Exploring the relationship between baseline physical activity levels and mortality reduction associated with increases in physical activity : a modelling study

Background Increasing physical activity (PA) levels among the general adult population of developed nations is important for reducing premature mortality and the burdens of preventable illness. Assessing how effective PA interventions are as health interventions often involves categorising participants as either ‘active’ or ‘sedentary’ after the interventions. A model was developed showing that doing this could significantly misestimate the health effect of PA interventions. Methods A life table model was constructed combining evidence on baseline PA levels with evidence indicating the non-linear relationship between PA levels and all-cause mortality risks. PA intervention scenarios were modelled which had the same mean increase in PA but different levels of take-up by people who were more active or more sedentary to begin with. Results The model simulations indicated that, compared with a scenario where already-active people did most of the additional PA, a scenario where the least active did the most additional PA was around a third more effective in preventing deaths between the ages of 50 and 60 years. The relationship between distribution of PA take-up and health effect was explored systematically and appeared non-linear. Conclusions As the health gains of a given PA increase are greatest among people who are most sedentary, smaller increases in PA in the least active may have the same health benefits as much larger PA increases in the most active. To help such health effects to be assessed, PA studies should report changes in the distribution of PA level between the start and end of the study

Physiotherapy for Patients with Sciatica Awaiting Lumbar Micro-discectomy Surgery: A Nested, Qualitative Study of Patients' Views and Experiences

Background and Purpose Sciatica is a common clinical condition that can be extremely painful, disabling and life‐changing. Whether conservative or surgical treatment for sciatica secondary to an intervertebral disc prolapse is most effective is still much debated. An important component of conservative treatment is physiotherapy, which aims to promote physical and psychological health for the patient, whilst resorption of the disc takes place. This paper reports a qualitative study of patients' views and experiences of a bespoke physiotherapy intervention for the treatment of sciatica. Methods A qualitative study nested within a pilot randomized controlled trial of bespoke physiotherapy for the treatment of patients with sciatica awaiting lumbar microdiscectomy surgery. Patients randomized to receive bespoke physiotherapy in the intervention arm of the trial were invited to take part in semi‐structured interviews. Twenty‐one in‐depth, semi‐structured interviews took place. All interviews were recorded, fully transcribed and thematically analysed. Results Most patients in the sample found the physiotherapy valuable, appreciating the individual nature of the approach, the exercises to reduce pain and discomfort, techniques for improving functional spinal movement, walking and dynamic posture, and manual therapy and cardiovascular exercise. A small number did not find the physiotherapy of benefit. Sixteen patients in the sample went on to proceed with surgery, but most of these found value in having had the physiotherapy first. Discussion Many patients with sciatica appreciate the value of physiotherapy prior to surgery. Future research should examine patients' experiences of bespoke physiotherapy delivered within primary care

Reporting issues in group sequential randomised controlled trials: a systematic review protocol of published journal reports

Background: Adaptive designs are somewhat underused, despite prominence given to methodology in the statistical literature. Some concerns relates to robustness of adaptive designs in decision making, acceptability of trial findings to change practice, anxiety about early stopping of trials and worry about wrong decision making. These issues could be linked to inadequate reporting of the conduct of such clinical trials. We assess the reporting of group sequential randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which are one of the most well-understood adaptive designs in the confirmatory setting. Methods: We undertake a systematic review searching Ovid MEDLINE from 1st January 2001 to 23rd September 2014 and including parallel group confirmatory group sequential RCTs that were prospectively designed using the Frequentist approach. Eligible trials are screened for completeness in reporting against the CONSORT 2010 checklist with some proposed modifications to capture issues such as statistical bias correction following early stopping. Descriptive statistics aided with forest plots on CONSORT compliance are presented. Discussion: Reporting of the conduct of adaptive designs is an area which has not been fully explored. Hence, the findings from this study can enlighten us on the adequacy in reporting of well-understood group sequential RCTs as a class of adaptive designs and on ways to address some of the cited concerns. Most importantly, the study can inform policy makers on the adequacy of the current CONSORT statements in enhancing reporting of such adaptive designs

An investigation of the shortcomings of the CONSORT 2010 statement for the reporting of group sequential randomised controlled trials: a methodological systematic review

