Search

Background The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis. Objective To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department. Design Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone. Setting United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres. Participants Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Main outcome measures Primary: Mortality at 90 days. Secondary: Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Health economic: Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon. Data sources Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data). Results Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%). Limitations The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates. Conclusions This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful. Future work The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Trauma (physical injury) is a major cause of death and disability. The most common cause of preventable death after injury is uncontrolled bleeding. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is a technique whereby a small balloon is inflated in the aorta (main blood vessel) which aims to limit blood loss until an operation can be done to stop the bleeding. In this study, which is the first randomised trial in the world of this technique, we investigated whether adding resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to the standard care received in a major trauma centre reduced the risk of death in trauma patients who had life-threatening uncontrolled bleeding. The study took place in 16 major trauma centres in the United Kingdom. Ninety adult trauma patients with confirmed or suspected uncontrolled bleeding took part and were randomly divided into two groups: (1) those who received standard care and (2) those who received standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. We followed participants for 6 months using routinely collected data from the National Health Service and from the Trauma Audit Research Network registry. We also contacted surviving patients at 6 months to ask about their quality of life. In the standard care group, 42% of participants died within 90 days of their injury compared to 54% of participants in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group. Risk of death was also higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group at all other time points (3, 6 and 24 hours, in hospital and at 6 months). Overall, the study showed that the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in hospital increased the risk of death. Scientific summary Background Trauma is a major cause of death and disability. Trauma (physical injury) disproportionately affects the young, killing those who might otherwise have lived long and productive lives. The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. The addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) to current standard care is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite, for definitive haemostasis. Objectives The UK-REBOA trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, open-label, group-sequential, parallel-group randomised controlled trial comparing standard care plus REBOA versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency room. The study included an elicitation exercise, an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation and a health economic evaluation. The primary clinical outcome was 90-day mortality (defined as death within 90 days of injury, before or after discharge from hospital). Secondary clinical outcomes included 3-, 6- and 24-hour mortality, in-hospital mortality, 6-month mortality, length of stay (in hospital and intensive care unit), 24-hour blood product use, need for haemorrhage control procedures (operation or angioembolisation), time to commencement of haemorrhage control procedure, complications/safety data and functional outcome [measured using the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E)] at discharge. Economic outcomes were 6-month (within trial) and lifetime (modelled) UK NHS perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) [calculated using EuroQol Group’s 5-dimension health status 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L)], 6-month quality of life (measured using EQ-5D-5L). Methods Trauma patients were recruited in 16 UK major trauma centres. Trauma patients aged (or believed to be aged) 16 years or older, with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage thought to be amenable to adjunctive treatment with REBOA were eligible. Women known (or thought to be) pregnant and those with injuries deemed unsurvivable were excluded. The trauma team leader assessed the patients for eligibility. Patients who were eligible for inclusion in the trial were incapacitated and unable to give consent at the time of eligibility assessment and randomisation. There was also not sufficient time to consult a surrogate decision-maker, or even an independent medical practitioner, for advice about including the patient. Enrolment therefore took place without prior consent following Research Ethics Committee approval for this approach. Consent for continuing participation (i.e. data collection) was sought by a member of the UK-REBOA trial team once patients were no longer in a critical condition (defined as being cared for in a ward area rather than an intensive care unit or high-dependency unit) or from a personal (or nominated professional) consultee. The trauma team leader enrolled the participant using a dedicated, secure website, available on a handheld device (smartphone, tablet) or desktop computer which is linked directly to the 24-hour randomisation system at the Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, based in the Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen. Patients were randomised into one of the two intervention arms, in a 1 : 1 allocation ratio, in randomly generated blocks of two or four. Standard care: Patients allocated to the control group received ‘standard