BackgroundPragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered essential to determine effective interventions for routine clinical practice, but many fail to recruit participants efficiently, and some really important RCTs are not undertaken because recruitment is thought to be too difficult. The ‘QuinteT Recruitment Intervention’ (QRI) aims to facilitate informed decision making by patients about RCT participation and to increase recruitment. This paper presents the development and implementation of the QRI.MethodsThe QRI developed iteratively as a complex intervention. It emerged from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ProtecT trial and has been developed further in 13 RCTs. The final version of the QRI uses a combination of standard and innovative qualitative research methods with some simple quantification to understand recruitment and identify sources of difficulties.ResultsThe QRI has two major phases: understanding recruitment as it happens and then developing a plan of action to address identified difficulties and optimise informed consent in collaboration with the RCT chief investigator (CI) and the Clinical Trials Unit (CTU). The plan of action usually includes RCT-specific, as well as generic, aspects. The QRI can be used in two ways: it can be integrated into the feasibility/pilot or main phase of an RCT to prevent difficulties developing and optimise recruitment from the start, or it can be applied to an ongoing RCT experiencing recruitment shortfalls, with a view to rapidly improving recruitment and informed consent or gathering evidence to justify RCT closure.ConclusionsThe QRI provides a flexible way of understanding recruitment difficulties and producing a plan to address them while ensuring engaged and well-informed decision making by patients. It can facilitate recruitment to the most controversial and important RCTs. QRIs are likely to be of interest to the CIs and CTUs developing proposals for ‘difficult’ RCTs or for RCTs with lower than expected recruitment and to the funding bodies wishing to promote efficient recruitment in pragmatic RCTs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1391-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based medicine and increasingly rely on front-line clinicians to recruit eligible patients. Clinicians’ difficulties with negotiating equipoise is assumed to undermine recruitment, although these issues have not yet been empirically investigated in the context of observable events. We aimed to investigate how clinicians conveyed equipoise during RCT recruitment appointments across six RCTs, with a view to (i) identifying practices that supported or hindered equipoise communication and (ii) exploring how clinicians’ reported intentions compared with their actual practices.Methods and FindingsSix pragmatic UK-based RCTs were purposefully selected to include several clinical specialties (e.g., oncology, surgery) and types of treatment comparison. The RCTs were all based in secondary-care hospitals (n = 16) around the UK. Clinicians recruiting to the RCTs were interviewed (n = 23) to understand their individual sense of equipoise about the RCT treatments and their intentions for communicating equipoise to patients. Appointments in which these clinicians presented the RCT to trial-eligible patients were audio-recorded (n = 105). The appointments were analysed using thematic and content analysis approaches to identify practices that supported or challenged equipoise communication. A sample of appointments was independently coded by three researchers to optimise reliability in reported findings. Clinicians and patients provided full written consent to be interviewed and have appointments audio-recorded.Interviews revealed that clinicians’ sense of equipoise varied: although all were uncertain about which trial treatment was optimal, they expressed different levels of uncertainty, ranging from complete ambivalence to clear beliefs that one treatment was superior. Irrespective of their personal views, all clinicians intended to set their personal biases aside to convey trial treatments neutrally to patients (in accordance with existing evidence). However, equipoise was omitted or compromised in 48/105 (46%) of the recorded appointments. Three commonly recurring practices compromised equipoise communication across the RCTs, irrespective of clinical context. First, equipoise was overridden by clinicians offering treatment recommendations when patients appeared unsure how to proceed or when they asked for the clinician’s expert advice. Second, clinicians contradicted equipoise by presenting imbalanced descriptions of trial treatments that conflicted with scientific information stated in the RCT protocols. Third, equipoise was undermined by clinicians disclosing their personal opinions or predictions about trial outcomes, based on their intuition and experience. These broad practices were particularly demonstrated by clinicians who had indicated in interviews that they held less balanced views about trial treatments. A limitation of the study was that clinicians volunteering to take part in the research might have had a particular interest in improving t...

