Search

Objective To test the feasibility of undertaking a simultaneous Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to train staff who recruit participants into surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs), by assessing key uncertainties around recruitment, randomisation, intervention delivery and data collection. Study design and setting Twelve surgical RCTs were eligible. Interested sites (clusters) were randomised 1:1, with recruiting staff (surgeons and nurses) offered training or no training. The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruiting sites across multiple surgical trials simultaneously. Secondary outcomes included numbers/types of staff enrolled, attendance at training, training acceptability, confidence in recruiting and participant recruitment rates six months later. Results Four RCTs (33%) comprising 91 sites participated. Of these, 29 sites agreed to participate (32%) and were randomised to intervention (15 sites, 29 staff) or control (14 sites, 29 staff). Research nurses attended and found the training to be acceptable; no surgeons attended. In the intervention group, there was evidence of increased confidence when pre- and post- training scores were compared (mean difference in change 1.42; 95% CI 0.56, 2.27; p = 0.002). There was no effect on recruitment rate. Conclusion It was feasible to randomise sites across four surgical RCTs in a simultaneous SWAT design. However, as small numbers of trials and sites participated, and no surgeons attended training, strategies to improve these aspects are needed for future evaluations.

Background External randomised pilot trials aim to assess whether a future definitive Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) is feasible. Prespecified progression criteria help guide the interpretation of pilot trial findings to decide whether, and how, a definitive RCT should be conducted. This commentary presents a set of proposed recommendations for progression criteria to guide researchers when (i) designing, (ii) conducting, (iii) analysing and (iv) reporting external randomised pilot trials. Methods Recommendations were developed following a mixed methods approach. This involved (i) a methodological review of pilot trial publications, (ii) a cross-sectional study of pilot trial research funding applications, (iii) qualitative interviews with pilot trial researchers and (iv) a survey of corresponding authors of identified pilot trial publications. Initial recommendations were refined following two consultation stakeholder workshops held in July 2022. Recommendations for progression criteria for external randomised pilot trials: i. Design: consider progression criteria from the earliest opportunity; map progression criteria to feasibility objectives; consider quantitative and qualitative interpretations of feasibility; provide justification; develop guidelines rather than rules; seek input from relevant stakeholders. ii. Conduct: regularly monitor pilot trial data against progression criteria. iii. Analysis: avoid considering each progression criterion in isolation; engage in discussion with relevant stakeholders; consider context and other factors external to the pilot trial; consider feasibility (can we?) and progression (will we?). iv. Reporting: we propose a reporting checklist in relation to progression criteria and recommend reporting in a table format for clarity. Conclusion These recommendations provide a helpful resource for researchers to consider progression criteria at different stages of external randomised pilot trials. We have produced a simple infographic tool to summarise these recommendations for researchers to refer to. Further research is needed to evaluate whether these proposed recommendations should inform future development, or update, of established guidelines for the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of external randomised pilot trials.

Background Community pharmacies serve people with high levels of tobacco-related illness, but throughput in NHS Stop Smoking Services in pharmacies remains relatively low. We investigated the effectiveness of a complex intervention to increase service uptake and retention. Methods We randomised 60 pharmacies in England and Wales to the STOP intervention or usual practice in a pragmatic, parallel-group, controlled trial over 11 months. Smokers were blind to the allocation. The intervention was theory-based consultation skills training for pharmacy staff with environmental prompts (badges, calendars and behavioural cues). The primary outcome was the number of smokers attending an initial consultation and setting a quit date. Results The intervention made no significant difference in setting a quit date, retention or quit rate. A total of 631 adult smokers (service users) enrolled and set a quit date in intervention pharmacies compared to 641 in usual practice pharmacies, a rate ratio of 0.75 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.23) adjusted for site and number of prescriptions. A total of 432 (68%) service users were retained at 4 weeks in intervention and 500 (78%) in usual practice pharmacies (odds ratio 0.80, 0.41 to 1.55). A total of 265 (42%) service users quit smoking at 4 weeks in intervention and 276 (43%) in usual practice pharmacies (0.96, 0.65 to 1.43). The pharmacy staff were positive about the intervention with 90% (56/62) stating that it had improved their skills. Sixty-eight per cent would strongly recommend the training to others although there was no difference in self-efficacy for service delivery between arms. Seventy of 131 (53%) service users did not complete the 6-month follow-up assessment. However, 55/61 (90%) service users who completed follow-up were satisfied or very satisfied with the service. All usual practice arm service users (n = 33) and all but one in the intervention arm (n = 27) would recommend the service to smokers. Conclusions We found high levels of retention and acceptable quit rates in the NHS pharmacy stop smoking service. Despite pharmacy staff providing positive feedback on the STOP intervention, it made no difference to service throughput. Thus, other factors may currently limit service capacity to help smokers to quit. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN16351033. Retrospectively registered.

In 2001, Nasutitermes corniger (Motschulsky), common name conehead termite, were discovered near a marina in Dania Beach, FL, where the invasive species was probably transported from its native range in Central and South America or the Caribbean. In January 2016, an infestation was found in Pompano Beach, Florida, approximately 21 km north of the Dania Beach population. This study compares variants in seven microsatellite loci across specimens from 11 nests in Dania Beach and 8 nests in Pompano Beach. Results are consistent with all N. corniger in both locations being descendants of a single introduced colony, spreading within Broward County, FL through human transport of infested materials. No more than four alleles were found at any of the seven microsatellite loci analyzed, inferring that a single Queen and King, or multiple sibling reproductives descended from a monogamous pair, headed the colony that arrived in Florida. The potential economic and environmental impacts of this invasive termite are enormous due to its broad diet, including agricultural crops and orchards, native and ornamental plants, natural landscapes, and structures. Conspicuous tunnels and aboveground nests are the key aspects of N. corniger biology that render colonies vulnerable to discovery and control. The now proven ability of N. corniger to establish breeding populations in the United States, to cause extensive property and landscape destruction, and to spread by human transport underscores the need for continued aggressive efforts toward eradication of known infestations as well as quick operational actions the next time invasive N. corniger are discovered.

© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/