care’, as expected in a specialist major trauma centre. Such treatment typically included intubation, blood transfusion including blood products in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio, interventions such as tourniquet application, and early operative or endovascular haemorrhage control. Treatment could also have included open aortic occlusion of the thoracic or abdominal aorta. Standard care plus REBOA: Patients allocated to this arm of the trial additionally received the technique of endovascular aortic occlusion, for the purpose of resuscitation, as part of an overall treatment strategy. The addition of REBOA to current standard care was intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis. The trial sought to evaluate the technique of REBOA rather than a specific brand of device, and therefore permitted the use of any licensed occlusion balloon, and did not prescribe or mandate a particular product. The trial had an integrated training programme to ensure familiarity with the REBOA procedure. In patients who had been randomised to the standard care plus REBOA arm of the trial, clinicians could decide not to insert the balloon occlusion device if: the patient’s haemodynamic status improved (as a result of other resuscitative measures), if they were deemed to no longer have life-threatening torso haemorrhage requiring adjunctive treatment with REBOA; they deteriorated (to the point of imminent death); or there was technical difficulty in obtaining arterial access, and it was felt that operative control of haemorrhage could be obtained more quickly. The data collection strategy for the UK-REBOA trial was designed to minimise the burden on participants and clinicians, and for the avoidance of duplication. The randomisation system collected balloon inflation/deflation times. The trial drew on routinely collected data, primarily from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) registry which includes demographic, injury, treatment and outcome data (including the GOS-E and EQ-5D-5L). Mortality and hospital resource use data were also sought from NHS Digital. The main analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. There were two planned interim analyses of survival and a final analysis of all outcomes after follow-up was complete. Baseline and follow-up data were summarised using descriptive statistics and graphical summaries. Treatment effects are presented with 95% credible intervals for the primary and secondary outcomes. Elicitation exercise An elicitation exercise involving 20 subject matter experts (12 emergency medicine physicians, 3 pre-hospital care doctors, 4 surgeons and 1 intensivist) was undertaken to derive prior probability distributions to help contextualise the interpretation for the primary and secondary outcomes of the trial. Subject matter experts, on average, estimated in-hospital and 90-day mortality in this patient group, without the use of REBOA, to be in excess of 50%. Mortality at earlier time points (6 and 24 hours) was estimated to be closer to 25%. The elicited data, and the resulting prior probability distributions, indicate that the experts, on average, had a favourable opinion of REBOA, that is they expect the addition of REBOA to standard care to improve mortality at all time points. Clinical results Sixteen recruitment sites were opened in a staggered manner. Recruitment commenced in October 2017, was halted in March 2020 due to COVID-19, and restarted in July 2020. The second interim analysis (including 80 participants) triggered one of the pre-specified stopping rules, and recruitment closed in March 2022, by which time 90 participants had been recruited. Forty-four participants were randomised to standard care (2 of whom did receive REBOA) and 46 were randomised to standard care plus REBOA (19 of whom had the catheter inserted and balloon inserted and the remaining 27 progressed to different time points along this pathway). The groups were well-matched in terms of age, gender, comorbidities, mechanism of injury and injury severity. In the standard care arm, the median age was 39 years (interquartile range 30–56 years) and 77% were male. In the standard care plus REBOA arm, the median age was 46 years (interquartile range 33–62) and 61% were male. The median Injury Severity Score in both arms was 41 (interquartile range 29–50), with the majority classed as having very severe injury. Of the 46 patients allocated to standard care plus REBOA treatment, 25 (54%) died within 90 days. Of the 43 standard care patients for whom primary outcome data are available, 18 (42%) died within 90 days. Using the minimally informative prior, the odds of 90-day mortality were 1.58 for patients allocated to the standard care plus REBOA arm (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (i.e. that REBOA was harmful) was 86.9%. The direction of the estimate did not change when an enthusiastic (the elicited) prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3-, 6- and 24-hour mortality), the posterior probability that REBOA was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at 3, 6 and 24 hours, at 90 days or 6 months, or in-hospital mortality. