Search

Background: Placebo medications, by definition, are composed of inactive ingredients that have no physiological effect on symptoms. Nonetheless, administration of placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and in clinical settings has been demonstrated to have significant impact on many physical and psychological complaints. Until recently, conventional wisdom has suggested that patients must believe that placebo pills actually contain (or, at least, might possibly contain) active medication in order to elicit a response to placebo. However, several recent RCTs, including patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), chronic low back pain, and episodic migraine, have demonstrated that individuals receiving open-label placebo (OLP) can still experience symptomatic improvement and benefit from honestly described placebo treatment.Methods and Design: This paper describes an innovative multidisciplinary trial design (n = 280) that attempts to replicate and expand upon an earlier IBS OLP study. The current study will compare OLP to double-blind placebo (DBP) administration which is made possible by including a nested, double-blind RCT comparing DBP and peppermint oil. The study also examines possible genetic and psychological predictors of OLP and seeks to better understand participants' experiences with OLP and DBP through a series of extensive interviews with a randomly selected subgroup.Discussion: OLP treatment is a novel strategy for ethically harnessing placebo effects. It has potential to re-frame theories of placebo and to influence how physicians can optimize watch-and-wait strategies for common, subjective symptoms. The current study aims to dramatically expand what we know about OLP by comparing, for the first time, OLP and DBP administration. Adopting a unique, multidisciplinary approach, the study also explores genetic, psychological and experiential dimensions of OLP. The paper ends with an extensive discussion of the "culture" of the trial as well as potential mechanisms of OLP and ethical implications.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02802241 . Registered on 14 June 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recruitment of participants is particularly challenging in primary care, with less than a third of randomised controlled trials (RCT) achieving their target within the original time frame. Participant identification, consent, randomisation and data collection can all be time-consuming. Trials recruiting an incident, as opposed to a prevalent, population may be particularly affected. This paper describes the impact of a deferred recruitment model in a RCT of antibiotics for children with infected eczema in primary care, which required the recruitment of cases presenting acutely.Methods: Eligible children were identified by participating general practitioners (GPs) and referred to a study research nurse, who then visited them at home. This allowed the consent and recruitment processes to take place outside the general practice setting. Information was recorded about patients who were referred and recruited, or if not, the reasons for non-recruitment. Data on recruitment challenges were collected through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with a sample of participating GPs. Data were thematically analysed to identify key themes.Results: Of the children referred to the study 34% (58/171) were not recruited - 48% (28/58) because of difficulties arranging a baseline visit within the defined time frame, 31% (18/58) did not meet the study inclusion criteria at the time of nurse assessment, and 21% (12/58) declined participation. GPs had positive views about the recruitment process, reporting that parents valued and benefitted from additional contact with a nurse. GPs felt that the deferred recruitment model did not negatively impact on the study.Conclusions: GPs and parents recognised the benefits of deferred recruitment, but these did not translate into enhanced recruitment of participants. The model resulted in the loss of a third of children who were identified by the GP as eligible, but not subsequently recruited to the study. If the potential for improving outcomes in primary care through complex studies is to be realised, new approaches to recruitment into primary care trials need to be developed and evaluated.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN96705420 . Registered on 27 June 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In November 2016, the ICH published a requirement for sponsors to develop a systematic, prioritised, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. This approach is more commonly known as risk-based monitoring (RBM). However, recent evidence suggests that a 'gold standard', validated approach to RBM does not exist and it is unclear how sponsors will introduce RBM into their organisations. A first step needed to inform the implementation of RBM is to explore academic trialists' readiness and ability to perform RBM. The aim of this paper is to identify the attitudes and perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials in Ireland.Methods: This is a mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design, with quantitative survey followed by semistructured interviews. Academic clinical researchers (N = 132) working in Ireland were surveyed to examine their use and perceptions of RBM. A purposive sample of survey participants (n = 22) were then interviewed to gain greater insight into the quantitative findings. The survey and interview data were merged to generate a list of perceived barriers and facilitators to RBM implementation, with suggestions for, and solutions to, these issues.Results: Survey response rate was 49% (132/273). Thirteen percent (n = 18) of responders were not familiar with the term risk-based monitoring and less than a quarter of respondents (21%, n = 28) had performed RBM in a clinical trial. Barriers to RBM implementation included lack of RBM knowledge/training, increased costs caused by greater IT demands, increased workload for trial staff and lack of evidence to support RBM as an effective monitoring approach. Facilitators included participants' legal obligation to perform RBM under the new ICH-GCP guidelines, availability of RBM guidance and perception of cost savings by performing RBM in future trials.Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate a need for training and regulatory-endorsed guidelines to support the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials. The study provides valuable insights to inform interventions and strategies by policy-makers and clinical trial regulators to improve RBM uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Caregivers of people with dementia (PwD) face burden, feelings of loneliness, and social isolation. Previous studies have shown promising effects of online e-health interventions. Using social media may facilitate support for dementia caregiver networks. In an iterative step-wise approach, a social support tool entitled "Inlife" was developed. This paper describes the design of a study evaluating the effects of Inlife and its process characteristics.Methods: A mixed-method, randomised controlled trial with 122 caregivers of PwD will be conducted. Participants will be assigned to either the Inlife social support intervention or a waiting-list control group. After 16 weeks, the control group will obtain access to the Inlife environment. Data will be collected at baseline (T0) and at 8-week (T1), 16-week (T2) and 42-week follow up (T3). The 16-week follow-up assessment (T2) is the primary endpoint to evaluate the results on the primary and secondary outcomes, measured by self-reported questionnaires. The primary outcomes include feelings of caregiver competence and perceived social support. The secondary outcomes include received support, feelings of loneliness, psychological complaints (e.g., anxiety, stress), and quality of life. A process evaluation, including semi-structured interviews, will be conducted to examine the internal and external validity of the intervention.Discussion: Using a mixed-method design, our study will provide valuable insights into the usability, effectiveness, and factors related to implementation of the Inlife intervention. Our study results will indicate whether Inlife could be a valuable social support resource in future routine dementia care.Trial Registration: Dutch trial register, NTR6131 . Registered on 20 October 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper proposes a novel perspective on the value of qualitative research for improving trial design and optimising recruitment. We report findings from a qualitative study set within the OPEN trial, a surgical randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing two interventions for recurrent bulbar urethral stricture, a common cause of urinary problems in men.Methods: Interviews were conducted with men meeting trial eligibility criteria (n = 19) to explore reasons for accepting or declining participation and with operating urologists (n = 15) to explore trial acceptability.Results: Patients expressed various preferences and understood these in the context of relative severity and tolerability of their symptoms. Accounts suggest a common trajectory of worsening symptoms with a particular window within which either treatment arm would be considered acceptable. Interviews with clinician recruiters found that uncertainty varied between general and specialist sites, which reflect clinicians' relative exposure to different proportions of the patient population.Conclusion: Recruitment post referral, at specialist sites, was challenging due to patient (and clinician) expectations. Trial design, particularly where there are fixed points for recruitment along the care pathway, can enable or constrain the possibilities for effective accrual depending on how it aligns with the optimum point of patient equipoise. Qualitative recruitment investigations, often focussed on information provision and patient engagement, may also look to better understand the target patient population in order to optimise the point at which patients are approached.Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN98009168 . Registered on 29 November 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medication non-adherence is a complex health care problem. Due to non-adherence, substantial numbers of cardiovascular patients benefit from their medication to only a limited extent. In order to improve adherence, a variety of pharmacist-led interventions have been developed. However, even the most effective interventions achieved only a modest positive effect. To be effective, interventions should be targeted at underlying barriers to adherence, developed in a systematic manner and tailored to specific features of a target group and setting. The current paper describes the design of the Cardiovascular medication non-Adherence Tailored Intervention (CATI) study aimed to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of a patient-tailored intervention programme in patients using antihypertensive medication.Methods: The CATI study is a randomised controlled trial that will be performed in 13 community pharmacies. Patients aged 45-75 years using antihypertensive medication and considered non-adherent according to pharmacy dispensing data, as well according to a self-report questionnaire, are eligible to participate. Patients in the intervention condition will receive a patient-tailored, pharmacist-led intervention programme. This programme consists of a structured interview at the pharmacy to identify patients' barriers to adherence and to counsel patients in order to overcome these barriers. The primary outcome is self-reported medication adherence measured with the MARS-5 questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures are blood pressure, illness perceptions, quality of life and societal costs. A cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation will also be performed.Discussion: This study will provide insight into the (cost-)effectiveness of a patient-tailored, pharmacist-led intervention programme in non-adherent patients using antihypertensive medication. This intervention programme allows community pharmacists to support their patients in overcoming barriers to adherence and improving medication adherence in a structured and patient-tailored manner. An effective intervention will not only enhance medication adherence, but may also improve health outcomes and decrease health care utilisation and costs.Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register (identifier: NTR5017), registered on 2 February 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A personal health record (PHR) is an online application through which individuals can access, manage, and share their health information in a private, secure, and confidential environment. Personal health records empower patients, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals, and improve health outcomes. Given these anticipated positive effects, we want to implement a PHR, named MyPregn@ncy, in a Dutch maternity care setting and to evaluate its effects in routine care. This paper presents the study protocol.Methods/design: The effects of implementing a PHR in maternity care on patients and professionals will be identified in a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised, controlled trial. The study will be performed in the region of Nijmegen, a Dutch area with an average of 4,500 births a year and more than 230 healthcare professionals involved in maternity care. Data analyses will describe the effects of MyPregn@ncy on health outcomes in maternity care, quality of care from the patients' perspectives, and collaboration among healthcare professionals. Additionally, a process evaluation of the implementation of MyPregn@ncy will be performed. Data will be collected using data from the Dutch perinatal registry, questionnaires, interviews, and log data.Discussion: The study is expected to yield new information about the effects, strengths, possibilities, and challenges to the implementation and usage of a PHR in routine maternal care settings. Results may lead to new insights and improvements in the quality of maternal and perinatal care.Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4063. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International epidemiological research into violence against children is increasing in scope and frequency, but little has been written about practical management of the ethical aspects of conducting such research in low and middle-income countries. In this paper, we describe our study procedures and reflect on our experiences conducting a survey of more than 3,700 primary school children in Uganda as part of the Good Schools Study, a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based violence prevention intervention. Children were questioned extensively about their experiences of physical, sexual, and emotional violence from a range of different perpetrators. We describe our sensitisation and consent procedures, developed based on our previous research experience and requirements for our study setting. To respond to disclosures of abuse that occurred during our survey, we describe a referral algorithm developed in conjunction with local services. We then describe our experience of actually implementing these procedures in our 2012 survey, based on reflections of the research team. Drawing on 40 qualitative interviews, we describe children's experiences of participating in the survey and of being referred to local child protection services.Results: Although we were able to implement much of our protocol in a straightforward manner, we also encountered major challenges in relation to the response of local services to children's disclosures of violence. The research team had to intervene to ensure that children were provided with appropriate support and that our ethical obligations were met.Conclusions: In resource poor settings, finding local services that can provide appropriate support for children may be challenging, and researchers need to have concrete plans and back-up plans in place to ensure that obligations can be met. The merits of mandatory reporting of children's disclosures to local services need to be considered on a case by case basis-in some places this has the potential to do harm. Research teams also must agree on what level of ancillary care will be provided, and budget accordingly. Further practical examples of how to address the challenges encountered in this work are needed, in order to build a consensus on best practices.Trial Registration: NCT01678846 (clinicaltrials.gov), August 24, 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the promising benefits of adaptive designs (ADs), their routine use, especially in confirmatory trials, is lagging behind the prominence given to them in the statistical literature. Much of the previous research to understand barriers and potential facilitators to the use of ADs has been driven from a pharmaceutical drug development perspective, with little focus on trials in the public sector. In this paper, we explore key stakeholders' experiences, perceptions and views on barriers and facilitators to the use of ADs in publicly funded confirmatory trials.Methods: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews of key stakeholders in clinical trials research (CTU directors, funding board and panel members, statisticians, regulators, chief investigators, data monitoring committee members and health economists) were conducted through telephone or face-to-face sessions, predominantly in the UK. We purposively selected participants sequentially to optimise maximum variation in views and experiences. We employed the framework approach to analyse the qualitative data.Results: We interviewed 27 participants. We found some of the perceived barriers to be: lack of knowledge and experience coupled with paucity of case studies, lack of applied training, degree of reluctance to use ADs, lack of bridge funding and time to support design work, lack of statistical expertise, some anxiety about the impact of early trial stopping on researchers' employment