Search

Background Our patient and public involvement activities were part of a project aiming to develop a master protocol and National Institute for Health and Care research application for the PROTECT trial aiming to assess the effectiveness, implementation, and efficiency of antimicrobial stewardship interventions, to safely reduce unnecessary antibiotic usage by excluding severe bacterial infection in acutely unwell patients. Methods Three public involvement sessions were held with representation from young people and parents, people from diverse backgrounds and people with experience of presenting to the emergency department with undifferentiated illness. The teleconference meetings lasted between 60-90 minutes, were recorded, notes were subsequently taken, and findings summarised. The data was collected on September 13, 2023, October 14, 2023 and February 28, 2024. Results Working with public involvement contributors and public involvement groups at the protocol development stage provided an opportunity for the public to shape and influence the trial. We were able to establish the feasibility of the trial in the proposed setting and gain insights into how it would be perceived by potential trial participants. Antibiotic resistance was viewed as an urgent problem and research evaluating new technologies was deemed timely and important. The platform design was considered appropriate, time and cost-effective. Deferred and electronic methods of consent were viewed as acceptable if a clear and inclusive explanation is provided. Conclusions Having access to public contributors with relevant lived experience was an important resource for the trial team. Identification and recruitment of public contributors via working with existing public involvement groups across the UK enabled the trial team to involve public members with varied life experiences and from diverse backgrounds. This project was a good practice example of how public involvement groups and practitioners across the UK can work together to deliver public involvement that is inclusive of relevant groups.

Abstract Introduction Clinical trials must include diverse participants to ensure the wide applicability of results. However, people from ethnic minorities are included in clinical trials at rates lower than expected given their share of the population. Working with South Riverside Community Development Centre (SRCDC), Talking Trials used public engagement to foster discussions around the underrepresentation of those from minority ethnic communities in clinical trials and to identify and address concerns surrounding trial participation. Methods We conducted three workshops with 13 co‐researchers from minority ethnic backgrounds. We explored perceptions and understanding of clinical trials alongside participatory art activities to help move away from verbocentric methods of communication. These artworks formed an exhibition that was presented to the community, prompting further discussions and engagement. Findings Co‐production workshops were an effective tool to introduce the public to trial research. With little knowledge of clinical trials at the beginning of the process, our co‐researchers formed a cohesive group, sharing initial fears and mistrust towards trials. As conversations progressed these attitudes clearly shifted. Artwork produced during the workshops was incorporated into an exhibition. Quotes and creative pieces from the group were included to reflect the themes identified. Presenting the exhibition at Riverside Festival enabled further engagement with a wider diverse community. The focus on co‐production helped build a network of individuals new to research and keen to become involved further. Conclusion Inclusive and democratic co‐production, enriched by participatory art practices, provided a powerful means of enabling our group to create new insights and foster new relationships. Projects like Talking Trials can diversify the research process itself—for example, four co‐researchers have commenced lay research partner roles on trial management groups and a lay advisory group is in development. Patient or Public Contribution Three members of staff at SRCDC were on the project delivery group and involved in the initial project design, subsequently helping to connect us with members of the Riverside community to work as co‐researchers. Two of the SRCDC staff are co‐authors of this manuscript. The project had 13 public co‐researchers guiding the direction of this research and creating the artwork displayed in the art exhibition.

Abstract Background The way information about potential harms of trial intervention is shared within participant information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and can cause subjective ‘nocebo’ harms. This study aimed to develop principles to improve the composition of information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms within PILs so that variability and avoidable harms are reduced. Methods We conducted a two-round modified online Delphi survey, followed by a consensus meeting. For the first round of the survey, 27 statements were developed based on previous research and relevant guidance from the UK, the USA and the World Health Organization. Participants included members from each of the following stakeholder groups: patient and public representatives, research ethics committee members, industry representatives, medico-legal experts, psychologists and trial managers. Each participant was asked to rate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. In the second round, participants were invited to reappraise their ratings after reviewing the results of the first round. Finally, two members from each stakeholder group participated in a meeting to confirm those statements for which there was agreement. Results Two hundred and fifty participants completed round 1, and 201 participants completed round 2. In round 1, consensus was reached for 16 statements. In round 2, consensus was reached for an additional three statements. The consensus meeting confirmed the survey results and consolidated the statements. This process resulted in seven principles: (1) all potential harms of a given intervention should be listed, (2) all potential harms should be separated into serious and less serious, (3) it must be made explicit that not all potential harms are known, (4) all potential benefits should be listed, (5) all potential benefits and harms need to be compared with what would happen if the participant did not take part in the trial, (6) suitable visual representations should be added where appropriate and (7) information regarding potential benefits and harms should not be presented apart by one or more pages. Conclusions Our modified Delphi process successfully generated seven principles that can and should be used to guide how information is conveyed to patients in information leaflets regarding potential trial benefits and harms.