Background It can be argued that adaptive designs are underused in clinical research. We have explored concerns related to inadequate reporting of such trials, which may influence their uptake. Through a careful examination of the literature, we evaluated the standards of reporting of group sequential (GS) randomised controlled trials, one form of a confirmatory adaptive design. Methods We undertook a systematic review, by searching Ovid MEDLINE from the 1st January 2001 to 23rd September 2014, supplemented with trials from an audit study. We included parallel group, confirmatory, GS trials that were prospectively designed using a Frequentist approach. Eligible trials were examined for compliance in their reporting against the CONSORT 2010 checklist. In addition, as part of our evaluation, we developed a supplementary checklist to explicitly capture group sequential specific reporting aspects, and investigated how these are currently being reported. Results Of the 284 screened trials, 68(24%) were eligible. Most trials were published in “high impact” peer-reviewed journals. Examination of trials established that 46(68%) were stopped early, predominantly either for futility or efficacy. Suboptimal reporting compliance was found in general items relating to: access to full trials protocols; methods to generate randomisation list(s); details of randomisation concealment, and its implementation. Benchmarking against the supplementary checklist, GS aspects were largely inadequately reported. Only 3(7%) trials which stopped early reported use of statistical bias correction. Moreover, 52(76%) trials failed to disclose methods used to minimise the risk of operational bias, due to the knowledge or leakage of interim results. Occurrence of changes to trial methods and outcomes could not be determined in most trials, due to inaccessible protocols and amendments. Discussion and Conclusions There are issues with the reporting of GS trials, particularly those specific to the conduct of interim analyses. Suboptimal reporting of bias correction methods could potentially imply most GS trials stopping early are giving biased results of treatment effects. As a result, research consumers may question credibility of findings to change practice when trials are stopped early. These issues could be alleviated through a CONSORT extension. Assurance of scientific rigour through transparent adequate reporting is paramount to the credibility of findings from adaptive trials. Our systematic literature search was restricted to one database due to resource constraints

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them

Abstract Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial’s course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented. We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results. This tutorial paper provides guidance on key aspects of adaptive designs that are relevant to clinical triallists. We explain the basic rationale behind adaptive designs, clarify ambiguous terminology and summarise the utility and pitfalls of adaptive designs. We discuss practical aspects around funding, ethical approval, treatment supply and communication with stakeholders and trial participants. Our focus, however, is on the interpretation and reporting of results from adaptive design trials, which we consider vital for anyone involved in medical research. We emphasise the general principles of transparency and reproducibility and suggest how best to put them into practice

A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness evaluation of 'booster' interventions to sustain increases in physical activity in middle-aged adults in deprived urban neighbourhoods

Background: More evidence is needed on the potential role of 'booster' interventions in the maintenance of increases in physical activity levels after a brief intervention in relatively sedentary populations. Objectives: To determine whether objectively measured physical activity, 6 months after a brief intervention, is increased in those receiving physical activity 'booster' consultations delivered in a motivational interviewing (MI) style, either face to face or by telephone. Design: Three-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative research fidelity and geographical information systems and health economic substudies. Treatment allocation was carried out using a web-based simple randomisation procedure with equal allocation probabilities. Principal investigators and study statisticians were blinded to treatment allocation until after the final analysis only. Setting: Deprived areas of Sheffield, UK. Participants: Previously sedentary people, aged 40-64 years, living in deprived areas of Sheffield, UK, who had increased their physical activity levels after receiving a brief intervention. Interventions: Participants were randomised to the control group (no further intervention) or to two sessions of MI, either face to face ('full booster') or by telephone ('mini booster'). Sessions were delivered 1 and 2 months post-randomisation. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was total energy expenditure (TEE) per day in kcal from 7-day accelerometry, measured using an Actiheart device (CamNtech Ltd, Cambridge, UK). Independent evaluation of practitioner competence was carried out using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity assessment. An estimate of the per-participant intervention costs, resource use data collected by questionnaire and health-related quality of life data were analysed to produce a range of economic models from a short-term NHS perspective. An additional series of models were developed that used TEE values to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness. Results: In total, 282 people were randomised (control = 96; mini booster = 92, full booster = 94) of whom 160 had a minimum of 4 out of 7 days' accelerometry data at 3 months (control = 61, mini booster = 47, full booster = 52). The mean difference in TEE per day between baseline and 3 months favoured the control arm over the combined booster arm but this was not statistically significant (-39 kcal, 95% confidence interval -173 to 95, p = 0.57). The autonomy-enabled MI communication style was generally acceptable, although some participants wanted a more paternalistic approach and most expressed enthusiasm for monitoring and feedback components of the intervention and research. Full boosters were more popular than mini boosters. Practitioners achieved and maintained a consistent level of MI competence. Walking distance to the nearest municipal green space or leisure facilities was not associated with physical activity levels. Two alternative modelling approaches both suggested that neither intervention was likely to be cost-effective. Conclusions: Although some individuals do find a community-based, brief MI 'booster' intervention supportive, the low levels of recruitment and retention and the lack of impact on objectively measured physical activity levels in those with adequate outcome data suggest that it is unlikely to represent a clinically effective or cost-effective intervention for the maintenance of recently acquired physical activity increases in deprived middle-aged urban populations. Future research with middle-aged and relatively deprived populations should explore interventions to promote physical activity that require less proactive engagement from individuals, including environmental interventions