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus REBOA group than in the standard care group. The mean number of days spent in intensive care and in hospital were lower in the standard care plus REBOA group compared to the standard care group, partly because of the higher number of earlier deaths in the standard care plus REBOA arm. There were no serious adverse device effects. Health economics We costed individual components of resources and summed these to generate a total cost for the whole initial hospitalisation admission period. Total NHS resource use for the index hospitalisation was obtained from patient-level data in TARN and the key resource use variables for costing included time of arrival, time of emergency department departure, time of first operation, time of death/discharge, number and type of operative procedures and volume of blood transfusions that were required. Secondary care contacts and episodes of care that were commenced between the date of discharge from the index hospitalisation through 6 months post randomisation were sourced, where available, through linkage of patient records to the Hospital Episode Statistics database. All costs are reported from a UK NHS perspective in Great British pounds (GBP) (year 2020-1). Quality of life was measured using the EQ-5D-5L prior to patient’s discharge from their index hospitalisation and at 6 months post admission. EQ-5D-5L asks respondents to report any problems on a given day across five dimensions of mobility, self-care, usual activities, anxiety/depression and pain. The data were available from TARN and supplemented with data collected by the local trial teams. EQ-5D-5L data were cross-walked to the 3L version and valued using UK general population preference tariffs. Baseline utility was set equal to the unconscious state (−0.402) and utility following death was set to 0. QALYs were calculated using an area under the curve approach assuming linear extrapolation between time points. From the within-trial health economic analysis, participants in the standard care plus REBOA arm of the study incurred lower costs {index hospital admission: mean cost £57,384 [standard deviation (SD) £62,863]} compared to those in standard care [mean cost £116,064 (SD £128,957)]. Lower costs in the standard care plus REBOA arm of the study were mainly due to lower use of hospital resources (length of stay, etc.) due to the competing risk of death (i.e. a higher number of deaths in the REBOA plus standard care group). Similarly, life-years accrued and QALYs over 6 months post randomisation were also lower in standard care plus REBOA compared to standard care due to a greater proportion of trial participants dying, with mortality also occurring earlier in the follow-up period for the REBOA arm. The mean life-years gained in the standard care plus REBOA arm was 0.232 (SD 0.247) compared to 0.305 (SD 0.236) in the standard care arm. When modelled over a full lifetime horizon, standard care plus REBOA is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing risk of mortality but is also substantially less effective in terms of QALYs accrued over a lifetime horizon (probability 91%). The findings are robust to a range of scenario analyses undertaken, with the probability of standard care being the optimal treatment strategy ranging from 66% to 81% at a threshold value of a QALY = £50,000. Process evaluation The process evaluation was conducted in two phases; both phases involved interviews with clinical and research staff based at recruitment sites. Phase 1 was designed to identify barriers during trial initial and set-up; Phase 2 focused on exploring barriers and facilitators of recruitment into the trial and intervention delivery. A behavioural framework was used in Phase 2 to direct analysis and generate solutions designed to enhance trial practices, which included regular online meetings between the principal investigators from each site, updates to training materials and delivery, and e-mail/Twitter feedback on recruitment activity. Conclusions This is the first randomised trial ever to be conducted examining the potential clinical effectiveness of REBOA for the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses conducted suggest with high probability that a strategy of standard care plus REBOA is harmful. Implications for health care: The continuing use of REBOA, at least in the UK in-hospital setting, should be re-evaluated. Implications for research: The role (if any) of REBOA in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Abstract Background Trials in pre-hospital trauma care are relatively uncommon. There are logistical and methodological challenges related to designing and delivering trials in this setting. Previous studies have assessed challenges reported in individual trials rather than across the pre-hospital trial landscape to identify over-arching factors. The aim of this study was to investigate the challenges and opportunities related to the set-up, design and conduct of pre-hospital trauma trials from across the pre-hospital trial landscape and a specific pre-hospital trauma feasibility study. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with two cohorts of participants: research personnel who had experience of pre-hospital trials, either through direct involvement in conduct or through strategic oversight of national initiatives (n = 7), and clinical staff (n = 16) involved in recruitment to a pre-hospital trauma feasibility study. Thematic analyses were used to assess the barriers and enablers of conducting pre-hospital trauma trials. Two frameworks (The Capability Opportunity Motivation—Behaviour and the Theoretical Domains Framework) were used to guide analyses. Results The barriers and enablers reported were relevant to several TDF domains and COM-B components. Across both cohorts, challenges associated with opportunities were reported and included the lack of research experience amongst pre-hospital staff, team dynamics within a rotating shift schedule, and the involvement of external organisations with diverse institutional priorities and infrastructures (e.g. Air Ambulances). The infrequency of eligible cases was also reported to affect the trial design, set-up, and conduct. Other barriers reported related to clinical equipoise amongst staff and institutional pressures, which affected motivation. Conclusions This study has highlighted that pre-hospital trials face many context-specific but also generic challenges. Pre-hospital trauma trial teams could consider the findings to develop targeted, behaviourally focused, solutions to the challenges identified in order to enhance the set-up and conduct of trials in this setting. Trial registration NCT04145271. Trial registration date: October 30, 2019. Note that this paper does not report results from a specific trial but does include participants who were involved in the conduct of a registered pre-hospital feasibility study.

