Burden of cancer trial participation: A qualitative sub-study of the INTERIM feasibility RCT

Nwolise, Chidiebere Hope; Corrie, Pippa; Fitzpatrick, Ray; Gupta, Avinash; Jenkinson, Crispin; Middleton, Mark R.; Matin, Rubeta

doi:10.1177/17423953211060253

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(91 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram of the selection criteria. A total of 1398 studies were screened, and 249 studies (17.8%) were ultimately included in the database …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Trends of Qualitative Research in Dermatology

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceQualitative studies serve as a tool for dermatologists and researchers in dermatology to engage with and understand perspectives of populations with different cultures and backgrounds.ObjectiveTo assess (1) current approaches to qualitative dermatologic research and (2) the publication trends of these studies with the aim to inform researchers regarding qualitative research and its significance and applicability in the field of dermatology.Evidence ReviewA scoping review was conducted in which PubMed and CINAHL Plus were searched using dermatology AND qualitative, dermatology, and 7 qualitative methods terms. Studies were selected for inclusion using 3 levels of screening. Level 1 excluded articles published in a language other than English. Level 2 excluded articles of studies involving mixed methods, quantitative methods, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Level 3 excluded articles that were not specific to general dermatology, medical dermatology, pediatric dermatology, dermatologic surgery, dermatopathology, or education and training associated with dermatology. Finally, all duplicates were removed. The searches were conducted from July 23 to 28, 2022. All articles obtained from PubMed and CINAHL Plus searches were recorded in REDCap.FindingsA total of 1398 articles were reviewed, and of these, 249 (17.8%) were qualitative dermatology studies. Common qualitative methods included content analysis (58 [23.3%]) and grounded theory/constant comparison (35 [14.1%]). Individual interviews were the most common data collection method (198 [79.5%]), and patients (174 [69.9%]) were the most common participant type. Patient experience (137 [55.0%]) was the most common investigated topic. Overall, 131 qualitative studies (52.6%) in dermatology were published in dermatology journals, and 120 qualitative studies (48.2%) in dermatology were published between 2020 and 2022.Conclusions and RelevanceQualitative research in dermatology is becoming more prevalent. There is value in qualitative research, and we encourage researchers in dermatology to incorporate qualitative methods in their studies.

show abstract

“…Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram of the selection criteria. A total of 1398 studies were screened, and 249 studies (17.8%) were ultimately included in the database …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Trends of Qualitative Research in Dermatology

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Introducing NPT from the outset of RCT planning can provide us with the opportunity to overcome these expected challenges. Other challenges reported on the use of NPT within RCTs relate to the ability of constructs to cover specific implementation or acceptability aspects emerging from data 28 60 61. To tackle this challenge, some studies have integrated the NPT framework with other frameworks such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour62 and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 63…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of Whole blood in Frontline Trauma (SWiFT): implementation study protocol

Antonacci,

Williams,

Smith

et al. 2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionUncontrolled bleeding is a major cause of death for patients with major trauma. Current transfusion practices vary, and there is uncertainty about the optimal strategy. Whole blood (WB) transfusion, which contains all components in one bag, is considered potentially advantageous, particularly for resuscitating patients with major bleeding in the prehospital setting. It could potentially improve survival, reduce donor risk and simplify the processes of delivering blood transfusions outside hospitals. However, the evidence supporting the effectiveness and safety of WB compared with the standard separate blood component therapy is limited. A multicentre randomised controlled trial will be conducted, alongside an implementation study, to assess the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and implementation of prehospital WB transfusion in the prehospital environment. The implementation study will focus on evaluating the acceptability and integration of the intervention into clinical settings and on addressing broader contextual factors that may influence its success or failure.Methods and analysisA type 1 effectiveness–implementation hybrid design will be employed. The implementation study will use qualitative methods, encompassing comprehensive interviews and focus groups with operational staff, patients and blood donor representatives. Staff will be purposefully selected to ensure a wide range of perspectives based on their professional background and involvement in the WB pathway. The study design includes: (1) initial assessment of current practice and processes in the WB pathway; (2) qualitative interviews with up to 40 operational staff and (3) five focus groups with staff and donor representatives. Data analysis will be guided by the theoretical lenses of the Normalisation Process Theory and the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.Ethics and disseminationThe study was prospectively registered and approved by the South Central—Oxford C Research Ethics Committee and the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and provided to all relevant stakeholders.Trial registration numberISRCTN23657907; EudraCT: 2021-006876-18; IRAS Number: 300414; REC: 22/SC/0072.

show abstract

“…However, the participants struggled with the concept of randomization, and that any patients taking part in the trial would have no control over group allocation, similar to a recent study. 5 Most PPI participants had a treatment preference, either intervention or control group, based on their personal experiences of radiotherapy and adverse effects (AEs), as well as diagnosis of cSCC. Those with high-risk cSCC were more amenable to receiving surgery and radiotherapy compared with those with low-risk cSCC.…”

Section: Dear Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chidiebere Nwolise, 1 Agata Rembielak, 2 3 Ray Fitzpatrick, 4 Crispin Jenkinson, 1 Jerry Marsden, 5 Patricia Fairbrother, 6 2 We would like to continue this important conversation by providing actionable recommendations for dermatologists to combat health misinformation in their daily clinical practice.…”

Section: (Carer)mentioning

confidence: 99%