treatments to be identified, heterogeneity in research to be reduced, and overall patient care to be enhanced. Trial registration This study is registered in the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness (COMET) database http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1270 .

Objective To identify the outcomes considered important to parents or caregivers of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia in high-income and low- to middle-income countries (LMiCs), as part of the outcome-identification process in developing a core outcome set (COS) for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy.Design A qualitative study involving 25 semistructured interviews with parents or other family members (caregivers) of infants who were diagnosed with, and treated for, neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia.Setting Interviews were conducted in high-income countries (HiCs) (n=11) by Zoom video conferencing software and in LMiCs (n=14) by phone or face to face.Findings Parents identified 54 outcomes overall, which mapped to 16 outcome domains. The domains identified were neurological outcomes, respiratory outcomes, gastrointestinal outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, motor development, cognitive development, development (psychosocial), development (special senses), cognitive development, development (speech and social), other organ outcomes, survival/living outcomes, long-term disability, hospitalisation, parent-reported outcomes and adverse events.Conclusions This study provides insight into the outcomes that parents of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy have identified as the most important, to be considered in the process of developing a COS for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. We also provide description of the processes employed to ensure the inclusion of participants from LMiCs as well as HiCs.

Introduction: This scoping review will determine how online, randomised trials with children are conducted. The objectives of the review are: (a) to determine what methods and tools have been used to create and conduct online trials with children and (b) to identify the gaps in the knowledge in this field. Over the last decade, randomised trials employing online methods have gained traction. Decentralised methods lend themselves to certain types of trials and can offer advantages over traditional trial methods, potentially increasing participant reach and diversity and decreasing research waste. However, decentralised trials that have all aspects of the trial exclusively online are not yet common, and those involving children even less so. This scoping review will describe and evaluate the methods used in these trials to understand how they may be effectively employed. Methods: Methods are informed by guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. The search strategy was developed in consultation with an information specialist for the following databases: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Embase. Grey literature searches will be completed with the consultation of experts in decentralised trials and digital health using internet searches and suitable trial registries. Once identified, included full-text studies’ references will be manually searched for any trials that may have been missed. We will include randomised and quasi-randomised trials conducted exclusively online with participants under the age of 18 published in English. We will not limit by country of conduct or date of publication. Data will be collected using a data charting tool and presented in text, graphical, and tabular formats. Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not needed since all data sources used are publicly available. The review will be available as a preprint before publication in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal.

Introduction: Evidence syntheses, often in the form of systematic reviews, are essential for clinical guideline development and informing changes to health policies. However, clinical guideline development groups (CGDG) are multidisciplinary, and participants such as policymakers, healthcare professionals and patient representatives can face obstacles when trying to understand and use evidence synthesis findings. Summary formats to communicate the results of evidence syntheses have become increasingly common, but it is currently unclear which format is most effective for different stakeholders. This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) evaluates the effectiveness and acceptability of different evidence synthesis summary formats for CGDG members. Methods: This protocol follows guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute on MMSRs and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA)-P guideline. A comprehensive search of six databases will be performed with no language restrictions. Primary outcomes are those relating to the effectiveness and preferences for and attitudes towards the different summary formats. We will include qualitative research and randomised controlled trials. Two reviewers will perform title, abstract, and full-text screening. Independent double-extraction of study characteristics and critical appraisal items will be undertaken using a standardised form. We will use a convergent segregated approach to analyse quantitative and qualitative data separately; results will then be integrated. Discussion: The results of this systematic review will provide an overview of the effectiveness and acceptability of different summary formats for evidence synthesis findings. These findings can be helpful for those in or communicating to guideline development groups. The results can also inform the development and pilot-testing of summary formats for evidence summaries.

Abstract Background Pregestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM) is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes including increased rates of caesarean section birth, macrosomia, congenital malformation, prematurity, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit and stillbirth. As a result, there has been an increase in interventions to improve outcomes in both mother and infant. To date, meaningful comparisons between these studies are limited due to heterogeneity in outcome selection and reporting. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) for randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with PGDM. Methods The study consists of three steps. The first step is a systematic review of the literature to assess outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with PGDM. The second step is a three round, online Delphi survey to prioritise these outcomes. In this step, stakeholders (including women with PGDM, healthcare workers, researchers and policymakers) will be asked to rank the importance of outcomes for inclusion in the COS using a 9-point Likert type scale. Outcomes that meet the inclusion criteria after completion of the Delphi surveys will be brought to the consensus meeting. The consensus meeting will be the third and final step, where the COS will be finalised. The consensus meeting will include members from each stakeholder group. Discussion This paper describes the process used to develop a COS for the reporting of studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in pregnant women with PGDM. The COS will enable greater comparison between and information synthesis across RCTs in the treatment of PGDM. In addition, this COS will also help improve trial reporting and minimise research waste by prioritising the collection and reporting of outcomes that matter to all relevant stakeholder groups. Trial registration This COS has been registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative ( http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1425 ) on the 4th of November 2019. The systematic review component of this study has also been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020173549 ).