Abstract Background The evidence on what strategies can improve recruitment to clinical trials in maternity care is lacking. As trial recruiters, maternity healthcare professionals (MHCPs) perform behaviours (e.g. talking about trials with potential participants, distributing trial information) they may not ordinarily do outside of the trial. Most trial recruitment interventions do not provide any theoretical basis for the potential effect (on behaviour) or describe if stakeholders were involved during development. The study aim was to use behavioural theory in a co-design process to develop an intervention for MHCPs tasked with approaching all eligible potential participants and inviting them to join a maternity trial and to assess the acceptability and feasibility of such an intervention. Methods This study applied a step-wise sequential mixed-methods approach. Key stages were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Techniques (BCT) Taxonomy to map the accounts of MHCPs, with regard to challenges to trial recruitment, to theoretically informed behaviour change strategies. Our recruitment intervention was co-designed during workshops with MHCPs and maternity service users. Acceptability and feasibility of our intervention was assessed using an online questionnaire based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) and involved a range of trial stakeholders. Results Two co-design workshops, with a total of nine participants (n = 7 MHCP, n = 2 maternity service users), discussed thirteen BCTs as potential solutions. Ten BCTs, broadly covering Consequences and Reframing, progressed to intervention development. Forty-five trial stakeholders (clinical midwives, research midwives/nurses, doctors, allied health professionals and trial team members) participated in the online TFA questionnaire. The intervention was perceived effective, coherent, and not burdensome to engage with. Core areas for future refinement included Anticipated opportunity and Self-efficacy. Conclusion We developed a behaviour change recruitment intervention which is based on the accounts of MHCP trial recruiters and developed in a co-design process. Overall, the intervention was deemed acceptable. Future evaluation of the intervention will establish its effectiveness in enabling MHCPs to invite all eligible people to participate in a maternity care trial, and determine whether this translates into an increase in maternity trial recruitment rates.

Abstract Background Clinical trials comprise multiple processes at various stages of the trial lifecycle. These processes often involve complex behaviours such as recruiting vulnerable patient populations and clinicians having to deliver complex trial interventions successfully. Few studies have utilised a behavioural framework to assess challenges and develop strategies for effective trial recruitment and delivery of trial interventions. This study reports the application of an innovative methodological approach to understand core trial processes, namely recruitment and intervention delivery, using a behavioural science approach to develop strategies designed to mitigate trial process problems. Methods The UK-REBOA trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (a novel intervention) in injured patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage. A behavioural investigation (‘diagnosis’) was conducted using theory-informed (Theoretical Domains Framework, TDF) semi-structured interviews with site staff from the UK-REBOA trial to examine trial processes which could be improved in relation to trial recruitment and delivery of the intervention. Interviews were analysed using the TDF to identify influences on behaviour, which were then mapped to techniques for behaviour change and developed into potential solutions. Results The behavioural diagnosis of the challenges experienced during trial processes highlighted factors relevant to a range of TDF domains: Skills, Environmental context and resources, Beliefs about capabilities, Beliefs about consequences, Social influences, and Memory, attention, and decision-making processes. Within the solution development phase, we identified 24 suitable behaviour change techniques that were developed into proposed solutions to target reported process problems with the aim of changing behaviour to improve recruitment and/or intervention delivery. Proposed solutions included targeted changes to trial training content, suggestions to restructure the environment (e.g. reinforced the purpose of the trial with information about the social and environmental consequences) and other strategies to reduce barriers to recruitment and intervention delivery. Conclusions This study demonstrates the feasibility of applying a behavioural approach to investigate (‘diagnose’) behavioural trial process problems and subsequently develop and implement targeted solutions (‘treatment’) in an active trauma trial. Understanding the factors that affected behaviour, attitudes and beliefs in this trauma trial allowed us to implement theoretically informed, evidence-based solutions designed to enhance trial practices. Trial registration ISRCTN 16,184,981