contracts, lack of understanding of acceptable scope of ADs and when ADs are appropriate, and statistical and practical complexities. Reluctance to use ADs seemed to be influenced by: therapeutic area, unfamiliarity, concerns about their robustness in decision-making and acceptability of findings to change practice, perceived complexities and proposed type of AD, among others.Conclusions: There are still considerable multifaceted, individual and organisational obstacles to be addressed to improve uptake, and successful implementation of ADs when appropriate. Nevertheless, inferred positive change in attitudes and receptiveness towards the appropriate use of ADs by public funders are supportive and are a stepping stone for the future utilisation of ADs by researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pragmatic randomised controlled trials (PRCTs) aim to assess intervention effectiveness by accounting for 'real life' implementation challenges in routine practice. The methodological challenges of PRCT implementation, particularly in primary care, are not well understood. The Kanyini Guidelines Adherence to Polypill study (Kanyini GAP) was a recent primary care PRCT involving multiple private general practices, Indigenous community controlled health services and private community pharmacies. Through the experiences of Kanyini GAP participants, and using data from study materials, this paper identifies the critical enablers and barriers to implementing a PRCT across diverse practice settings and makes recommendations for future PRCT implementation.Methods: Qualitative data from 94 semi-structured interviews (47 healthcare providers (pharmacists, general practitioners, Aboriginal health workers; 47 patients) conducted for the process evaluation of Kanyini GAP was used. Data coded to 'trial impact', 'research motivation' and 'real world' were explored and triangulated with data extracted from study materials (e.g. Emails, memoranda of understanding and financial statements).Results: PRCT implementation was facilitated by an extensive process of relationship building at the trial outset including building on existing relationships between core investigators and service providers. Health providers' and participants' altruism, increased professional satisfaction, collaboration, research capacity and opportunities for improved patient care enabled implementation. Inadequate research infrastructure, excessive administrative demands, insufficient numbers of adequately trained staff and the potential financial impact on private practice were considered implementation barriers. These were largely related to this being the first experience of trial involvement for many sites. The significant costs of addressing these barriers drew study resources from the task of achieving recruitment targets.Conclusions: Conducting PRCTs is crucial to generating credible evidence of intervention effectiveness in routine practice. PRCT implementation needs to account for the particular challenges of implementing collaborative research across diverse stakeholder organisations. Reliance on goodwill to participate is crucial at the outset. However, participation costs, particularly for organisations with little or no research experience, can be substantial and should be factored into PRCT funding models. Investment in a pool to fund infrastructure in the form of primary health research networks will offset some of these costs, enabling future studies to be implemented more cost-effectively.Trial Registration: ACTRN126080005833347. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious mental disorder with multiple comorbidities and complications. In those with a severe and enduring form of the illness (SEED-AN), treatment responsivity is poor and the evidence base limited. Thus, there is a need for novel treatment strategies. This paper describes the theoretical background and protocol of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of real versus sham (placebo) therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in SEED-AN. The aim of this trial is to obtain information that will guide decision making and protocol development in relation to a future large-scale RCT of rTMS in this group of patients, and also to assess the preliminary efficacy and neural correlates of rTMS treatment.Design: Forty-four adults from the community with a DSM-5 diagnosis of AN, an illness duration>3 years and a previous course of unsuccessful treatment will be randomly allocated to receive 20 sessions of either real or sham rTMS, in a parallel group design. As this is a feasibility study, no primary outcome has been defined and a broad range of outcome variables will be examined. These include weight/body mass index (BMI), eating disorder psychopathology, other psychopathology (for example, depression, anxiety), quality of life, neuropsychological processes (such as self-regulation, attentional bias and food choice behaviour), neuroimaging measures (that is, changes in brain structure or function), tolerability and acceptability of rTMS, and additional service utilisation. The feasibility of conducting a large-scale RCT of rTMS and the appropriateness of rTMS as a treatment for SEED-AN will be evaluated through: assessment of recruitment and retention rates, acceptability of random allocation, blinding success (allocation concealment), completion of treatment sessions and research assessments (baseline, post-treatment and follow-up assessments). The acceptability and tolerability of the treatment will be assessed via semi-structured interviews.Discussion: The effect sizes generated and other findings from this trial will inform a future large-scale RCT with respect to decisions on primary outcome measures and other aspects of protocol development. Additionally, results from this study will provide a preliminary indication of the efficacy of rTMS treatment for AN, the neural correlates of the illness, and potential biomarkers of clinical response.Trial Registration: ISRCTN14329415 . Date of registration: 23 July 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]