Paul Whybrow

How Men Manage Bulbar Urethral Stricture by Concealing Urinary Symptoms

In this article, we present findings from research conducted as part of a multi-center surgical trial. Bulbar urethral stricture, a narrowing of the middle urethra, is a common cause of urinary problems in men that can have a profound impact on their lives. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of 19 men seeking treatment for urethral stricture. The findings reveal how men tend to develop routines and tactics to adapt to their symptoms and hide them from others rather than seek help. We argue that this concealment becomes an inseparable part of how the disease is managed and is an additional hidden practical and emotional burden for these men. In addition, we suggest that the patients only sought curative treatments once practices of social concealment are no longer viable.

Drug breakthrough offers hope to arthritis sufferers: qualitative analysis of medical research in UK newspapers

Newspaper stories can impact behaviours, particularly in relation to research participation. It is therefore important to understand the narratives presented and ways in which these are received. Some work to date assumes journalism transmits existing medical knowledge to a passive audience. This study aimed to explore how newspaper articles present stories about medical research and how people interpret and use them.

Enabling recruitment success in bariatric surgical trials: Pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study

Background:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving surgical procedures are challenging for recruitment and infrequent in the specialty of bariatrics. The pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study (gastric bypass versus gastric band versus sleeve gastrectomy) provided the opportunity for an investigation of recruitment using a qualitative research integrated in trials (QuinteT) recruitment intervention (QRI).Patients/Methods:The QRI investigated recruitment in two centers in the pilot phase comparing bypass and banding, through the analysis of 12 in-depth staff interviews, 84 audio recordings of patient consultations, 19 non-participant observations of consultations and patient screening data. QRI findings were developed into a plan of action and fed back to centers to improve information provision and recruitment organization.Results:Recruitment proved to be extremely difficult with only two patients recruited during the first 2 months. The pivotal issue in Center A was that an effective and established clinical service could not easily adapt to the needs of the RCT. There was little scope to present RCT details or ensure efficient eligibility assessment, and recruiters struggled to convey equipoise. Following presentation of QRI findings, recruitment in Center A increased from 9% in the first 2 months (2/22) to 40% (26/65) in the 4 months thereafter. Center B, commencing recruitment 3 months after Center A, learnt from the emerging issues in Center A and set up a special clinic for trial recruitment. The trial successfully completed pilot recruitment and progressed to the main phase across 11 centers.Conclusions:The QRI identified key issues that enabled the integration of the trial into the clinical setting. This contributed to successful recruitment in the By-Band-Sleeve trial—currently the largest in bariatric practice—and offers opportunities to optimize recruitment in other trials in bariatrics.

Meeting abstracts from the 4th International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference (ICTMC) and the 38th Annual Meeting of the Society for Clinical Trials

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.

Talking About Looking: Three Approaches to Interviewing Carers of People With Rheumatoid Arthritis About Information Seeking

Given the profusion of illness-related information, in this article, we consider how talking about information seeking—and in particular Internet use—is difficult, not because it is necessarily a highly sensitive topic (though it may be), but rather due to the unusual and unfamiliar situation of talking about information seeking. Drawing on interviews conducted as part of a study on the educational needs of carers of people with rheumatoid arthritis, we compare three types of interview for understanding online information seeking: interviews (recall), researcher-led observation (joining participant at the computer), and diaries. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and discuss how changing interview questions and the form of interaction can help to produce different types of data, and potentially more meaningful insights. Of the three approaches, conducting interviews with participants while looking at a computer (talking while looking) offered the best opportunities to understand Internet-based information seeking.

Overcoming difficulties with equipoise to enable recruitment to a randomised controlled trial of partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy for unilateral localised prostate cancer

To describe how clinicians conceptualised equipoise in the PART (Partial prostate Ablation vs Radical prosTatectomy in intermediate‐risk unilateral clinically localised prostate cancer) feasibility study and how this affected recruitment.