Background: The way information about potential benefits and harms of trial is presented within participant information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and may cause unnecessary ‘nocebo’ effects. The Medical Research Council (MRC) funded a project that developed seven principles to reduce this variation. However, guidance has not been produced to facilitate the implementation of the principles. Stakeholder involvement is recommended to optimise the way these principles are disseminated and explained. To co-produce recommendations for developing: (1) user-friendly guidance for users of the principles; and (2) resources that support the implementation of the principles. Methods: We held a co-production workshop with representation from the following professional groups: the Health Research Authority (HRA), research ethics committee members, and trial managers. Two rounds of discussions focused on generating recommendations for guidance and resources that support the implementation of the seven principles. Extensive low inference style ethnographic notes were taken, and the data were analysed thematically using deductive codes. The data was collected on October 14, 2022. Results: 25 participants attended a hybrid workshop. Participants recommended that both researchers designing PILs and research ethics committee members should use the principles, and that that they should be simple, mention both benefits and harms explicitly, include examples of visual representations, and provide the evidence base for the principles. Conclusions: We were able to co-produce recommendations for developing and implementing the seven principles within PILs. These recommendations can now be implemented to reduce unexplained variation in the way potential benefits and harms are shared within PILs.

Background The way potential benefits and harms of trial interventions are shared within patient information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and may cause unnecessary harms (“nocebo effects”). The aim of this meta-analysis will be to evaluate the influence on recruitment rates and early effects on patient reported adverse events of principled patient information leaflets (PrinciPILs) compared with standard PILs. Methods Eligible studies will include those that report the effects on recruitment and patient reported adverse events of PrinciPILs compared to standard PILs. We will include in this meta-analysis all the standard PILs in studies within trials (SWATs) of PrinciPILs that were developed as part of the Medical Research Council (MRC) funded PrinciPIL project. By publishing this as a living meta-analysis, we will allow the meta-analysis to be updated with future SWATs of PrinciPILs. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to evaluate the risk of bias for each outcome. We will report the total number of studies and participants analysed and the characteristics of included studies (including details of intervention, comparators, outcomes). For dichotomous data, we will calculate the risk difference and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we will use weighted mean differences with 95% CIs or standardized mean differences with 95% CIs. We will investigate heterogeneity by visually inspecting the forest plot and by considering the I2 test result. We will assess the certainty warranted for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Ethics approval is not applicable since no original data will be collected. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. Discussion We will discuss the limitations of the meta-analysis including study risk of bias, inconsistency, heterogeneity, and imprecision. A general interpretation of the results and important implications will be provided.

Background: Most patients with oesophageal cancer present with incurable disease. For those with advanced disease, the mean survival is 3–5 months. Treatment emphasis is therefore on effective palliation, with the majority of patients requiring intervention for dysphagia. Insertion of a self-expanding metal stent provides rapid relief but dysphagia may recur within 3 months owing to tumour progression. Evidence reviews have called for trials of interventions combined with stenting to better maintain the ability to swallow. Objectives: The Radiotherapy after Oesophageal Cancer Stenting (ROCS) study examined the effectiveness of palliative radiotherapy, combined with insertion of a stent, in maintaining the ability to swallow. The trial also examined the impact that the ability to swallow had on quality of life, bleeding events, survival and cost-effectiveness. Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with follow-up every 4 weeks for 12 months. An embedded qualitative study examined trial experiences in a participant subgroup. Setting: Participants were recruited in secondary care, with all planned follow-up at home. Participants: Patients who were referred for stent insertion as the primary management of dysphagia related to incurable oesophageal cancer. Interventions: Following stent insertion, the external beam radiotherapy arm received palliative oesophageal radiotherapy at a dose of 20 Gy in five fractions or 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of participants with recurrent dysphagia, or death, at 12 weeks. Recurrent dysphagia was defined as deterioration of ≥ 11 points on the dysphagia scale of the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire oesophago-gastric module questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, bleeding risk and survival. Results: The study recruited 220 patients: 112 were randomised to the usual-care arm and 108 were randomised to the external beam radiotherapy arm. There was no evidence that radiotherapy reduced recurrence of dysphagia at 12 weeks (48.6% in the usual-care arm compared with 45.3% in the external beam radiotherapy arm; adjusted odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 1.68; p = 0.587) and it was less cost-effective than stent insertion alone. There was no difference in median survival or key quality-of-life outcomes. There were fewer bleeding events in the external beam radiotherapy arm. Exploration of patient experience prompted changes to trial processes. Participants in both trial arms experienced difficulty in managing the physical and psychosocial aspects of eating restriction and uncertainties of living with advanced oesophageal cancer. Limitations: Change in timing of the primary outcome to 12 weeks may affect the ability to detect a true intervention effect. However, consistency of results across sensitivity analyses is robust, including secondary analysis of dysphagia deterioration-free survival. Conclusions: Widely accessible palliative external beam radiotherapy in combination with stent insertion does not reduce the risk of dysphagia recurrence at 12 weeks, does not have an impact on survival and is less cost-effective than inserting a stent alone. Reductions in bleeding events should be considered in the context of patient-described trade-offs of fatigue and burdens of attending hospital. Trial design elements including at-home data capture, regular multicentre nurse meetings and qualitative enquiry improved recruitment/data capture, and should be considered for future studies. Future work: Further studies are required to identify interventions that improve stent efficacy and to address the multidimensional challenges of eating and nutrition in this patient population. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12376468 and Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01915693. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.