BackgroundHealthcare technologies are becoming more commonplace, however clinical and patient perspectives regarding the use of technology in the management of childhood asthma have yet to be investigated. Within a clinical trial of asthma management in children, we conducted a qualitative process evaluation that provided insights into the experiences and perspectives of healthcare staff and families on (i) the use of smart inhalers to monitor medication adherence and (ii) the use of algorithm generated treatment recommendations.MethodsWe interviewed trial staff (n = 15) and families (n = 6) who were involved in the trial to gauge perspectives around the use of smart inhalers to monitor adherence and the algorithm to guide clinical decision making.FindingsStaff and families indicated that there were technical issues associated with the smart inhalers. While staff suggested that the smart inhalers were good for monitoring adherence and enabling communication regarding medication use, parents and children indicated that smart inhaler use increased motivation to adhere to medication and provided the patient (child) with a sense of responsibility for the management of their asthma. Staff were open-minded about the use of the algorithm to guide treatment recommendations, but some were not familiar with its' use in clinical care. There were some concerns expressed regarding treatment step-down decisions generated by the algorithm, and some staff highlighted the importance of using clinical judgement. Families perceived the algorithm to be a useful technology, but indicated that they felt comforted by the clinicians' own judgements.ConclusionThe use of technology and individual data within appointments was considered useful to both staff and families: closer monitoring and the educational impacts were especially highlighted. Utilising an algorithm was broadly acceptable, with caveats around clinicians using the recommendations as a guide only and wariness around extreme step-ups/downs considering contextual factors not taken into account.

Objectives The effective implementation of a fast-changing healthcare delivery innovation, such as robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), into a healthcare system, can be affected (both positively and negatively) by external contextual factors. As part of a wider project investigating ways to optimise the implementation of RAS, this qualitative study aimed to uncover current issues of RAS and predictions about the future of robotic surgery. We refer to ‘current issues’ as the topical and salient challenges and opportunities related to the introduction of RAS in the UK healthcare system, from the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the delivery and implementation of RAS.Design Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted. A thematic analysis was conducted to summarise salient issues that were articulated by the participants.Setting and participants The interview sample (n=35) comprised surgeons, wider theatre staff and other relevant personnel involved in the introduction and delivery of RAS services across the UK, including service managers and policymakers/commissioners. Two focus groups were also conducted with surgical trainees (n=7) and members of the public (n=8), respectively.Results The results revealed a largely positive attitude towards the introduction of RAS technology and an expectation of continued rapid expansion. Areas perceived to be particularly pertinent and requiring ongoing attention were also highlighted, including the need to achieve improved quality control, expertise quantification and training issues and the need to educate the public. Issues of centralisation, service organisation and equity of access were also emphasised.Conclusions Our study has highlighted a range of issues perceived to be particularly pertinent to the current and future provision of RAS which should be addressed. The areas outlined can enable healthcare managers and surgeons to plan for the adoption and/or expansion of RAS services.

