Search

Abstract Background Despite the established benefits of Advance Care Planning (ACP), engagement remains low in British Columbia. Since 2016, a growing number of community‐based nonprofits have offered ACP education. To date, no study has focused on the perspectives of nonprofits on ACP in British Columbia. Objective This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitating actions to ACP as perceived by British Columbian nonprofits. Design A mixed‐methods design was used. Data were collected through online surveys and telephone interviews. Setting and Participants Staff and volunteers from British Columbian nonprofits that are providing or interested in providing public education on ACP were recruited for this study. Results The lack of public awareness of ACP, the emotional difficulty of the conversation, the complicated ACP process, the belief that ACP is synonymous with completing a medical order form, the challenge of introducing ACP in different cultural contexts and the siloed approach to ACP education were rated as the most important barriers to ACP engagement. The most important facilitating actions were developing clear messages, improving ACP literacy, reframing ACP as part of life planning, simplifying ACP documentation and transfer, integrating ACP conversations into clinical practice and better collaboration between the health system and nonprofits. Discussion This study identifies numerous opportunities to improve ACP engagement in British Columbia from a community lens. To maximize ACP engagement, community‐led ACP education should be offered in coordination with the health system. Conclusion Community‐led ACP education as well as collaboration and consultation with nonprofits are part of the solution to the low ACP engagement in British Columbia. Public Contribution Study participants, including staff and volunteers at nonprofits, are members of the public.

Background: In September 2018 the FDA provided a draft guidance on master protocols reflecting an increased interest in these designs by industry. Master protocols refer to a single overarching protocol developed to evaluate multiple hypotheses and may be further categorized as basket, umbrella, and platform trials. However, inconsistencies in reporting persist in the literature. We conducted a systematic review to describe master protocol reporting with the goal of facilitating the further development and spread of these innovative trial designs. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to April 25, 2019 for English articles on master protocols. This was supplemented by hand searches of trial registries and of the bibliographies of published reviews. We used the FDA's definitions of master protocols as references and compared them to self-reported master protocols. Results: We identified 278 master protocol publications, consisting of 228 protocols and 50 reviews. Sixty-six records provided unique definitions of master protocol types. We observed considerable heterogeneity in definitions of master protocols, and over half (54%) used oncology-specific language. The majority of self-classified master protocols (57%) were consistent with the FDA's definitions of master protocols. Conclusion: The terms ‘master protocol’, ‘basket trial’, ‘umbrella trial’, and ‘platform trial’ are inconsistently described. Careful treatment of these terms and adherence to the definitions set forth by the FDA will facilitate better understanding of these trial designs and allow them to be used broadly and to their full potential in clinical research. We encourage trial methodologists to use these trial designations when applicable. Keywords: Master protocols, Basket trials, Umbrella trials, Platform trials, Nomenclature