No abstract

BackgroundNHS expenditure has stagnated since the economic crisis of 2007, resulting in financial pressures. One response is for policy-makers to regulate use of existing health-care technologies and disinvest from inefficiently used health technologies. A key challenge to disinvestment is to identify existing health technologies with uncertain cost-effectiveness.ObjectivesWe aimed to explore if geographical variation in procedure rates is a marker of clinical uncertainty and might be used by local commissioners to identify procedures that are potential candidates for disinvestment. We also explore obstacles and solutions to local commissioners achieving disinvestment, and patient and clinician perspectives on regulating access to procedures.MethodsWe used Hospital Episode Statistics to measure geographical variation in procedure rates from 2007/8 to 2011/12. Expected procedure numbers for each primary care trust (PCT) were calculated adjusting for proxies of need. Random effects Poisson regression quantified the residual inter-PCT procedure rate variability. We benchmarked local procedure rates in two PCTs against national rates. We conducted rapid systematic reviews of two high-use procedures selected by the PCTs [carpal tunnel release (CTR) and laser capsulotomy], searching bibliographical databases to identify systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted non-participant overt observations of commissioning meetings and semistructured interviews with stakeholders about disinvestment in general and with clinicians and patients about one disinvestment case study. Transcripts were analysed thematically using constant comparison methods derived from grounded theory.ResultsThere was large inter-PCT variability in procedure rates for many common NHS procedures. Variation in procedure rates was highest where the diffusion or discontinuance was rapidly evolving and where substitute procedures were available, suggesting that variation is a proxy for clinical uncertainty about appropriate use. In both PCTs we identified procedures where high local use might represent an opportunity for disinvestment. However, there were barriers to achieving disinvestment in both procedure case studies. RCTs comparing CTR with conservative care indicated that surgery was clinically effective and cost-effective on average but provided limited evidence on patient subgroups to inform commissioning criteria and achieve savings. We found no RCTs of laser capsulotomy. The apparently high rate of capsulotomy was probably due to the coding inaccuracy; some savings might be achieved by greater use of outpatient procedures. Commissioning meetings were dominated by new funding requests. Benchmarking did not appear to be routinely carried out because of capacity issues and concerns about data reliability. Perceived barriers to disinvestment included lack of collaboration, central support and tools for disinvestment. Clinicians felt threshold criteria had little impact on their practice and that prior approval systems would not be cost-effective. Most patients were unaware of rationing.ConclusionsPolicy-makers could use geographical variation as a starting point to identify procedures where health technology reassessment or RCTs might be needed to inform policy. Commissioners can use benchmarking to identify procedures with high local use, possibly indicating overtreatment. However, coding inconsistency and limited evidence are major barriers to achieving disinvestment through benchmarking. Increased central support for commissioners to tackle disinvestment is needed, including tools, accurate data and relevant evidence. Early engagement with patients and clinicians is essential for successful local disinvestment.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) on recruitment in challenging randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have applied the intervention. The QRI aims to understand recruitment difficulties and then implements “QRI actions” to address these as recruitment proceeds.Study Design and SettingA mixed-methods study, comprising (1) before-and-after comparisons of recruitment rates and the numbers of patients approached and (2) qualitative case studies, including documentary analysis and interviews with RCT investigators.ResultsFive UK-based publicly funded RCTs were included in the evaluation. All recruited to target. Randomized controlled trial 2 and RCT 5 both received up-front prerecruitment training before the intervention was applied. Randomized controlled trial 2 did not encounter recruitment issues and recruited above target from its outset. Recruitment difficulties, particularly communication issues, were identified and addressed through QRI actions in RCTs 1, 3, 4, and 5. Randomization rates significantly improved after QRI action in RCTs 1, 3, and 4. Quintet Recruitment Intervention actions addressed issues with approaching eligible patients in RCTs 3 and 5, which both saw significant increases in the number of patients approached. Trial investigators reported that the QRI had unearthed issues they had been unaware of and reportedly changed their practices after QRI action.ConclusionThere is promising evidence to suggest that the QRI can support recruitment to difficult RCTs. This needs to be substantiated with future controlled evaluations.

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 10/34/01. The contractual start date was in May 2012. The draft report began editorial review in May 2014 and was accepted for publication in September 2015. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Background: There i...

