Marcus Jepson

Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): A multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial

Summary Background Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression. Methods We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011. Findings Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference −1·3 points (95% CI −3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5–5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8–6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group). Interpretation Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process. Funding Arthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England).

The CSAW Study (Can Shoulder Arthroscopy Work?) – a placebo-controlled surgical intervention trial assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic subacromial decompression for shoulder pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundArthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASAD) is a commonly performed surgical intervention for shoulder pain. The rationale is that removal of a bony acromial spur relieves symptoms by decompressing rotator cuff tendons passing through the subacromial space. However, the efficacy of this procedure is uncertain. The objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ASAD in patients with subacromial pain using appropriate control groups, including placebo intervention.Methods/DesignThe trial is a three-group, parallel design, pragmatic, randomised controlled study. The intervention content for each group (ASAD, active monitoring with specialist reassessment (AMSR) and investigational shoulder arthroscopy only (AO)) enables assessment of (1) the efficacy of the surgery against no surgery; (2) the need for a specific component of the surgery—namely, removal of the bony spur; and (3) quantification of the placebo effect. Concealed allocation was performed using a 1:1:1 randomisation ratio and using age, sex, baseline Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and centre as minimisation criteria. The primary outcome measure is the OSS at 6 months post randomisation. A total of 300 patients recruited over 24 months from a minimum of 14 UK shoulder units over 24 months were required to detect a difference of 4.5 points on the OSS (standard deviation, 9) with 90% power and to allow for 15% loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, pain, complications and patient satisfaction. A substantial qualitative research component is included. The primary analysis will be conducted on the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Sensitivity analysis will be used to assess the robustness of the results with regard to the underlying assumptions about missing data using multiple imputation.DiscussionThis trial uses an innovative design to account for the known placebo effects of surgery, but it also will delineate the mechanism for any benefit from surgery. The investigational AO group is considered a placebo intervention (not sham surgery), as it includes all components of subacromial decompression except the critical surgical element. Some discussion is also dedicated to the challenges of conducting placebo surgery trials.Trial registrationsUK Clinical Research Network UKCRN12104. Registered 22 May 2012.International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial ISRCTN33864128. Registered 22 June 2012.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01623011. Registered 15 June 2012.

Conveying Equipoise during Recruitment for Clinical Trials: Qualitative Synthesis of Clinicians’ Practices across Six Randomised Controlled Trials

Background Randomised 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 Findings Six 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 their communication skills. However, the frequency of occurrence of equipoise issues across the RCTs suggests that the findings are likely to be reflective of clinical recruiters’ practices more widely. Conclusions Communicating equipoise is a challenging process that is easily disrupted. Clinicians’ personal views about trial treatments encroached on their ability to convey equipoise to patients. Clinicians should be encouraged to reflect on personal biases and be mindful of the common ways in which these can arise in their discussions with patients. Common pitfalls that recurred irrespective of RCT context indicate opportunities for specific training in communication skills that would be broadly applicable to a wide clinical audience.

The 'One in a Million' study: creating a database of UK primary care consultations

Background Around 1 million primary care consultations happen in England every day. Despite this, much of what happens in these visits remains a ‘black box’. Aim To create an archive of videotaped consultations and linked data based on a large sample of routine face-to-face doctor–patient consultations with consent for use in future research and training. Design and setting Cross-sectional study in 12 general practices in the west of England, UK. Method Up to two GPs from each practice took part in the study. Over 1 to 2 days, consecutive patients were approached until up to 20 eligible patients for each GP consented to be videotaped. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, consulting on their own behalf, fluent in English, and with capacity to consent. GP questionnaires were self-administered. Patient questionnaires were self-administered immediately pre-consultation and post-consultation, and GPs filled in a checklist after each recording. A follow-up questionnaire was sent to patients after 10 days, and data about subsequent related consultations were collected from medical records 3 months later. Results Of the 485 patients approached, 421 (86.8%) were eligible. Of the eligible patients, 334 (79.3%) consented to participate and 327 consultations with 23 GPs were successfully taped (307 video, 20 audio-only). Most patients (n = 300, 89.8%) consented to use by other researchers, subject to specific ethical approval. Conclusion Most patients were willing to allow their consultations to be videotaped, and, with very few exceptions, to allow recordings and linked data to be stored in a data repository for future use for research and training.