Abstract Background A dementia diagnosis can prevent people from participating in society, leading to a further decline in cognitive, social and physical health. However, it may be possible for people with dementia to continue to live meaningful lives and continue to participate actively in society if a supportive psychosocial environment exists. Resilience theory, which focuses on strengthening personal attributes and external assets in the face of serious challenges, may provide a scaffold on which an inclusive multifaceted psychosocial supportive environment can be built. This protocol paper describes a study to determine the feasibility of conducting a multifaceted complex resilience building psychosocial intervention for people with dementia and their caregivers living in the community. Methods This is a non-randomised feasibility study. Ten participants with dementia and their primary caregivers living in the community will be recruited and receive the CREST intervention. The intervention provides (a) a 7-week cognitive stimulation programme followed by an 8-week physical exercise programme for people with dementia and (b) a 6-week educational programme for caregivers. Members of the wider community will be invited to a dementia awareness programme and GP practices to a dementia training workshop. Trained professionals will deliver all intervention components. Outcomes will assess the feasibility and acceptability of all study processes. The feasibility and acceptability of a range of outcomes to be collected in a future definitive trial, including economic measurements, will also be explored. Finally, social marketing will be used to map a route toward stigma change in dementia for use in a subsequent trial. Quantitative feasibility outcome assessments will be completed at baseline and after completion of the 15-week intervention while qualitative data will be collected at recruitment, baseline, during and post-intervention delivery. Conclusion This feasibility study will provide evidence regarding the feasibility and acceptability of a comprehensive multifaceted psychosocial intervention programme for people with dementia and their caregivers (CREST). The results will be used to inform the development and implementation of a subsequent RCT, should the findings support feasibility. Trial registration ISRCTN25294519 Retrospectively registered 07.10.2019

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has created a sense of urgency in the research community in their bid to contribute to the evidence required for healthcare policy decisions. With such urgency, researchers experience methodological challenges to maintain the rigour and transparency of their work. With this in mind, we offer reflections on our recent experience of undertaking a rapid Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis (QES). Methods This process paper, using a reflexive approach, describes a rapid QES prepared during, and in response to, the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings This paper reports the methodological decisions we made and the process we undertook. We place our decisions in the context of guidance offered in relation to rapid reviews and previously conducted QESs. We highlight some of the challenges we encountered in finding the balance between the time needed for thoughtfulness and comprehensiveness whilst providing a rapid response to an urgent request for evidence. Conclusion The need for more guidance on rapid QES remains, but such guidance needs to be based on actual worked examples and case studies. This paper and the reflections offered may provide a useful framework for others to use and further develop.

Abstract Background Despite efforts to improve the accuracy and transparency of the design, conduct, and reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), deficiencies remain. Such deficiencies contribute to significant, avoidable waste of health research investment and impede reproducibility. This study aimed to synthesise and critically analyse changes over time in the conduct and reporting of internationally published evidence on patient and/or population health-oriented RCTs conducted in one country. Methods This observational study drew on systematic review methods. We searched six databases for published RCTs (database inception to December 2018) where ≥ 80% of participants were recruited in the Republic of Ireland. RCTs of interventions targeted at patients, providers and/or policy makers intended to improve health, healthcare or health research were included. For each study, screening, data extraction and methodological quality appraisal were conducted by one member of the author team. Results From 17,560 titles and abstracts, 752 unique RCTs were published in 745 papers between 1968 and 2018, with a steady year-on-year increase since 1968. The number of participants was in the range of 2–8628. The majority were parallel design (86%) and classified as treatment evaluation. Of the 418 RCTs published since the introduction of mandatory clinical trial registration by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in 2005, 32% (n = 134) provided a trial registration number. This increased to 47% when taking studies published between 2013 and 2018 (n = 232). Since the 1996 publication of the CONSORT statement, 16% of included RCTs made specific reference to a standardised reporting guideline and this increased to 31% for more recent studies published between 2013 and 2018. Overall, 7% (n = 53) of studies referred to a published study protocol, increasing to 20% for studies published between 2013 and 2018. Conclusion Evidence from this single-country study of RCTs published in the international literature suggests that both the number overall, the number registered and the number referencing reporting guidelines have increased steadily over time. Despite widespread endorsement of reporting standards, reporting of RCTs remains suboptimal in domains such as compliance with the CONSORT statement and prospective trial registration. Researchers, funders and journal editors, nationally and internationally, should continue to focus on improving reporting and examining avoidable waste of health research investment.