BackgroundResearch has shown that recruitment to trials is a process that stretches from identifying potentially eligible patients, through eligibility assessment, to obtaining informed consent. The length and complexity of this pathway means that many patients do not have the opportunity to consider participation. This article presents the development of a simple framework to document, understand and improve the process of trial recruitment.MethodsEight RCTs integrated a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) into the main trial, feasibility or pilot study. Part of the QRI required mapping the patient recruitment pathway using trial-specific screening and recruitment logs. A content analysis compared the logs to identify aspects of the recruitment pathway and process that were useful in monitoring and improving recruitment. Findings were synthesised to develop an optimised simple framework that can be used in a wide range of RCTs.ResultsThe eight trials recorded basic information about patients screened for trial participation and randomisation outcome. Three trials systematically recorded reasons why an individual was not enrolled in the trial, and further details why they were not eligible or approached, or declined randomisation. A framework to facilitate clearer recording of the recruitment process and reasons for non-participation was developed: SEAR – Screening, to identify potentially eligible trial participants; Eligibility, assessed against the trial protocol inclusion/exclusion criteria; Approach, the provision of oral and written information and invitation to participate in the trial, and Randomised or not, with the outcome of randomisation or treatment received.ConclusionsThe SEAR framework encourages the collection of information to identify recruitment obstacles and facilitate improvements to the recruitment process. SEAR can be adapted to monitor recruitment to most RCTs, but is likely to add most value in trials where recruitment problems are anticipated or evident. Further work to test it more widely is recommended.

Background Surgical site infection (SSI) affects up to 20% of people with a primary closed wound after surgery. Wound dressings may reduce SSI. Objective To assess the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dressing types or no dressing to reduce SSI in primary surgical wounds. Design Phase A – semistructured interviews, outcome measure development, practice survey, literature reviews and value-of-information analysis. Phase B – pilot RCT with qualitative research and questionnaire validation. Patients and the public were involved. Setting Usual NHS care. Participants Patients undergoing elective/non-elective abdominal surgery, including caesarean section. Interventions Phase A – none. Phase B – simple dressing, glue-as-a-dressing (tissue adhesive) or ‘no dressing’. Main outcome measures Phase A – pilot RCT design; SSI, patient experience and wound management questionnaires; dressing practices; and value-of-information of a RCT. Phase B – participants screened, proportions consented/randomised; acceptability of interventions; adherence; retention; validity and reliability of SSI measure; and cost drivers. Data sources Phase A – interviews with patients and health-care professionals (HCPs), narrative data from published RCTs and data about dressing practices. Phase B – participants and HCPs in five hospitals. Results Phase A – we interviewed 102 participants. HCPs interpreted ‘dressing’ variably and reported using available products. HCPs suggested practical/clinical reasons for dressing use, acknowledged the weak evidence base and felt that a RCT including a ‘no dressing’ group was acceptable. A survey showed that 68% of 1769 wounds (727 participants) had simple dressings and 27% had glue-as-a-dressing. Dressings were used similarly in elective and non-elective surgery. The SSI questionnaire was developed from a content analysis of existing SSI tools and interviews, yielding 19 domains and 16 items. A main RCT would be valuable to the NHS at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Phase B – from 4 March 2016 to 30 November 2016, we approached 862 patients for the pilot RCT; 81.1% were eligible, 59.4% consented and 394 were randomised (simple, n = 133; glue, n = 129; no dressing, n = 132); non-adherence was 3 out of 133, 8 out of 129 and 20 out of 132, respectively. SSI occurred in 51 out of 281 participants. We interviewed 55 participants. All dressing strategies were acceptable to stakeholders, with no indication that adherence was problematic. Adherence aids and patients’ understanding of their allocated dressing appeared to be key. The SSI questionnaire response rate overall was 67.2%. Items in the SSI questionnaire fitted a single scale, which had good reliability (test–retest and Cronbach’s alpha of > 0.7) and diagnostic accuracy (c-statistic = 0.906). The key cost drivers were hospital appointments, dressings and redressings, use of new medicines and primary care appointments. Limitations Multiple activities, often in parallel, were challenging to co-ordinate. An amendment took 4 months, restricting recruitment to the pilot RCT. Only 67% of participants completed the SSI questionnaire. We could not implement photography in theatres. Conclusions A main RCT of dressing strategies is feasible and would be valuable to the NHS. The SSI questionnaire is sufficiently accurate to be used as the primary outcome. A main trial with three groups (as in the pilot) would be valuable to the NHS, using a primary outcome of SSI at discharge and patient-reported SSI symptoms at 4–8 weeks. Trial registration Phase A – Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06792113; Phase B – Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49328913. 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. 23, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub (reference number MR/K025643/1).