Linda Oostendorp

The under reporting of recruitment strategies in research with children with life-threatening illnesses: A systematic review

Background: Researchers report difficulties in conducting research with children and young people with life-limiting conditions or life-threatening illnesses and their families. Recruitment is challenged by barriers including ethical, logistical and clinical considerations. Aim: To explore how children and young people (aged 0–25 years) with life-limiting conditions or life-threatening illnesses and their families were identified, invited and consented to research published in the last 5 years. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Sciences Citation Index and SCOPUS were searched for original English language research published between 2009 and 2014, recruiting children and young people with life-limiting conditions or life-threatening illness and their families. Results: A total of 215 studies – 152 qualitative, 54 quantitative and 9 mixed methods – were included. Limited recruitment information but a range of strategies and difficulties were provided. The proportion of eligible participants from those screened could not be calculated in 80% of studies. Recruitment rates could not be calculated in 77%. A total of 31% of studies recruited less than 50% of eligible participants. Reasons given for non-invitation included missing clinical or contact data, or clinician judgements of participant unsuitability. Reasons for non-participation included lack of interest and participants’ perceptions of potential burdens. Conclusion: All stages of recruitment were under reported. Transparency in reporting of participant identification, invitation and consent is needed to enable researchers to understand research implications, bias risk and to whom results apply. Research is needed to explore why consenting participants decide to take part or not and their experiences of research recruitment.

Measuring organisational readiness for patient engagement (MORE): an international online Delphi consensus study

BackgroundWidespread implementation of patient engagement by organisations and clinical teams is not a reality yet. The aim of this study is to develop a measure of organisational readiness for patient engagement designed to monitor and facilitate a healthcare organisation’s willingness and ability to effectively implement patient engagement in healthcare.MethodsThe development of the MORE (Measuring Organisational Readiness for patient Engagement) scale was guided by Weiner’s theory of organisational readiness for change. Weiner postulates that an organisation’s readiness is determined by both the willingness and ability to implement the change (i.e. in this context: patient engagement). A first version of the scale was developed based on a literature search and evaluation of pre-existing tools. We invited multi-disciplinary stakeholders to participate in a two-round online Delphi survey. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each proposed item, and to comment on the proposed domains and items. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and were asked to re-rate the importance of the revised, new and unchanged items, and to provide comments.ResultsThe first version of the scale contained 51 items divided into three domains: (1) Respondents’ characteristics; (2) the organisation’s willingness to implement patient engagement; and (3) the organisation’s ability to implement patient engagement. 131 respondents from 16 countries (health care managers, policy makers, clinicians, patients and patient representatives, researchers, and other stakeholders) completed the first survey, and 72 of them also completed the second survey. During the Delphi process, 34 items were reworded, 8 new items were added, 5 items were removed, and 18 were combined. The scale’s instructions were revised. The final version of MORE totalled 38 items; 5 on stakeholders, 13 on an organisation’s willingness to implement, and 20 on an organisation’s ability to implement patient engagement in healthcare.ConclusionsThe Delphi technique was successfully used to refine the scale’s instructions, domains and items, using input from a broad range of international stakeholders, hoping that MORE can be applied in a variety of healthcare contexts worldwide. Further assessment is needed to determine the psychometric properties of the scale.

Wordless intervention for epilepsy in learning disabilities (WIELD): study protocol for a randomized controlled feasibility trial