Beginning to explore the experience of managing a direct payment for someone with dementia: The perspectives of suitable people and adult social care practitioners

Following legal improvements made around mental capacity together with the Health and Social Care Act, it is now possible for a direct payment to be paid to a ‘Suitable Person’ to manage on someone’s behalf to purchase directly care and support services. People with dementia are a key group affected by this change in England of adult social care. We interviewed nine social care practitioners and seven Suitable People for people with dementia across five English local authorities to begin to examine their experiences of this new method of social care provision. Findings from thematic analyses suggest positive outcomes and multiple beneficiaries, but some challenges: potentially inappropriate processes, support planning, divergence in attitudes towards care and support outcomes. Implications for practice include obfuscation of recipients’ and Suitable People’s best interests and supporting practitioners to explore fully clients’ aspirations for care and support.

An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment.

Objectives To explore how the concept of randomization is described by clinicians and understood by patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how it contributes to patient understanding and recruitment. Study Design and Setting Qualitative analysis of 73 audio recordings of recruitment consultations from five, multicenter, UK-based RCTs with identified or anticipated recruitment difficulties. Results One in 10 appointments did not include any mention of randomization. Most included a description of the method or process of allocation. Descriptions often made reference to gambling-related metaphors or similes, or referred to allocation by a computer. Where reference was made to a computer, some patients assumed that they would receive the treatment that was “best for them”. Descriptions of the rationale for randomization were rarely present and often only came about as a consequence of patients questioning the reason for a random allocation. Conclusions The methods and processes of randomization were usually described by recruiters, but often without clarity, which could lead to patient misunderstanding. The rationale for randomization was rarely mentioned. Recruiters should avoid problematic gambling metaphors and illusions of agency in their explanations and instead focus on clearer descriptions of the rationale and method of randomization to ensure patients are better informed about randomization and RCT participation.

Does laryngeal reinnervation or type I thyroplasty give better voice results for patients with unilateral vocal fold paralysis (VOCALIST): study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Introduction A functioning voice is essential for normal human communication. A good voice requires two moving vocal folds; if one fold is paralysed (unilateral vocal fold paralysis (UVFP)) people suffer from a breathy, weak voice that tires easily and is unable to function normally. UVFP can also result in choking and breathlessness. Current treatment for adults with UVFP is speech therapy to stimulate recovery of vocal fold (VF) motion or function and/or injection of the paralysed VF with a material to move it into a more favourable position for the functioning VF to close against. When these therapies are unsuccessful, or only provide temporary relief, surgery is offered. Two available surgical techniques are: (1) surgical medialisation; placing an implant near the paralysed VF to move it to the middle (thyroplasty) and/or repositioning the cartilage (arytenoid adduction) or (2) restoring the nerve supply to the VF (laryngeal reinnervation). Currently there is limited evidence to determine which surgery should be offered to adults with UVFP. Methods and analysis A feasibility study to test the practicality of running a multicentre, randomised clinical trial of surgery for UVFP, including: (1) a qualitative study to understand the recruitment process and how it operates in clinical centres and (2) a small randomised trial of 30 participants recruited at 3 UK sites comparing non-selective laryngeal reinnervation to type I thyroplasty. Participants will be followed up for 12 months. The primary outcome focuses on recruitment and retention, with secondary outcomes covering voice, swallowing and quality of life. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was received from National Research Ethics Service—Committee Bromley (reference 11/LO/0583). In addition to dissemination of results through presentation and publication of peer-reviewed articles, results will be shared with key clinician and patient groups required to develop the future large-scale randomised controlled trial. Trial registration number ISRCTN90201732; 16 December 2015.

