Objectives: Recent legislative changes within the United Kingdom have stimulated professional debate about access to patient data within research. However, there is currently little awareness of public views about such research. The authors sought to explore attitudes of the public, and their lay representatives, towards the use of primary care medical record data for research when patient consent was not being sought.
Objectives The public and patients are primary contributors and beneficiaries of pandemic-relevant clinical research. However, their views on research participation during a pandemic have not been systematically studied. We aimed to understand public views regarding participation in clinical research during a hypothetical influenza pandemic. Study design This is an international cross-sectional survey. Methods: We surveyed the views of nationally representative samples of people in Belgium, Poland, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, using a scenario-based instrument during the 2017 regional influenza season. Descriptive and regression analyses were conducted. Results Of the 6804 respondents, 5572 (81.8%) thought pandemic-relevant research was important, and 5089 (74.8%) thought 'special rules' should be applied to make this research feasible. The respondents indicated willingness to take part in lower risk (4715, 69.3%) and higher risk (3585, 52.7%) primary care and lower risk (4780, 70.3%) and higher risk (4113, 60.4%) intensive care unit (ICU) study scenarios. For primary care studies, most (3972, 58.4%) participants preferred standard enrolment procedures such as prospective written informed consent, but 2327 (34.2%) thought simplified procedures would be acceptable. For ICU studies, 2800 (41.2%) preferred deferred consent, and 2623 (38.6%) preferred prospective third-party consent. Greater knowledge about pandemics, trust in a health professional, trust in the government, therapeutic misconception and having had ICU experience as a patient or carer predicted increased willingness to participate in pandemic-relevant research. Conclusions Our study indicates current public support for pandemic-relevant clinical research. Tailored information and initiatives to advance research literacy and maintain trust are required to support pandemic-relevant research participation and engagement.
Background: Pragmatic trials of public health interventions outside the NHS are relatively scarce, much needed and face particular challenges. These include funding, of intervention costs in particular; trial implementation in professional and organisational cultures unused to randomised trial procedures, including randomisation, maintaining the counterfactual, recruitment; and relevance of findings for and translation into policy and practice. Objectives: The current NPRI funded trial of SFP 10-14 UK is presented as a case study to discuss these issues, solutions and remaining barriers. The SFP 10-14 UK programme aims to strengthen areas of family life that protect against substance misuse, for example, parenting, communication, and young people's resilience skills. The SFP 10-14 UK is being delivered by statutory and voluntary agencies in six local authority areas across Wales, and is offered to mixed groups comprised of families from the general population, and families who may experience/present challenges within a group setting. Methods: The trial aims to recruit 748 families, 374 of whom will be randomised to receive the usual services available to families within their local area. 374 families will receive the SFP 10-14 UK in addition to usual care. Families are identified by staff employed within the statutory services and voluntary sectors and referred to embedded research staff for recruitment. Results: Challenges encountered related to a lack of awareness of the randomised trial as a research paradigm among staff and key referring agencies, related concerns about the ethics of randomisation and the maintenance of the counterfactual among the usual care group, and challenges regarding the maintenance of recruitment and intervention fidelity. Whilst a challenge in itself, partnership working with delivery agencies, programme trainers, and the Welsh Assembly Government at all stages of the development, funding and conduct of the trial has proved an important strategy to overcome these issues. Conclusions: This trial seeks to generate evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the SFP10-14 UK which is of direct relevance to policy makers, commissioners and practitioners. The trial highlights that strategic partnership working, the winning of 'hearts and minds' regarding the ethics and operationalisation of randomisation, and maintaining the balance between internal and external validity are key areas of focus for the successful conduct of pragmatic trials in non-NHS settings. The lessons learnt from its implementation will be important for future multi-sector/agency policy trials and for role out of the intervention if found to be efficacious.
This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from OUP via the DOI in this record. ; Background. Self-management and self-efficacy for physical activity is not routinely considered in neurologic rehabilitation. Objective. This study assessed feasibility and outcomes of a 14-week physical activity self-management and coaching intervention compared with social contact in Huntington disease (HD) to inform the design of a future full-scale trial. Design. Assessor blind, multisite, randomized pilot feasibility trial. Setting. Participants were recruited and assessed at baseline, 16 weeks following randomization, and then again at 26 weeks in HD specialist clinics with intervention delivery by trained coaches in the participants' homes. Patients and Intervention. People with HD were allocated to the ENGAGE-HD physical activity coaching intervention or a social interaction intervention. Measurements. Eligibility, recruitment, retention, and intervention participation were determined at 16 weeks. Other outcomes of interest included measures of mobility, self-efficacy, physical activity, and disease-specific measures of motor and cognition. Fidelity and costs for both the physical activity and social comparator interventions were established. Results. Forty percent (n = 46) of eligible patients were enrolled; 22 were randomized to the physical intervention and 24 to social intervention. Retention rates in the physical intervention and social intervention were 77% and 92%, respectively. Minimum participation criteria were achieved by 82% of participants in the physical intervention and 100% in the social intervention. There was no indication of between-group treatment effects on function; however, increases in self-efficacy for exercise and self-reported levels of physical activity in the physical intervention lend support to our predefined intervention logic model. Limitations. The use of self-report measures may have introduced bias. Conclusions. An HD physical activity self-management and coaching intervention is feasible and worthy of further investigation. ; Funding was provided by Health and Care Research Wales. Dr Dawes was supported by the Elizabeth Casson Trust and the NatIonal Institute for Social and Health care Research (NIHR), Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, based at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Oxford. The South East Wales Trials Unit (SEWTU), Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, is funded by the Wales Assembly Government through Health and Care Research Wales.
