Search

Background: Randomised trials are considered the gold standard in providing robust evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. However, there are relatively few initiatives to help increase public understanding of what randomised trials are and why they are important. This limits the overall acceptance of and public participation in clinical trials. The People's Trial aims to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims by actively involving them in all aspects of trial design. This was done by involving the public in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial., Methods: Using a reflexive approach, we describe the processes of development, conduct, and dissemination of The People's Trial., Results: Over 3000 members of the public, from 72 countries, participated in The People's Trial. Through a series of online surveys, the public designed a trial called The Reading Trial. They chose the question the trial would try to answer and decided the components of the trial question. In December 2019, 991 participants were recruited to a trial to answer the question identified and prioritised by the public, i.e. 'Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison with not reading a book in bed?' We report the processes of The People's Trial in seven phases, paralleling the steps of a randomised trial, i.e. question identification and prioritisation, recruitment, randomisation, trial conduct, data analysis, and sharing of findings. We describe the decisions we made, the processes we used, the challenges we encountered, and the lessons we learned., Conclusion: The People's Trial involved the public successfully in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial demonstrating the potential for such initiatives to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818 . Registered on 4 December 2019., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The best way of comparing healthcare treatments is through a randomised trial. In a randomised trial, we compare something (a treatment or intervention) to something else, often another treatment. Who gets what is decided at random, meaning everyone has an equal chance of getting any of the treatments. This means any differences found can be put down to the treatment received rather than other things, such as where people live, or health conditions they might have. The People's Trial aimed to help the public better understand randomised trials by inviting them to design and carry out a trial. The question chosen by the public for The People's Trial was: 'Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep, in comparison to not reading a book in bed?' This paper describes that trial, called 'The Reading Trial'., Methods: The Reading Trial was an online, randomised trial. Members of the public were invited to take part through social media campaigns. People were asked to either read a book in bed before going to sleep (intervention group) or not read a book in bed before going to sleep (control group). We asked everyone to do this for 7 days, after which they measured their sleep quality., Results: During December 2019, a total of 991 people took part in The Reading Trial, half (496 (50%)) in the intervention group and half (495 (50%)) in the control group. Not everyone finished the trial: 127 (25.6%) people in the intervention group and 90 (18.18%) people in the control group. Of those providing data, 156/369 (42%) people in the intervention group felt their sleep improved, compared to 112/405 (28%) of those in the control group, a difference of 14%. When we consider how certain we are of this finding, we estimate that, in The Reading Trial, sleep improved for between 8 and 22% more people in the intervention group compared to the control group., Conclusions: Reading a book in bed before going to sleep improved sleep quality, compared to not reading a book in bed., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818. Registered on 4 December 2019., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The Health Research Board-Trials Methodology Research Network (HRB-TMRN) celebrates International Clinical Trials Day with the help of the younger members of our community through the Network's 'Schools Teaching Awareness of Randomised Trials (START)' initiative. START seeks to increase public awareness of randomised trials in Ireland. Launched in 2016, it asks children (8-12 years old) to conduct and report their very own fun randomised trial. The study reported in this paper sought to explore children and teachers perceptions and experiences of the START initiative., Methods: We conducted eight, one-to one interviews with teachers and eight focus groups with 61 children who took part in the 2018 START initiative. Interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed and the data analysed using template analysis., Results: The findings of this study highlight the benefits of participating in START and the areas of the initiative that required further attention. Teachers and children recalled the benefits of experiential learning associated with START and learning by doing encouraged a fun way of engaging with trial processes. By recalling all aspects of planning, conducting and reporting their trial, the children in this study demonstrated their awareness of the trial processes. The teachers suggested that START provides a valuable framework to contribute to key aspects of the primary school curriculum in Ireland. The experiences of these participants also provided recommendation for improving the programme for future START participants., Conclusions: Increasing public awareness and understanding of randomised trials can help increase public engagement in trials. By educating children about the importance of trials and supporting them to 'learn by doing' by carrying out their own trial, the START initiative can contribute substantially to children's awareness and understanding of trial processes. Given that children are the public, the patients and the researchers of the future, initiatives such as START deserve attention.

The evidence base available to trialists to support trial process decisions-e.g. how best to recruit and retain participants, how to collect data or how to share the results with participants-is thin. One way to fill gaps in evidence is to run Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. These are self-contained research studies embedded within a host trial that aim to evaluate or explore alternative ways of delivering or organising a particular trial process.SWATs are increasingly being supported by funders and considered by trialists, especially in the UK and Ireland. At some point, increasing SWAT evidence will lead funders and trialists to ask: given the current body of evidence for a SWAT, do we need a further evaluation in another host trial? A framework for answering such a question is needed to avoid SWATs themselves contributing to research waste.This paper presents criteria on when enough evidence is available for SWATs that use randomised allocation to compare different interventions.

Background: One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders., Methods: This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials., Results: A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The 'Top 10' of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was 'What motivates a participant's decision to complete a clinical trial?' The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie ., Conclusion: The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.

