Feasibility and design of a trial regarding the optimal mode of delivery for preterm birth: the CASSAVA multiple methods study.


Journal

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 2021
Historique:
entrez: 9 11 2021
pubmed: 10 11 2021
medline: 16 11 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Around 60,000 babies are born preterm (prior to 37 weeks' gestation) each year in the UK. There is little evidence on the optimal birth mode (vaginal or caesarean section). The overall aim of the CASSAVA project was to determine if a trial to define the optimal mode of preterm birth could be carried out and, if so, determine what sort of trial could be conducted and how it could best be performed. We aimed to determine the specific groups of preterm women and babies for whom there are uncertainties about the best planned mode of birth, and if there would be willingness to recruit to, and participate in, a randomised trial to address some, but not all, of these uncertainties. This project was conducted in response to a Heath Technology Assessment programme commissioning call (17/22 'Mode of delivery for preterm infants'). We conducted clinician and patient surveys ( Planned sample size and data saturation was achieved for all groups except for focus groups with participants, as this had to be curtailed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and data saturation was not achieved. There was broad agreement from parents and health-care professionals that a trial is needed. The clinician survey demonstrated a variety of practice and opinion. The parent survey suggested that women and their families generally preferred vaginal birth at later gestations and caesarean section for preterm infants. The interactive workshop and Delphi consensus process confirmed the need for more evidence (hence the case for a trial) and provided rich information on what a future trial should entail. It was agreed that any trial should address the areas with most uncertainty, including the management of women at 26-32 weeks' gestation, with either spontaneous preterm labour (cephalic presentation) or where preterm birth was medically indicated. Clear themes around the challenges inherent in conducting any trial emerged, including the concept of equipoise itself. Specific issues were as follows: different clinicians and participants would be in equipoise for each clinical scenario, effective conduct of the trial would require appropriate resources and expertise within the hospital conducting the trial, potential participants would welcome information on the trial well before the onset of labour and minority ethnic groups would require tailored approaches. Given the lack of evidence and the variation of practice and opinion in this area, and having listened to clinicians and potential participants, we conclude that a trial should be conducted and the outlined challenges resolved. The CASSAVA project could be used to inform the design of a randomised trial and indicates how such a trial could be carried out. Any future trial would benefit from a pilot with qualitative input and a study within a trial to inform optimal recruitment. Certainty that a trial could be conducted can be determined only when it is attempted. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12295730. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Around 60,000 babies are born preterm each year in the UK. We do not know what the safest mode of birth is for these babies. Birth options include a vaginal birth or a caesarean section (which involves an operation for the mother). Normally, the ideal way to find out what clinical options are best is to carry out a ‘randomised trial’ in which participants are allocated to a particular treatment group (in this case, vaginal birth or caesarean section) by chance. It is not clear if women who have their babies preterm would want to take part in such a trial or that the clinicians looking after the women would be happy to ask them to, as previous trials have failed to recruit sufficient participants. The purpose of the CASSAVA research project was to find out what people think is the best and safest method of delivering preterm babies, their views on doing a research trial and what sort of research trial could be carried out. We conducted a survey asking clinicians and women their views. We gathered clinicians and women together to discuss and agree the key questions for a trial to answer. We then developed a protocol (plan) for a possible trial. Using this trial protocol, we conducted telephone interviews with clinicians, asking them if they would be willing to be involved and if they would be willing to ask pregnant women to participate. We also conducted focus groups with women, using a vignette (storyboard) about a possible trial. We found that there is a lot of uncertainty about the best way for preterm babies to be born. Clinicians and women broadly agreed that it would be good to resolve this uncertainty through a trial. We were able to identify some areas of the greatest uncertainty where clinicians and women would consider participating in a study. We gained a lot of useful information about how we could best set up a trial and support clinicians and women to get involved.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Around 60,000 babies are born preterm (prior to 37 weeks' gestation) each year in the UK. There is little evidence on the optimal birth mode (vaginal or caesarean section).