Abstract Background Despite evidence supporting the safety of vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC), rates are low in many countries. Methods OptiBIRTH investigated the effects of a woman-centred intervention designed to increase VBAC rates through an unblinded cluster randomised trial in 15 maternity units with VBAC rates 24 weeks gestation occurred in the intervention group (0.34%) and 4/782 in the control group (0.51%), and two uterine ruptures (one per group), a rate of 1:1000. Conclusions Changing clinical practice takes time. As elective repeat CS is the most common reason for CS in multiparous women, interventions that are feasible and safe and that have been shown to lead to decreasing repeat CS, should be promoted. Continued research to refine the best way of promoting VBAC is essential. This may best be done using an implementation science approach that can modify evidence-based interventions in response to changing clinical circumstances. Trial registration The OptiBIRTH trial was registered on 3/4/2013. Trial registration number ISRCTN10612254 .

Abstract Background The Health Research Board-Trials Methodology Research Network (HRB-TMRN) celebrates International Clinical Trials Day with the help of the younger members of our community through the Network’s ‘Schools Teaching Awareness of Randomised Trials (START)’ initiative. START seeks to increase public awareness of randomised trials in Ireland. Launched in 2016, it asks children (8–12 years old) to conduct and report their very own fun randomised trial. The study reported in this paper sought to explore children and teachers perceptions and experiences of the START initiative. Methods We conducted eight, one-to one interviews with teachers and eight focus groups with 61 children who took part in the 2018 START initiative. Interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed and the data analysed using template analysis. Results The findings of this study highlight the benefits of participating in START and the areas of the initiative that required further attention. Teachers and children recalled the benefits of experiential learning associated with START and learning by doing encouraged a fun way of engaging with trial processes. By recalling all aspects of planning, conducting and reporting their trial, the children in this study demonstrated their awareness of the trial processes. The teachers suggested that START provides a valuable framework to contribute to key aspects of the primary school curriculum in Ireland. The experiences of these participants also provided recommendation for improving the programme for future START participants. Conclusions Increasing public awareness and understanding of randomised trials can help increase public engagement in trials. By educating children about the importance of trials and supporting them to ‘learn by doing’ by carrying out their own trial, the START initiative can contribute substantially to children’s awareness and understanding of trial processes. Given that children are the public, the patients and the researchers of the future, initiatives such as START deserve attention.

Abstract Background Striae gravidarum are a common occurrence in pregnancy and many women use a topical product to prevent their development or lessen their appearance if they do develop. There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of many of the products used by women. This study arose from challenges in recruitment to a pilot randomised trial (ISRCTN trial registration number:76992326) designed to evaluate the feasibility of a definitive trial to compare a moisturising oil to no treatment in the prevention and reduction in severity of striae gravidarum. The study reported here explored the factors influencing recruitment to that pilot trial. Methods A qualitative descriptive study was undertaken involving primigravid women attending an Irish maternity hospital. Data were collected by semi-structured telephone interviews over a four-week period and analysed using the framework method of analysis. Fifteen interview transcripts were included in the analysis. Results Four main themes consisting of twelve categories were identified from the interview data. The themes focused on women’s prevention of stretch marks and their choice of anti-stretch mark product, who and what influenced that choice and influences on trial participation. In relation to influences on trial participation, the possibility of being randomised to the non- intervention or control group was a deterrent for many women. Conclusions The prevention of stretch marks is important to pregnant women, as is their choice of product to prevent them. Offering women the opportunity to be part of a trial that would be of low burden and would test a well-known product may optimise recruitment. However, reluctance to be randomised because of the possibility of being allocated to the non-intervention control group suggests that further work is needed in this field on how best to communicate uncertainty to potential participants.

Background: Trials in health care are prospective human research studies designed to test the effectiveness and safety of health care interventions, such as medications, surgeries, medical devices and other treatment or prevention interventions. Statistics is an important and powerful tool in trials. Inappropriately designed trials and/or inappropriate statistical analysis produce unreliable results and a lack of transparency when reported, with limited clinical use. Aim: This systematic literature review aimed to identify, describe and synthesise factors contributing to or influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials. Methods: Information sources were retrieved from the following electronic citation databases: PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL and the grey literature repository: OpenGrey. 90 articles and guidelines were included in this review. A narrative, thematic synthesis identified the key factors influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials in health care. Findings and conclusion: We identified three analytical themes within which factors are grouped. These are: “what makes a statistician?“, “the need for dynamic statistical involvement and collaboration throughout a trial – it's not just about the numbers”, “and the “accountability of statisticians in ensuring the safety of trial participants and the integrity of trial data”. While important insights emerged about the qualifications, training, roles, and responsibilities of statisticians and their collaboration with other team members in a trial, further empirical research is warranted to elicit the perceptions of trial team members at the centre of statistics in trials.