This is the final version of the article. Available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record. ; Purpose: Process evaluations generate important data on the extent to which interventions are delivered as intended. However, the tendency to focus only on assessment of pre-specified structural aspects of fidelity has been criticised for paying insufficient attention to implementation processes and how intervention-context interactions influence programme delivery. This paper reports findings from a process evaluation nested within a randomised controlled trial of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 (SFP 10-14) in Wales, UK. It uses Extended Normalisation Process Theory to theorise how interaction between SFP 10-14 and local delivery systems - particularly practitioner commitment/capability and organisational capacity - influenced delivery of intended programme activities: fidelity (adherence to SFP 10-14 content and implementation requirements); dose delivered; dose received (participant engagement); participant recruitment and reach (intervention attendance). Methods: A mixed methods design was utilised. Fidelity assessment sheets (completed by practitioners), structured observation by researchers, and routine data were used to assess: adherence to programme content; staffing numbers and consistency; recruitment/retention; and group size and composition. Interviews with practitioners explored implementation processes and context. Results: Adherence to programme content was high - with some variation, linked to practitioner commitment to, and understanding of, the intervention's content and mechanisms. Variation in adherence rates was associated with the extent to which multi-agency delivery team planning meetings were held. Recruitment challenges meant that targets for group size/composition were not always met, but did not affect adherence levels or family engagement. Targets for staffing numbers and consistency were achieved, though capacity within multi-agency networks reduced over time. Conclusions: Extended Normalisation Process Theory provided a useful framework for assessing implementation and explaining variation by examining intervention-context interactions. Findings highlight the need for process evaluations to consider both the structural and process components of implementation to explain whether programme activities are delivered as intended and why. ; The research was funded by the National Prevention Research Initiative (https://www.mrc.ac.uk/research/initiatives/national-prevention-research-initiative-npri/; Award no. G0802128). Funding partners are: Alzheimer's Research Trust; Alzheimer's Society; Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council; British Heart Foundation; Cancer Research UK; Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorate; Department of Health; Diabetes UK; Economic and Social Research Council; Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; Health & Social Care Research & Development Office for Northern Ireland; Medical Research Council; The Stroke Association; Welsh Government; and World Cancer Research Fund. The Welsh Government provided c.£675k of partnership funding, to cover the cost of implementation in three trial areas, and the associated training and support provided by the Cardiff Strengthening Families Programme team. Further support from Welsh Government provided £208 k to cover programme delivery in six trial sites from August 2011-July 2012. The Cardiff Strengthening Families Programme team also provided financial support for programme delivery and trial recruitment in schools. The work was undertaken with the support of The Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Joint funding (MR/KO232331/1) from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. Laurence Moore was funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/14) and Chief Scientist Office at the Scottish Government Health Directorates (SPHSU14). SEWTU is funded by Welsh Government.
Published online ; Journal Article ; This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Cancer Research UK via the DOI in this record. ; BACKGROUND: Achieving earlier stage diagnosis is one option for improving lung cancer outcomes in the United Kingdom. Patients with lung cancer typically present with symptoms to general practitioners several times before referral or investigation. METHODS: We undertook a mixed methods feasibility individually randomised controlled trial (the ELCID trial) to assess the feasibility and inform the design of a definitive, fully powered, UK-wide, Phase III trial of lowering the threshold for urgent investigation of suspected lung cancer. Patients over 60, with a smoking history, presenting with new chest symptoms to primary care, were eligible to be randomised to intervention (urgent chest X-ray) or usual care. RESULTS: The trial design and materials were acceptable to GPs and patients. We randomised 255 patients from 22 practices, although the proportion of eligible patients who participated was lower than expected. Survey responses (89%), and the fidelity of the intervention (82% patients X-rayed within 3 weeks) were good. There was slightly higher anxiety and depression in the control arm in participants aged >75. Three patients (1.2%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the feasibility of individually randomising patients at higher risk of lung cancer, to a trial offering urgent investigation or usual care.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication 10 January 2017; doi:10.1038/bjc.2016.414 www.bjcancer.com. ; This trial was funded by the National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative (NAEDI) Research Call Funding Partners (in alphabetical order): Cancer Research UK (trial reference: C8350/A12199); Department of Health, England; Economic and Social Research Council; Health and Social Care Research and Development Division, Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland; National Institute for Social Care and Health Research, Wales; and the Scottish Government (http://www.naedi.org.uk). The trial was developed on behalf of the NCRI Primary Care and Lung Clinical Studies Groups. It was sponsored by Bangor University. The Wales Cancer Trials Unit is funded by Cancer Research UK. The South East Wales Trials Unit is funded by Health and Care Research Wales. We would like to thank all the patients who participated in the trial; all the practices who participated in the trial; members of the Independent Trial Steering Committee; the Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration; the Health and Care Research Wales Workforce; the Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, and the Primary Care Research Network Workforce.