Background: The role of fractional exhaled nitric oxide in guiding asthma treatment in children is uncertain. Objective: To compare treatment guided by both fractional exhaled nitric oxide and symptoms (intervention) with treatment guided by symptoms alone (standard care) in children with asthma who are at risk of an asthma exacerbation, in terms of the number of asthma exacerbations over 12 months. Design: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with embedded cost-effectiveness and qualitative process evaluations. Randomisation (1 : 1) was carried out using a remote web-based system and was minimised on recruitment centre, age, sex and British Thoracic Society treatment step. Clinical teams and participants were not blind to treatment allocation. Setting: The trial took place in 35 hospitals and seven primary care practices in the UK. Participants: Children aged 6–15 years with a diagnosis of asthma who were currently prescribed inhaled corticosteroids and who had one or more parent-/patient-reported asthma exacerbation treated with oral corticosteroids in the 12 months prior to recruitment. Interventions: Asthma treatment guided by symptoms alone (standard care) and asthma treatment guided by symptoms plus fractional exhaled nitric oxide (intervention). Treatment recommendations in both groups were protocolised within a web-based algorithm, incorporating inhaled corticosteroid adherence (objectively measured using an electronic logging device) and current treatment. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was asthma exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids in the year post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included time to first exacerbation, number of exacerbations, lung function, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, daily dose of inhaled corticosteroid, asthma control and quality of life. Results: In total, 509 eligible participants were recruited and the primary outcome was available for 506 participants. The primary outcome occurred in 123 out of 255 (48.2%) participants in the intervention group and 129 out of 251 (51.4%) participants in the standard-care group (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.27). There was algorithm non-compliance on 21% of assessments. Per-protocol and complier-average causal effect analysis did not change the interpretation. This non-statistically significant estimate was consistent across predefined subgroups. There were no differences between the groups in secondary outcomes. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. No meaningful differences in health service costs, direct patient costs or indirect costs to society were identified between the groups. The economic evaluation does not provide evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. In the qualitative process evaluation, 15 trial staff and six families were interviewed. Overall, their experiences were positive. The intervention was broadly acceptable, with caveats around clinicians using the algorithm recommendation as a guide and wariness around extreme step ups/downs in treatment in the light of contextual factors not being taken into account by the algorithm. Limitations: Potential limitations included the choice of cut-off point to define uncontrolled asthma and the change in fractional exhaled nitric oxide to trigger a change in treatment. Furthermore, the treatment decisions in the two groups may not have been sufficiently different to create a difference in outcomes. Conclusions: The RAACENO (Reducing Asthma Attacks in Children using Exhaled Nitric Oxide) trial findings do not support the routine use of fractional exhaled nitric oxide measurements as part of asthma management in a secondary care setting. The potential for other objective markers to guide asthma management in children needs to be evaluated. Trial registration: This trial was registered as ISRCTN67875351. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a MRC and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 9, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objectives To identify studies that applied behavioural approaches to issues of recruitment and/or retention to trials; to describe these approaches; and to identify gaps for future research.Design Systematic mapping review of research undertaken in clinical trials within peer-reviewed sources. Review participants were individuals involved in clinical trials, including trial staff, participants, potential participants and former participants.Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Web of Science and ASSIA from inception to 15 January 2020 with no date or language restrictions.Eligibility criteria Studies within the context of clinical trials reporting the barriers/facilitators to recruitment and retention, or developing/evaluating solutions to said barriers/facilitators, using a behavioural approach.Results 31 articles were included. Recruitment-focused studies (n=22, 71%) represented the majority. Studies tended to focus on participant behaviours (n=22, 71%). Underserved populations (n=11, 35%) were a notable subset of studies. Most studies (n=23, 74%) were exploratory but those that evaluated interventions (n=8, 26%) often did so within underserved populations (n=6). A majority of studies (n=30, 97%) did not specify their behaviours consistent with guidelines from behavioural scientists. The most used approaches were social cognitive theory (n=8, 26%), the theory of planned behaviour (n=6, 19%) and the theoretical domains framework (n=5, 16%).Conclusions A range of behavioural approaches have been applied to recruitment and retention to trials. The multitude of recruitment research here is consistent with trials research generally and emphasises the need for research into retention. Authors report target behaviours minimally, which is not conducive to replication. Further research should build on lessons here, such as clearly specifying behaviours. Increased methodological rigour and transparency will lead to robust evidence bases and less research waste in poor recruitment and retention. Overall, trials informed by behavioural approaches promises to be efficient and more participant focused.