Background: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requires trials submitted for publication to be registered before recruitment of the first participant; however, there is ambiguity around the definition of recruitment and in anchoring the trial start date, end date, and recruitment, or as often interchangeably referred to, enrolment, temporally to trial processes. There is potential for variation in how recruitment is reported and understood in trial protocols and trial reports. We report on a concept analysis of ‘trial recruitment’ and develop an operational definition of ‘trial recruitment’. Methods: A concept analysis using the hybrid model. In Phase 1 we examined randomised and non-randomised trial reports (n=150) published between January 2018 and June 2019 to conceptually explore how recruitment was temporally aligned to the four time-points of screening/eligibility, consent, randomisation and allocation. A preliminary operational definition of ‘trial recruitment’ was determined. This definition was further explored, refined and finalised in Phase 2 (field work), through an interactive, discussion-focused workshop with trial recruiters and trial participants. Results: Of the 150 trial reports analysed, over half did not identify a clear time point of when recruitment took place and varying terminology is used when reporting on trial recruitment. In Phase 2, the workshop attendees agreed that the proposed definition of ‘trial recruitment’ offers an acceptable definition that provides a standardised approach of how trial recruitment may be temporally understood as part of overall trial processes. Conclusion: There is ambiguity around temporal descriptions of ‘trial recruitment’ in health care journals. Informed by the findings of this concept analysis we propose a temporal operational definition of trial recruitment based on i) trial recruitment of an individual or cluster and ii) the trial recruitment period.

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders’ perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

Introduction Diabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic complication of pregnancy and its prevalence worldwide is rising. The number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) being conducted in people with diabetes is also increasing. Many studies preferentially publish findings on clinical endpoints and do not report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In studies that do include PROs, PRO reporting is often of poor quality.Methods We will conduct this systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Using a combination of medical subject headings and keywords (combined using Boolean operators), we will search web-based databases (PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE) for RCTs published in English between 2013 and 2021. Two reviewers will review titles and abstracts. We will review the full texts of any relevant abstracts and extract the following data: date of publication or recruitment period, journal of publication, country of study, multicentre or single centre, population and number of participants, type of intervention, frequency of PRO assessment and type of PRO (or PRO measurement) used. We will also record if the PRO was a primary, secondary or exploratory outcome. We will exclude reviews, observational studies, unpublished data for example, conference abstracts and trial protocols. Any published RCT that includes data on a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome will then be compared against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials—Patient-Reported Outcome extension checklist, a structured and approved framework for the publication of results of PROs.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the ethics committee at Galway University Hospitals on 24 March 2021 (CA 2592). We aim to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present our findings at national and international conferences.Systematic review registration This systematic review was registered prospectively with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Registration number CRD42021234917.

Background: Uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common presentations of bacterial infections in the outpatient setting. The variation of outcomes reported in trials to assess the most effective treatment interventions for uncomplicated UTIs has meant that comparing and synthesising the outcomes across trials is challenging and limits the reliability of evidence which would otherwise inform healthcare decisions. Objective: Develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for interventions for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs in otherwise healthy adults. Methods: The COS development consisted of three phases: (1) A systematic review to identify outcomes reported in randomised trials and systematic reviews of randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of any interventions for the treatment of uncomplicated UTI in otherwise healthy adults; (2) Outcomes identified in the systematic review were prioritised in an online 3-round modified Delphi survey with healthcare practitioners (n = 68), researchers (n = 5), and people who have experienced or cared for someone experiencing a UTI (n = 180); (3) An online consensus meeting to determine the final COS with healthcare practitioners and policymakers (n = 9), researchers (n = 4), and people who have experienced or cared for someone experiencing a UTI (n = 7). Results: We identified a large number of outcomes. Through the use of robust consensus methods, those outcomes were reduced to a core set of six outcomes that should, at a minimum, be measured and reported in randomised trials and systematic reviews of interventions treating uncomplicated UTIs in adults.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Background The use of survey instruments to measure women’s experiences of their maternity care is regarded internationally as an indicator of the quality of care received. To ensure the credibility of the data arising from these instruments, the methodological quality of development must be high. This paper reports the protocol for a systematic review of self-report instruments used to measure women’s experiences of their maternity care. Methods Citation databases CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE will be searched from 2002 to 2018 using keywords including women, experience, maternity care, questionnaires, surveys, and self-report. Citations will be screened by two reviewers, in two rounds, for inclusion as per predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction forms will be populated with data, extracted from each study, to evaluate the methodological quality of each survey instrument and the criteria for good measurement properties using quality criteria. Data will also be extracted to categorise the items included in each survey instrument. A combination of a structured narrative synthesis and quantitate summaries in tabular format will allow for recommendations to be made on the use, adaptation and development of future survey instruments. Discussion The value of survey instruments that evaluate women’s experiences of their maternity care, as a marker of quality care, has been recognised internationally with many countries employing the use of such instruments to inform policy and practice. The development of these instruments must be methodologically sound and the instrument itself fit for the purpose and context in which it is used. This protocol describes the methods that will be used to complete a systematic review that will serve as a guide for choosing the most appropriate existing instruments to use or adapt so that they are fit for purpose, in addition to informing the development of new instruments. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018105325

