Most newborns undergo newborn screening blood tests. Breastfeeding, skin-to-skin care, and sweet solutions effectively reduce pain; however, these strategies are inconsistently used. We conducted a 2-armed pilot randomized controlled trial in a mother-baby unit to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a parent-targeted and -mediated video demonstrating use of these pain-reducing strategies and to obtain preliminary effectiveness data on uptake of pain management. One hundred parent-newborn dyads were randomized to view the video or receive usual care (51 intervention and 49 control arm). Consent and attrition rates were 70% and 1%, respectively. All participants in the intervention arm received the intervention as planned and reported an intention to recommend the video and to use at least 1 pain treatment with breastfeeding or skin-to-skin care preferred over sucrose. In the intervention arm, 60% of newborns received at least 1 pain treatment compared with 67% in the control arm (absolute difference, −7%; 95% confidence interval, −26 to 12). The video was well accepted and feasible to show to parents. As there was no evidence of effect on the use of pain management, major modifications are required before launching a full-scale trial. Effective means to translate evidence-based pain knowledge is warranted.

Background: Depression affects an individual’s physical health and mental well-being, and in pregnant and postpartum women, has specific adverse short- and long-term effects on maternal, child, and family health. The aim of these two systematic reviews is to identify evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for depression compared to no screening in the general adult and pregnant and postpartum populations in primary care or non-mental health clinic settings. These reviews will inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library using a randomized controlled trial filter, where applicable, October 4, 2018 and updated to May 11, 2020. We also searched for grey literature (e.g., websites of organizations of health professionals and patients). Study selection for depression screening trials was performed first on title and abstract, followed by full-text screening. Data extraction, assessment of the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation were performed by one reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Results: A total of three trials were included. All three trials were included in the general adult review, while one of the three trials was included in the pregnant and postpartum review. We did not pool results due to substantial differences between studies and high risk of bias. In the general adult review, the first trial (n=1001) evaluated whether screening for depression in adults with acute coronary syndrome compared to usual care improves health-related quality of life, depression symptoms, or the harms of screening at six, 12, and 18 months. There were little to no differences between the groups at 18 months for the outcomes. The second trial included adults (n=1412) undergoing initial consultation for osteoarthritis, evaluated for depression and general health (mental and physical) after initial consultation, and at three, six, and 12 months. The physical component score was statistically significantly lower (worse health) in the screened group at six months; however, this difference was not significant at three or at 12 months. There were no clinically important or statistically significant differences for other outcomes between groups at any time. The third trial (included in both reviews) reported on 462 postpartum women. At six months postpartum, fewer women in the screening group were identified as possibly depressed compared to the control group (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.89) and mean EPDS scores were also statistically significantly lower in the screened group (standardized mean difference 0.34 lower (95%CI 0.15 to 0.52 lower)). All other outcomes did not differ between groups at follow-up. There were serious concerns about the cut-offs used for the questionnaire used to screen, diagnostic confirmation, selective outcome reporting, and the reported magnitude of effects.Discussion: There are limitations of the evidence included in the reviews. There was moderate certainty in the evidence from one trial that screening for depression in the general adult population in primary care or non-mental health clinic settings likely results in little to no difference on reported outcomes, however, the evidence was uncertain from the other two included trials. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of screening for depression in pregnant or postpartum women in primary care or non-mental health clinic settings. Well-conducted and better-reported trials are needed that meet the screening trial criteria used in this review.Systematic review registration: Both protocols have been registered in the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) [Adult: CRD42018099690; Pregnancy and postpartum: CRD42018099689] and published (https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13643-018-0930-3).

No abstract

ObjectivesTo describe reporting of informed consent in pragmatic trials, justifications for waivers of consent and reporting of alternative approaches to standard written consent. To identify factors associated with (1) not reporting and (2) not obtaining consent.MethodsSurvey of primary trial reports, published 2014–2019, identified using an electronic search filter for pragmatic trials implemented in MEDLINE, and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.ResultsAmong 1988 trials, 132 (6.6%) did not include a statement about participant consent, 1691 (85.0%) reported consent had been obtained, 139 (7.0%) reported a waiver and 26 (1.3%) reported consent for one aspect (eg, data collection) but a waiver for another (eg, intervention). Of the 165 trials reporting a waiver, 76 (46.1%) provided a justification. Few (53, 2.9%) explicitly reported use of alternative approaches to consent. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, lower journal impact factor (p=0.001) and cluster randomisation (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with not reporting on consent, while trial recency, cluster randomisation, higher-income country settings, health services research and explicit labelling as pragmatic were significantly associated with not obtaining consent (all p<0.0001).DiscussionNot obtaining consent seems to be increasing and is associated with the use of cluster randomisation and pragmatic aims, but neither cluster randomisation nor pragmatism are currently accepted justifications for waivers of consent. Rather than considering either standard written informed consent or waivers of consent, researchers and research ethics committees could consider alternative consent approaches that may facilitate the conduct of pragmatic trials while preserving patient autonomy and the public’s trust in research.