BackgroundImplementation of Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS) is complex as it requires adjustments to associated physical infrastructure, but also changes to processes and behaviours. With the global objective of optimising and improving RAS implementation, this study aimed to: 1) Explore the barriers and enablers to RAS service adoption, incorporating an assessment of behavioural influences; 2) Provide an optimised plan for effective RAS implementation, with the incorporation of theory-informed implementation strategies that have been adapted to address the barriers/enablers that affect RAS service adoption.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with RAS personnel and stakeholders, including: surgeons, theatre staff, managers, industry representatives, and policy-makers/commissioners. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to identify barriers and enablers that represent individual behaviours, capabilities, attitudes, beliefs, and external organisational factors that influence the implementation of RAS.ResultsFindings suggest that implementation planning has three separate phases-pre-, early, and late implementation. For pre-implementation, barriers and enablers identified included the cost of RAS equipment and issues of economic viability, weak outcome evidence for RAS, a preponderance of an eminence driven model, the clinician/manager relationship, and views around the uptake and expansion of RAS in the future. Early implementation findings revealed role changes for theatre personnel and an enhanced team approach, reliance on industry for training provision, and changes in skill sets and attentional processes. Late implementation factors included equipment maintenance costs, technological limitations, changes to cognition during RAS routine use, and benefits to institutions/healthcare professionals (such as ergonomic improvement).ConclusionTogether, findings suggest the factors that affect RAS implementation are multi-faceted and change across the life-cycle of intervention adoption. Theory-informed strategies are suggested which can optimise implementation of RAS. Optimisation strategies need planning from the outset.

Objectives To identify barriers and enablers to participant retention in trials requiring questionnaire return using the theoretical domains framework (TDF).Study design and setting We identified and subsequently invited participants who did not return at least one questionnaire during their participation in a clinical trial for one-to-one semi-structured telephone interviews. We used a behavioural framework (TDF) to explore whether any of the behavioural domains (eg, beliefs about consequences, emotion) affected questionnaire return. Thereafter, we generated a series of belief statements which summarised the content of participants’ main responses and coded these under separate themes.Participants We distributed invites to 279 eligible individuals and subsequently interviewed 9 participants who took part in the C-Gall trial. The C-Gall trial required participants to complete five postal questionnaires during their participation.Results Nine participants were interviewed. We developed 7 overarching themes which were relevant for returning postal questionnaires and identified both barriers and enablers from 11 core domains: knowledge; beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; reinforcement; emotion; beliefs about capabilities; behavioural regulation; social professional role and identity; skills; intentions and goals. Relevant content coded under these salient domains were categorised into seven key themes: unclear expectations of trial participation, personal attributes for questionnaire return, commitment to returning questionnaires given other priorities, sources of support in returning the questionnaires, individual preferences for presentation mode and timing of the questionnaires, internal and external strategies to encourage questionnaire return and the significance of questionnaire non-return.Conclusion We demonstrate how a behavioural approach may be useful for clinical trials associated with significant participation burden (e.g. trials that require multiple questionnaire responses), acting as the essential groundwork for the development of appropriate evidence-based solutions to combat retention issues.Trial registration number 55215960; Pre-results.

Planning ability is important in everyday functioning, and a key measure to assess the preparation and execution of plans is the Tower of London (ToL) task. Previous studies indicate that older adults are often less accurate than the young on the ToL and that there may be cultural differences in performance on the task. However, potential interactions between age and culture have not previously been explored. In the current study we examined the effects of age on ToL performance in an Asian culture (Malaysia) and a Western culture (British) (n = 191). We also explored whether working memory, age, education, and socioeconomic status explained variance in ToL performance across these two cultures. Results indicated that age effects on ToL performance were greater in the Malaysian sample. Subsequent moderated mediation analysis revealed differences between the two cultures (British vs Malaysians), in that the age-related variance in ToL accuracy was accounted for by WM capacity at low and medium education levels only in the Malaysian sample. Demographic variables could not explain additional variance in ToL speed or accuracy. These results may reflect cultural differences in the familiarity and cognitive load of carrying out complex planning tasks.