Abstract Background Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in Ireland with almost 6000 smokers dying each year from smoking-related diseases. The ‘We Can Quit2’ (WCQ2) study is a pilot pragmatic two-arm, parallel-group, cluster randomised trial that aims to explore the feasibility and acceptability of trial processes including recruitment and to estimate parameters to inform sample size estimates needed for an effectiveness trial. This future trial will assess the effectiveness of a community-based smoking cessation intervention for women living in disadvantaged areas on short- and medium-term cessation rates. Methods/design Four matched pairs of districts (eight clusters) selected by area level of deprivation, geographical proximity, and eligibility for free medical services will be randomised to receive either WCQ (behavioural support + access to Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT)) delivered over 12 weeks by trained Community Facilitators (CFs) or to a form of usual care, a one-to-one smoking cessation service delivered by Smoking Cessation Officers from Ireland’s national health service, the Health Service Executive (HSE). Within each cluster, 24–25 women will be recruited (97 per arm; 194 in total) in 4 phases with consent obtained prior to cluster randomisation. The outcome measures will assess feasibility and acceptability of trial processes, including randomisation. Outcome data for a future definitive intervention (biochemically validated smoking abstinence) will be collected at end of programme (12 weeks) and at 6 months. WCQ2 has an embedded process evaluation using both qualitative and quantitative methods. This will be conducted (semi-structured client and CF interviews, intervention delivery checklist, and diary) to explore acceptability of trial processes, intervention fidelity, trial context, and implementation. Trial processes will be assessed against domains of the PRECIS-2 wheel to inform a future definitive trial design. Discussion Data from this pilot trial will inform the design and sample size for a full cluster randomised trial to determine the effectiveness of an intervention tailored to disadvantaged women in improving smoking cessation rates. It will provide transferable learning on the systems and implementation strategies needed to support effective design of future pragmatic community-based trials which address health promotion interventions for women in disadvantaged communities. Trial registration Concurrent to publication. Controlled trials ISRCTN74721694.

Abstract Background Evidence based practice has been associated with better quality of care in many situations, but it has not been able to address increasing need and demand in healthcare globally and stagnant or decreasing healthcare resources. Implementation of value-based healthcare could address many important challenges in health care systems worldwide. Scaling up exemplary high value care practices offers the potential to ensure values-driven maternal and newborn care for all women and babies. Discussion Increased use of healthcare interventions over the last century have been associated with reductions in maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity. However, over an optimum threshold, these are associated with increases in adverse effects and inappropriate use of scarce resources. The Quality Maternal and Newborn Care framework provides an example of what value based maternity care might look like. To deliver value based maternal and newborn care, a system-level shift is needed, ‘from fragmented care focused on identification and treatment of pathology for the minority to skilled care for all’. Ideally, resources would be allocated at population and individual level to ensure care is woman-centred instead of institution/ profession centred but oftentimes, the drivers for spending resources are ‘the demands and beliefs of the acute sector’. We argue that decisions to allocate resources to high value activities, such as continuity of carer, need to be made at the macro level in the knowledge that these investments will relieve pressure on acute services while also ensuring the delivery of appropriate and high value care in the long run. To ensure that high value preventive and supportive care can be delivered, it is important that separate staff and money are allocated to, for example, models of continuity of carer to prevent shortages of resources due to rising demands of the acute services. Summary To achieve value based maternal and newborn care, mechanisms are needed to ensure adequate resource allocation to high value maternity care activities that should be separate from the resource demands of acute maternity services. Funding arrangements should support, where wanted and needed, seamless movement of women and neonates between systems of care.

Abstract 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.