Equipoise Across the Patient Population

BackgroundThis paper proposes a novel perspective on the value of qualitative research for improving trial design and optimising recruitment. We report findings from a qualitative study set within the OPEN trial, a surgical randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing two interventions for recurrent bulbar urethral stricture, a common cause of urinary problems in men.MethodsInterviews were conducted with men meeting trial eligibility criteria (n = 19) to explore reasons for accepting or declining participation and with operating urologists (n = 15) to explore trial acceptability.ResultsPatients expressed various preferences and understood these in the context of relative severity and tolerability of their symptoms. Accounts suggest a common trajectory of worsening symptoms with a particular window within which either treatment arm would be considered acceptable. Interviews with clinician recruiters found that uncertainty varied between general and specialist sites, which reflect clinicians’ relative exposure to different proportions of the patient population.ConclusionRecruitment post referral, at specialist sites, was challenging due to patient (and clinician) expectations. Trial design, particularly where there are fixed points for recruitment along the care pathway, can enable or constrain the possibilities for effective accrual depending on how it aligns with the optimum point of patient equipoise. Qualitative recruitment investigations, often focussed on information provision and patient engagement, may also look to better understand the target patient population in order to optimise the point at which patients are approached.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN98009168. Registered on 29 November 2012.

Equipoise across the patient population: optimising recruitment to a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThis paper proposes a novel perspective on the value of qualitative research for improving trial design and optimising recruitment. We report findings from a qualitative study set within the OPEN trial, a surgical randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing two interventions for recurrent bulbar urethral stricture, a common cause of urinary problems in men.MethodsInterviews were conducted with men meeting trial eligibility criteria (n = 19) to explore reasons for accepting or declining participation and with operating urologists (n = 15) to explore trial acceptability.ResultsPatients expressed various preferences and understood these in the context of relative severity and tolerability of their symptoms. Accounts suggest a common trajectory of worsening symptoms with a particular window within which either treatment arm would be considered acceptable. Interviews with clinician recruiters found that uncertainty varied between general and specialist sites, which reflect clinicians’ relative exposure to different proportions of the patient population.ConclusionRecruitment post referral, at specialist sites, was challenging due to patient (and clinician) expectations. Trial design, particularly where there are fixed points for recruitment along the care pathway, can enable or constrain the possibilities for effective accrual depending on how it aligns with the optimum point of patient equipoise. Qualitative recruitment investigations, often focussed on information provision and patient engagement, may also look to better understand the target patient population in order to optimise the point at which patients are approached.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN98009168. Registered on 29 November 2012.

Equipoise Across the Patient Population: Optimising the Timing of Recruitment to a Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundThis paper proposes a novel perspective on the value of qualitative research for improving trial design and optimising recruitment. We report findings from a qualitative study set within the OPEN trial, a surgical randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing two interventions for recurrent bulbar urethral stricture, a common cause of urinary problems in men.MethodsInterviews were conducted with men meeting trial eligibility criteria (n = 19) to explore reasons for accepting or declining participation and with operating urologists (n = 15) to explore trial acceptability.ResultsPatients expressed various preferences and understood these in the context of relative severity and tolerability of their symptoms. Accounts suggest a common trajectory of worsening symptoms with a particular window within which either treatment arm would be considered acceptable. Interviews with clinician recruiters found that uncertainty varied between general and specialist sites, which reflect clinicians’ relative exposure to different proportions of the patient population.ConclusionRecruitment post referral, at specialist sites, was challenging due to patient (and clinician) expectations. Trial design, particularly where there are fixed points for recruitment along the care pathway, can enable or constrain the possibilities for effective accrual depending on how it aligns with the optimum point of patient equipoise. Qualitative recruitment investigations, often focussed on information provision and patient engagement, may also look to better understand the target patient population in order to optimise the point at which patients are approached.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN98009168. Registered on 29 November 2012.

O74 Maintaining recruitment and informed consent in the advanced stages of a trial: The By-Band-Sleeve study

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.