OBJECTIVE
The overall aim of the CASSAVA project was to determine if a trial to define the optimal mode of preterm birth could be carried out and, if so, determine what sort of trial could be conducted and how it could best be performed. We aimed to determine the specific groups of preterm women and babies for whom there are uncertainties about the best planned mode of birth, and if there would be willingness to recruit to, and participate in, a randomised trial to address some, but not all, of these uncertainties. This project was conducted in response to a Heath Technology Assessment programme commissioning call (17/22 'Mode of delivery for preterm infants').
METHODS
We conducted clinician and patient surveys (
RESULTS
Planned sample size and data saturation was achieved for all groups except for focus groups with participants, as this had to be curtailed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and data saturation was not achieved. There was broad agreement from parents and health-care professionals that a trial is needed. The clinician survey demonstrated a variety of practice and opinion. The parent survey suggested that women and their families generally preferred vaginal birth at later gestations and caesarean section for preterm infants. The interactive workshop and Delphi consensus process confirmed the need for more evidence (hence the case for a trial) and provided rich information on what a future trial should entail. It was agreed that any trial should address the areas with most uncertainty, including the management of women at 26-32 weeks' gestation, with either spontaneous preterm labour (cephalic presentation) or where preterm birth was medically indicated. Clear themes around the challenges inherent in conducting any trial emerged, including the concept of equipoise itself. Specific issues were as follows: different clinicians and participants would be in equipoise for each clinical scenario, effective conduct of the trial would require appropriate resources and expertise within the hospital conducting the trial, potential participants would welcome information on the trial well before the onset of labour and minority ethnic groups would require tailored approaches.
CONCLUSION
Given the lack of evidence and the variation of practice and opinion in this area, and having listened to clinicians and potential participants, we conclude that a trial should be conducted and the outlined challenges resolved.
FUTURE WORK
The CASSAVA project could be used to inform the design of a randomised trial and indicates how such a trial could be carried out. Any future trial would benefit from a pilot with qualitative input and a study within a trial to inform optimal recruitment.
LIMITATIONS
Certainty that a trial could be conducted can be determined only when it is attempted.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12295730.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
Around 60,000 babies are born preterm each year in the UK. We do not know what the safest mode of birth is for these babies. Birth options include a vaginal birth or a caesarean section (which involves an operation for the mother). Normally, the ideal way to find out what clinical options are best is to carry out a ‘randomised trial’ in which participants are allocated to a particular treatment group (in this case, vaginal birth or caesarean section) by chance. It is not clear if women who have their babies preterm would want to take part in such a trial or that the clinicians looking after the women would be happy to ask them to, as previous trials have failed to recruit sufficient participants. The purpose of the CASSAVA research project was to find out what people think is the best and safest method of delivering preterm babies, their views on doing a research trial and what sort of research trial could be carried out. We conducted a survey asking clinicians and women their views. We gathered clinicians and women together to discuss and agree the key questions for a trial to answer. We then developed a protocol (plan) for a possible trial. Using this trial protocol, we conducted telephone interviews with clinicians, asking them if they would be willing to be involved and if they would be willing to ask pregnant women to participate. We also conducted focus groups with women, using a vignette (storyboard) about a possible trial. We found that there is a lot of uncertainty about the best way for preterm babies to be born. Clinicians and women broadly agreed that it would be good to resolve this uncertainty through a trial. We were able to identify some areas of the greatest uncertainty where clinicians and women would consider participating in a study. We gained a lot of useful information about how we could best set up a trial and support clinicians and women to get involved.