BackgroundEpilepsy is the most common neurological problem that affects people with learning disabilities. The high seizure frequency, resistance to treatments, associated skills deficit and co-morbidities make the management of epilepsy particularly challenging for people with learning disabilities. The Books Beyond Words booklet for epilepsy uses images to help people with learning disabilities manage their condition and improve quality of life. Our aim is to conduct a randomized controlled feasibility trial exploring key methodological, design and acceptability issues, in order to subsequently undertake a large-scale randomized controlled trial of the Books Beyond Words booklet for epilepsy.Methods/DesignWe will use a two-arm, single-centre randomized controlled feasibility design, over a 20-month period, across five epilepsy clinics in Hertfordshire, United Kingdom. We will recruit 40 eligible adults with learning disabilities and a confirmed diagnosis of epilepsy and will randomize them to use either the Books Beyond Words booklet plus usual care (intervention group) or to receive routine information and services (control group). We will collect quantitative data about the number of eligible participants, number of recruited participants, demographic data, discontinuation rates, variability of the primary outcome measure (quality of life: Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life scale), seizure severity, seizure control, intervention’s patterns of use, use of other epilepsy-related information, resource use and the EQ-5D-5L health questionnaire. We will also gather qualitative data about the feasibility and acceptability of the study procedures and the Books Beyond Words booklet. Ethical approval for this study was granted on 28 April 2014, by the Wales Research Ethics Committee 5. Recruitment began on 1 July 2014.DiscussionThe outcomes of this feasibility study will be used to inform the design and methodology of a definitive study, adequately powered to determine the impact of the Books Beyond Words intervention to improve the management of epilepsy in people with learning disabilities.Trial registrationhttp://ISRCTN80067039 (Date of ISRCTN assignation: 23 April 2014).

Keeping all options open: Parents’ approaches to advance care planning

Early engagement in advance care planning (ACP) is seen as fundamental for ensuring the highest standard of care for children and young people with a life‐limiting condition (LLC). However, most families have little knowledge or experience of ACP.

Research barriers in children and young people with life-limiting conditions: a survey

Studies indicate research ethics committee (REC) approval and clinician gatekeeping are two key barriers in recruiting children and young people (CYP) with life-limiting conditions (LLCs) and life-threatening illnesses (LTIs) and their families to research. OBJECTIVES To explore the reported experiences, difficulties and proposed solutions of chief investigators (CIs) recruiting CYP with LLCs/LTIs and families in the UK. METHODS 61 CIs conducting studies with CYP with LLCs/LTIs and their families, identified from the UK National Institute of Health Research portfolio, completed an anonymous, web-based questionnaire, including both closed and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics and inductive and deductive coding were used to analyse responses. RESULTS UK CIs cited limitations on funding, governance procedures including Research and Development, Site-Specific and REC approval processes, and clinician gatekeeping as challenges to research. CIs offered some solutions to overcome identified barriers such as working with CYP and their families to ensure their needs are adequately considered in study design and communicated to ethics committees; and designing studies with broad inclusion criteria and developing effective relationships with clinicians in order to overcome clinician gatekeeping. CONCLUSIONS Many of the challenges and solutions reported by UK CIs have applicability beyond the UK setting. The involvement of clinicians, patients and their families at the inception of and throughout paediatric palliative care research studies is essential. Other important strategies include having clinician research champions and increasing the visibility of research. Further research on the perspectives of all stakeholders, leading to mutually agreed guidance, is required if care and treatment are to improve.

Exploring the Routine Administration of Decision Aids for Palliative Chemotherapy to Patients by Nurses: A Qualitative Study Among Nurses and Oncologists

Background: Decision aids (DAs) effectively support patient decision making but are rarely used in daily practice. Objective: To explore nurses’ and oncologists’ views on routinely offering DAs on palliative chemotherapy to patients by nurses. Most interviewees had clinical experience with the DAs, which were booklets administered to patients by nurses. Methods: The study was guided by 3 theoretical implementation models of innovations in clinical practice, including factors related to the innovation, the professionals (nurses and oncologists), the patient, and the organization. Semistructured interviews were conducted among 12 nurses and 14 oncologists. Interviews were audio taped and fully transcribed. Results: The main barriers to routinely offering DAs to patients were found in nurses’ and oncologists’ opinions and attitudes (eg, concerns about the impact in this vulnerable population) and in the logistics of organizations (eg, the decision is already made before the nurse sees the patient). Twenty-two of 26 interviewees were open to the future use of the DAs. Disseminating information to professionals (eg, about positive effects of DAs) and embedding DAs in the existing workflow would facilitate implementation. Conclusions: Most nurses and oncologists were open to the future use of the DAs by nurses, provided that certain barriers, particularly related to professionals’ opinions and attitudes and logistical procedures in the organization, could be overcome. Implications for Practice: These findings can inform a tailored strategy to implement DAs on palliative chemotherapy. Implementation should start with interventions to motivate professionals, for example, educational meetings.