The Utility of Adaptive Designs in Publicly Funded Confirmatory Trials

Introduction: Adaptive designs (ADs) are underused, particularly in publicly funded confirmatory trials, despite their promising benefits and methodological prominence given in the statistical literature. Research Question: This thesis investigates why ADs are underused in the publicly funded setting, explores facilitators, and proposes recommendations to improve their appropriate use. Methods: Confirmatory ADs are reviewed from a statistical and practical perspective. Cross-disciplinary key stakeholders are then interviewed to explore roadblocks to the use of ADs. Based on the interview findings, follow-up quantitative surveys are undertaken to explore wider perceptions on barriers, concerns, and facilitators aimed to generalise the findings. The surveys targeted CTUs (Clinical Trials Units), private sector organisations, and Public Funders in the UK. In view of some of the findings, case studies of applied confirmatory ADs are reviewed to highlight their scope and characteristic, and to investigate the state of reporting of the most common AD. The design and implementation of selected ADs is demonstrated using retrospective and prospective planned case studies. Lessons learned are highlighted to enhance the design of future trials of similar characteristics. Results: The main barriers to the use of ADs include the lack of funding support accessible to UK CTUs to aid their design; limited practical knowledge; preference for traditional mainstream designs; difficulties in marketing ADs to key stakeholders; limited time to support ADs relative to other competing priorities; lack of applied training; and insufficient access to case studies of undertaken ADs, which would facilitate practical learning and successful implementation. Researchers’ inadequate description of AD-related aspects (such as rationale, scope, and decision-making criteria to guide the planned AD) in grant proposals was viewed among the major obstacles by Public Funders. Suboptimal reporting of the design and conduct of undertaken ADs appears to influence concerns about their robustness in decision-making and credibility to change practice. Conclusions: Most obstacles appear connected to a lack of practical implementation knowledge and applied training, and limited access to adequately reported case studies to facilitate practical learning. Assurance of scientific rigour through transparent adequate reporting is paramount to the credibility of findings from adaptive trials. There is a need for a consensus guidance document on ADs and an AD-tailored CONSORT statement to enhance their reporting and conduct. This thesis provides detailed recommendations to improve the appropriate use of ADs and areas for future related research

Researching complex interventions in health: the state of the art

CITATION: Craig, P., et al. 2016. Researching complex interventions in health : the state of the art. BMC Health Services Research, 16:101, doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1274-0.The original publication is available at https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.comENGLISH SUMMARY : Keynote presentationsPublishers' Versio

Missing steps in a staircase: a qualitative study of the perspectives of key stakeholders on the use of adaptive designs in confirmatory trials

Background Despite the promising benefits of adaptive designs (ADs), their routine use, especially in confirmatory trials, is lagging behind the prominence given to them in the statistical literature. Much of the previous research to understand barriers and potential facilitators to the use of ADs has been driven from a pharmaceutical drug development perspective, with little focus on trials in the public sector. In this paper, we explore key stakeholders’ experiences, perceptions and views on barriers and facilitators to the use of ADs in publicly funded confirmatory trials. Methods Semi-structured, in-depth interviews of key stakeholders in clinical trials research (CTU directors, funding board and panel members, statisticians, regulators, chief investigators, data monitoring committee members and health economists) were conducted through telephone or face-to-face sessions, predominantly in the UK. We purposively selected participants sequentially to optimise maximum variation in views and experiences. We employed the framework approach to analyse the qualitative data. Results We interviewed 27 participants. We found some of the perceived barriers to be: lack of knowledge and experience coupled with paucity of case studies, lack of applied training, degree of reluctance to use ADs, lack of bridge funding and time to support design work, lack of statistical expertise, some anxiety about the impact of early trial stopping on researchers’ employment contracts, lack of understanding of acceptable scope of ADs and when ADs are appropriate, and statistical and practical complexities. Reluctance to use ADs seemed to be influenced by: therapeutic area, unfamiliarity, concerns about their robustness in decision-making and acceptability of findings to change practice, perceived complexities and proposed type of AD, among others. Conclusions There are still considerable multifaceted, individual and organisational obstacles to be addressed to improve uptake, and successful implementation of ADs when appropriate. Nevertheless, inferred positive change in attitudes and receptiveness towards the appropriate use of ADs by public funders are supportive and are a stepping stone for the future utilisation of ADs by researchers