Men living with long‐term conditions: exploring gender and improving social care

Disabled men have traditionally been seen as incomplete men or as entirely gender-less. Research which has looked at the intersection of disability and male gender has largely treated disabled men as a homogeneous group with little reference to, for example, impairment-related differences. The ongoing move towards self-directed, personalised social care in England suggests that support needs relating to gender may be taken more seriously. A qualitative study with 20 men with Duchenne muscular dystrophy in England in 2013 explored the mens experiences of the organisation and delivery of social care as it pertained to their sense of being men. Our main finding was that social care in its broadest sense did little to support a positive sense of masculinity or male gender. More often than not the organisation and delivery of social care people de-gendered or emasculated many of the men who took part in the study. Our paper speaks to the need to explore impairment-specific issues for disabled men; to deliver a more person-centred approach to social care which recognises the importance of the social and sexual lives of disabled men; and to create ways in which men can support and empower each other to assert essential human rights relating to independence, dignity and liberty.

Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework.

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.

Footprints in Primary Care: Using mixed methods to assess fidelity to a complex intervention for frequently attending patients

Citation for published version (APA): Rogers, A., Mackenzie, I., Rorie, D., & MacDonald, T. (2017). Successful recruitment to a large online randomised trial: the TIME study. In Trials: Meeting abstracts from the 4th International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference (ICTMC) and the 38th Annual Meeting of the Society for Clinical Trials (Supplement 1 ed., Vol. 18, pp. 222-223). [089] (Trials; Vol. 18, No. Suppl. 1). United Kingdom: BioMed Central. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1902-yThe study will address variability in practice, defined in Standard Operating Procedures, that UK Clinical Trials Units (CTU) have in place for: i) defining, ii) classifying, and iii) reporting adverse events in non-CTIMPs. Compared to drug trials, adverse events in non-CTIMPs are not managed well. There is considerable inconsistency in reporting styles between trials of similar design and intervention type. To promote increased consistency, we will conduct a consensus exercise among non-CTIMP experts using a Delphi technique followed by a face-to-face meeting. This method adheres to the recommended sequence outlined by the international network for Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) for developing health research guidelines. A non-CTIMP expert is defined as: a CTU representative, a Chief Investigator or trial manager of non-CTIMPs with >3 trials experience in this role, or a senior member of the Health Research Authority’s Operations team or Ethics Committee. As such, the participants in the consensus exercises will also be the direct beneficiaries from the project maximising its pathway to impact. Following the face-to-face meeting — guidance and explanatory statements will be drafted. The guidance statement will focus on: • how adverse events should be defined in relation to the non-pharmacological intervention, • how CTU standard operating procedures should be designed to reflect the results of the Delphi exercise, • how adverse events should be classified following a judicious causal assessment, and • recommended reporting methods that will promote more effective meta-analyses of non-pharmacological interventions that provide a balanced benefit-harm evaluation. Following study completion, we will work with a selection of UK CTUs to evaluate the implementation of any agreed modifications to current practice.This is the final version of the article. Available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this record.Objective Multi-centre RCT designs provide robust evidence of therapeutic effect of health interventions. However participating centres often differ in how well they conduct the trial and the number of patients successfully recruited. This paper describes barriers different research teams encountered when conducting a complex RCT comparing a surgical procedure with physiotherapy, and the actions taken by the trial management group to overcome obstacles that were hindering recruitment. Methods We conducted 22 interviews with principal investigators and research associates at 14 sites involved in the delivery of a surgical RCT that compared hip arthroscopy and physiotherapy for hip pain. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically and case study approaches were utilised to present results to the trial management group. Results Research teams reported difficulties related to logistics (e.g. Room space); motivation (e.g. PI reluctant to approach patients); and skill (e.g. Lack of knowledge about the treatment arms). Similar Issues were shared by sites that recruited to target and those that did not, however there were differences in the team ’ s response to challenges. Whilst on-target sites found local solutions to issues or support through their research infrastructure or the trial TMG, off-target sites usually did not show proactivity. Site profiles were created and action plans designed based on aspects that were particular to the individual sites. These plans were implemented in collaboration with site teams. Conclusions This qualitative study added to the growing evidence of how aspects of team functioning are important for recruitment to complex RCTs. Trial Management Groups can help research teams identify and ad- dress issues, and therefore contributing to a sense of ownership by the research team. Empowering research teams to find solutions at local level is essential to conduct multi-centre RCTs successfully.