The TOPSY pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation.
Pessary
Process evaluation
Prolapse
Randomised controlled trial
Self-management
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Oct 2020
08 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
19
12
2019
accepted:
08
09
2020
entrez:
9
10
2020
pubmed:
10
10
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Process evaluations have become a valued component, alongside clinical trials, of the wider evaluation of complex health interventions. They support understanding of implementation, and fidelity, related to the intervention and provide valuable insights into what is effective in a practical setting by examining the context in which interventions are implemented. The TOPSY study consists of a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of pessary self-management with clinic-based care in improving women's condition-specific quality of life, and a nested process evaluation. The process evaluation aims to examine and maximise recruitment to the trial, describe intervention fidelity and explore participants' and healthcare professionals' experiences. The trial will recruit 330 women from approximately 17 UK centres. The process evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with randomised women (18 per randomised group/n = 36), women who declined trial participation but agreed to interview (non-randomised women) (n = 20) and healthcare professionals recruiting to the trial (n ~ 17) and delivering self-management and clinic-based care (n ~ 17). The six internal pilot centres will be asked to record two to three recruitment discussions each (total n = 12-18). All participating centres will be asked to record one or two self-management teaching appointments (n = 30) and self-management 2-week follow-up telephone calls (n = 30). Process data (quantitative and qualitative) will be gathered in participant completed trial questionnaires. Interviews will be analysed thematically and recordings using an analytic grid to identify fidelity to the intervention. Quantitative analysis will be predefined within the process evaluation analysis plan. The wide variety of pessary care delivered across the UK for women with pelvic organ prolapse presents specific localised contexts in which the TOPSY interventions will be implemented. Understanding this contextual variance is central to understanding how and in what circumstances pessary self-management can be implemented (should it be effective). The inclusion of non-randomised women provides an innovative way of collecting indispensable information about eligible women who decline trial participation, allowing broader contextualisation and considerations of generalisability of trial findings. Methodological insights from examination of recruitment processes and mechanisms have the potential to inform recruitment mechanisms and future recruitment strategies and study designs. ISRCTN62510577 . Registered on 6 October 2017.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Process evaluations have become a valued component, alongside clinical trials, of the wider evaluation of complex health interventions. They support understanding of implementation, and fidelity, related to the intervention and provide valuable insights into what is effective in a practical setting by examining the context in which interventions are implemented. The TOPSY study consists of a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of pessary self-management with clinic-based care in improving women's condition-specific quality of life, and a nested process evaluation. The process evaluation aims to examine and maximise recruitment to the trial, describe intervention fidelity and explore participants' and healthcare professionals' experiences.
METHODS
METHODS
The trial will recruit 330 women from approximately 17 UK centres. The process evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with randomised women (18 per randomised group/n = 36), women who declined trial participation but agreed to interview (non-randomised women) (n = 20) and healthcare professionals recruiting to the trial (n ~ 17) and delivering self-management and clinic-based care (n ~ 17). The six internal pilot centres will be asked to record two to three recruitment discussions each (total n = 12-18). All participating centres will be asked to record one or two self-management teaching appointments (n = 30) and self-management 2-week follow-up telephone calls (n = 30). Process data (quantitative and qualitative) will be gathered in participant completed trial questionnaires. Interviews will be analysed thematically and recordings using an analytic grid to identify fidelity to the intervention. Quantitative analysis will be predefined within the process evaluation analysis plan.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
The wide variety of pessary care delivered across the UK for women with pelvic organ prolapse presents specific localised contexts in which the TOPSY interventions will be implemented. Understanding this contextual variance is central to understanding how and in what circumstances pessary self-management can be implemented (should it be effective). The inclusion of non-randomised women provides an innovative way of collecting indispensable information about eligible women who decline trial participation, allowing broader contextualisation and considerations of generalisability of trial findings. Methodological insights from examination of recruitment processes and mechanisms have the potential to inform recruitment mechanisms and future recruitment strategies and study designs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ISRCTN62510577 . Registered on 6 October 2017.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33032651
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04729-w
pii: 10.1186/s13063-020-04729-w
pmc: PMC7542744
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
836Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 16/82/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Health Technology Assessment Programme
ID : 16/82/01
Références
BMJ. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):413-6
pubmed: 16484270
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb 28;(2):CD004010
pubmed: 23450548
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jul;99:75-83
pubmed: 29505860
BMC Fam Pract. 2015 Mar 17;16:37
pubmed: 25880376
Trials. 2014 Jan 06;15:5
pubmed: 24393291
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 19;9(2):e024152
pubmed: 30782894
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jun;186(6):1160-6
pubmed: 12066091
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 May;194(5):1455-61
pubmed: 16647928
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;193(1):103-13
pubmed: 16021067
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Oct;94:124-8
pubmed: 23850482
Eur Urol. 2017 Nov;72(5):789-798
pubmed: 28578829
Implement Sci. 2013 Aug 23;8:96
pubmed: 23972027
Trials. 2016 Jun 08;17(1):283
pubmed: 27278130
Control Clin Trials. 2003 Jun;24(3):272-82
pubmed: 12757993
Trials. 2018 Jan 19;19(1):50
pubmed: 29351790
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009 Oct;20(10):1157-61
pubmed: 19543676
BMJ. 2010 Sep 17;341:c4587
pubmed: 20851841