Background: Despite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment questions for research. The PRioRiTy study - Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) included members of the public approached to take part in a randomised trial or who have represented participants on randomised trial steering committees, health professionals and research staff with experience of recruiting to randomised trials, people who have designed, conducted, analysed or reported on randomised trials and people with experience of randomised trials methodology., Methods: This partnership was aided by the James Lind Alliance and involved eight stages: (i) identifying a unique, relevant prioritisation area within trial methodology; (ii) establishing a steering group (iii) identifying and engaging with partners and stakeholders; (iv) formulating an initial list of uncertainties; (v) collating the uncertainties into research questions; (vi) confirming that the questions for research are a current recruitment challenge; (vii) shortlisting questions and (viii) final prioritisation through a face-to-face workshop., Results: A total of 790 survey respondents yielded 1693 open-text answers to 6 questions, from which 1880 potential questions for research were identified. After merging duplicates, the number of questions was reduced to 496. Questions were combined further, and those that were submitted by fewer than 15 people and/or fewer than 6 of the 7 stakeholder groups were excluded from the next round of prioritisation resulting in 31 unique questions for research. All 31 questions were confirmed as being unanswered after checking relevant, up-to-date research evidence. The 10 highest priority questions were ranked at a face-to-face workshop. The number 1 ranked question was "How can randomised trials become part of routine care and best utilise current clinical care pathways?" The top 10 research questions can be viewed at www.priorityresearch.ie ., Conclusion: The prioritised questions call for a collective focus on normalising trials as part of clinical care, enhancing communication, addressing barriers, enablers and motivators around participation and exploring greater public involvement in the research process.

Background: The increase in the spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in bacterial pathogens and limited availability of new antimicrobials places immense pressure on general practitioners (GPs) to prescribe appropriately. Currently, electronic antimicrobial prescribing data is not routinely collected from GPs in Ireland for surveillance purposes to assess regional specific fluctuations or trends in antimicrobial prescribing. The current study aimed to address this issue by assessing the feasibility of remotely extracting antimicrobial prescribing data from primary care practices in Ireland, for the purpose of assessing prescribing quality using the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption (ESAC) drug specific quality indicators., Methods: Participating practices (n = 30) uploaded data to the Irish Primary Care Research Network (IPCRN). The IPCRN data extraction facility is integrated within the practice patient management software system and permitted the extraction of anonymised patient prescriptions for a one year period, from October 2012 to October 2013. The quality of antimicrobial prescribing was evaluated using the twelve ESAC drug specific quality indicators using the defined daily dose (DDD) per 1,000 inhabitants per day (DID) methodology. National and European prescribing surveillance data (based on total pharmacy sales) was obtained for a comparative analysis., Results: Antimicrobial prescriptions (n = 57,079) for 27,043 patients were obtained from the thirty study practices for a one year period. On average, study practices prescribed a greater proportion of quinolones (37 % increase), in summer compared with winter months, a variation which was not observed in national and European data. In comparison with national data, study practices prescribed higher proportions of β-lactamase-sensitive penicillins (4.98 % vs. 4.3 %) and a greater use of broad spectrum compared to narrow-spectrum antimicrobials (ratio = 9.98 vs. 6.26) was observed. Study practices exceeded the European mean for prescribing combinations of penicillins, including β-lactamase inhibitors., Conclusions: This research demonstrates the feasibility and potential use of direct data extraction of anonymised practice data directly through the patient management software system. The data extraction methods described can facilitate the provision of routinely collected data for sustained and inclusive surveillance of antimicrobial prescribing. These comparisons may initiate further improvements in antimicrobial prescribing practices by identifying potential areas for improvement.

Background: The overuse of antimicrobials is recognized as the main selective pressure driving the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance in human bacterial pathogens. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common infections presented in primary care and empirical antimicrobial treatment is currently recommended. Previous research has identified that a substantial proportion of Irish general practitioners (GPs) prescribe antimicrobials for UTIs that are not in accordance with the Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prescribing in Primary Care in Ireland. The aim of this trial is to design, implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention on GP antimicrobial prescribing and adult (18 years of age and over) patients' antimicrobial consumption when presenting with a suspected UTI., Methods/design: The Supporting the Improvement and Management of Prescribing for urinary tract infections (SIMPle) study is a three-armed intervention with practice-level randomization. Adult patients presenting with suspected UTIs in primary care will be included in the study.The intervention integrates components for both GPs and patients. For GPs the intervention includes interactive workshops, audit and feedback reports and automated electronic prompts summarizing recommended first-line antimicrobial treatment and, for one intervention arm, a recommendation to consider delayed antimicrobial treatment. For patients, multimedia applications and information leaflets are included. Thirty practices will be recruited to the study; laboratory data indicate that 2,038 patients will be prescribed an antimicrobial in the study. The primary outcome is a change in prescribing of first-line antimicrobials for UTIs in accordance with the Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prescribing in Primary Care in Ireland. The study will take place over 15 months with a six-month intervention period. Data will be collected through a remote electronic anonymized data-extraction system, a text-messaging system and GP and patient interviews and surveys. The intervention will be strengthened by the implementation of a social marketing framework and an economic evaluation., Trial Registration: This intervention is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID NCT01913860.