BACKGROUND Evidence to guide treatment of pediatric medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency and phenylketonuria (PKU) is fragmented because of large variability in outcome selection and measurement. Our goal was to develop core outcome sets (COSs) for these diseases to facilitate meaningful future evidence generation and enhance the capacity to compare and synthesize findings across studies. METHODS Parents and/or caregivers, health professionals, and health policy advisors completed a Delphi survey and participated in a consensus workshop to select core outcomes from candidate lists of outcomes for MCAD deficiency and PKU. Delphi participants rated the importance of outcomes on a nine-point scale (1–3: not important, 4–6: important but not critical, 7–9: critical). Candidate outcomes were progressively narrowed down over 3 survey rounds. At the workshop, participants evaluated the remaining candidate outcomes using an adapted nominal technique, open discussion, and voting. After the workshop, we finalized the COSs and recommended measurement instruments for each outcome. RESULTS There were 85, 61, and 53 participants across 3 Delphi rounds, respectively. The candidate core outcome lists were narrowed down to 20 outcomes per disease to be discussed at the consensus workshop. Voting by 18 workshop participants led to COSs composed of 8 and 9 outcomes for MCAD deficiency and PKU, respectively, with measurement recommendations. CONCLUSIONS These are the first known pediatric COSs for MCAD deficiency and PKU. Adoption in future studies will help to ensure best use of limited research resources to ultimately improve care for children with these rare diseases.

Background and Aims We need more pragmatic trials of interventions to improve care and outcomes for people living with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. However, these trials present unique methodological challenges in their design, analysis, and reporting—often, due to the presence of one or more sources of clustering. Failure to account for clustering in the design and analysis can lead to increased risks of Type I and Type II errors. We conducted a review to describe key methodological characteristics and obtain a “baseline assessment” of methodological quality of pragmatic trials in dementia research, with a view to developing new methods and practical guidance to support investigators and methodologists conducting pragmatic trials in this field. Methods We used a published search filter in MEDLINE to identify trials more likely to be pragmatic and identified a subset that focused on people living with Alzheimer’s disease or other dementias or included them as a defined subgroup. Pairs of reviewers extracted descriptive information and key methodological quality indicators from each trial. Results We identified N = 62 eligible primary trial reports published across 36 different journals. There were 15 (24%) individually randomized, 38 (61%) cluster randomized, and 9 (15%) individually randomized group treatment designs; 54 (87%) trials used repeated measures on the same individual and/or cluster over time and 17 (27%) had a multivariate primary outcome (e.g. due to measuring an outcome on both the patient and their caregiver). Of the 38 cluster randomized trials, 16 (42%) did not report sample size calculations accounting for the intracluster correlation and 13 (34%) did not account for intracluster correlation in the analysis. Of the 9 individually randomized group treatment trials, 6 (67%) did not report sample size calculations accounting for intracluster correlation and 8 (89%) did not account for it in the analysis. Of the 54 trials with repeated measurements, 45 (83%) did not report sample size calculations accounting for repeated measurements and 19 (35%) did not utilize at least some of the repeated measures in the analysis. No trials accounted for the multivariate nature of their primary outcomes in sample size calculation; only one did so in the analysis. Conclusion There is a need and opportunity to improve the design, analysis, and reporting of pragmatic trials in dementia research. Investigators should pay attention to the potential presence of one or more sources of clustering. While methods for longitudinal and cluster randomized trials are well developed, accessible resources and new methods for dealing with multiple sources of clustering are required. Involvement of a statistician with expertise in longitudinal and clustered designs is recommended.

Background The overall aim of this program of research is to assess when/how patient partners are compensated financially for their contributions to health research. The research program consists of three studies to address the following questions: (1) What is the prevalence of reporting patient partner financial compensation? (2) What are researcher and institutional attitudes around patient partner financial compensation? (3) What are the current practices of patient partner financial compensation and what guidance exists to inform these practices? Methods In our first project, we will conduct a systematic review to assess the prevalence of reporting patient partner financial compensation and identify current financial compensation practices on an international scale. We will identify a cohort of published studies that have engaged patients as partners through a forward citation search of the Guidance for Reporting the Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP I and II) checklists. We will extract details of financial compensation (type of financial compensation, amount, payment frequency etc.) and reported benefits, challenges, barriers and enablers to financially compensating patient partners. Quantitative data will be analyzed descriptively, and qualitative data will undergo thematic analysis. In our second project, we will conduct a cross-sectional survey of researchers who have engaged patient partners. We will also survey members of their affiliated institutions to gain further understanding of stakeholder experiences and attitudes with patient partner financial compensation. Survey responses will be analyzed by calculating prevalence. In our third project, we will conduct a scoping review to identify all published guidance and policy documents that guide patient partner financial compensation. Overton, the largest available online database of international policy documents, and the grey literature will be systematically searched. Data items will be extracted and presented descriptively. A comprehensive overview of guidance documents will be presented, which will represent a repository of resources that stakeholders can refer to when developing a financial compensation strategy. Discussion Our three studies will not only inform and assist patient partners and researchers by informing compensation strategies, but also support the inclusion of diverse perspectives. We will disseminate findings through traditional mediums (publications, conferences) as well as social media, non-technical summaries, and visual abstracts.

In his article 'The case against ethics review in the social sciences', Schrag asserts that the social sciences should not be subject to ethical review. He recounts a number of examples where ethical review has seemingly failed. He further suggests some alternative models for dealing with ethical review in the social sciences. Finally, he concludes, and we concur, that there is a lack of empirical evidence as to the benefit of research ethics review.