Autres résumés

Type: plain-language-summary (eng)
Around 60,000 babies are born preterm each year in the UK. We do not know what the safest mode of birth is for these babies. Birth options include a vaginal birth or a caesarean section (which involves an operation for the mother). Normally, the ideal way to find out what clinical options are best is to carry out a ‘randomised trial’ in which participants are allocated to a particular treatment group (in this case, vaginal birth or caesarean section) by chance. It is not clear if women who have their babies preterm would want to take part in such a trial or that the clinicians looking after the women would be happy to ask them to, as previous trials have failed to recruit sufficient participants. The purpose of the CASSAVA research project was to find out what people think is the best and safest method of delivering preterm babies, their views on doing a research trial and what sort of research trial could be carried out. We conducted a survey asking clinicians and women their views. We gathered clinicians and women together to discuss and agree the key questions for a trial to answer. We then developed a protocol (plan) for a possible trial. Using this trial protocol, we conducted telephone interviews with clinicians, asking them if they would be willing to be involved and if they would be willing to ask pregnant women to participate. We also conducted focus groups with women, using a vignette (storyboard) about a possible trial. We found that there is a lot of uncertainty about the best way for preterm babies to be born. Clinicians and women broadly agreed that it would be good to resolve this uncertainty through a trial. We were able to identify some areas of the greatest uncertainty where clinicians and women would consider participating in a study. We gained a lot of useful information about how we could best set up a trial and support clinicians and women to get involved.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34751645
doi: 10.3310/hta25610
doi:

Banques de données

ISRCTN
['ISRCTN12295730']

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1-102

Références

Costeloe KL, Hennessy EM, Haider S, Stacey F, Marlow N, Draper ES. Short term outcomes after extreme preterm birth in England: comparison of two birth cohorts in 1995 and 2006 (the EPICure studies). BMJ 2012;345:e7976. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7976
doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7976
Moore T, Hennessy EM, Myles J, Johnson SJ, Draper ES, Costeloe KL, Marlow N. Neurological and developmental outcome in extremely preterm children born in England in 1995 and 2006: the EPICure studies. BMJ 2012;345:e7961. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7961
doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7961
Alfirevic Z, Milan SJ, Livio S. Caesarean section versus vaginal delivery for preterm birth in singletons. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;9:CD000078. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000078.pub3
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000078.pub3
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Preterm Labour and Birth. London: NICE; 2015.
Werner EF, Han CS, Savitz DA, Goldshore M, Lipkind HS. Health outcomes for vaginal compared with cesarean delivery of appropriately grown preterm neonates. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:1195–200. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182918a7e
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182918a7e
Werner EF, Savitz DA, Janevic TM, Ehsanipoor RM, Thung SF, Funai EF, Lipkind HS. Mode of delivery and neonatal outcomes in preterm, small-for-gestational-age newborns. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:560–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318265b16c
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318265b16c
Reddy UM, Zhang J, Sun L, Chen Z, Raju TN, Laughon SK. Neonatal mortality by attempted route of delivery in early preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:117.e1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.023
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.023
Gamaleldin I, Harding D, Siassakos D, Draycott T, Odd D. Significant intraventricular hemorrhage is more likely in very preterm infants born by vaginal delivery: a multi-centre retrospective cohort study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019;32:477–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1383980
doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1383980
Kuper SG, Sievert RA, Steele R, Biggio JR, Tita AT, Harper LM. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in indicated preterm births based on the intended mode of delivery Obstet Gynecol 2017;130:1143–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002320
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002320
Riskin A, Riskin-Mashiah S, Bader D, Kugelman A, Lerner-Geva L, Boyko V, Reichman B. Delivery mode and severe intraventricular hemorrhage in single, very low birth weight, vertex infants. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:21–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31817cfdf1
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31817cfdf1
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Caesarean Birth. London: NICE; 2011.
Alfirevic Z, Milan SJ, Livio S. Caesarean section versus vaginal delivery for preterm birth in singletons. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;6:CD000078. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000078.pub2
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000078.pub2
Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 2000;356:1375–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02840-3
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02840-3
Penn ZJ, Steer PJ, Grant A. A multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing elective and selective caesarean section for the delivery of the preterm breech infant. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:684–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09838.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09838.x
Viegas OA, Ingemarsson I, Sim LP, Singh K, Cheng M, Ratnam SS, et al. Collaborative study on preterm breeches: vaginal delivery versus caesarean section. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol 1985;11:349–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.1985.tb00754.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.1985.tb00754.x
Zlatnik FJ. The Iowa premature breech trial. Am J Perinatol 1993;10:60–3. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-994704
doi: 10.1055/s-2007-994704
Wallace RL, Schifrin BS, Paul RH. The delivery route for very-low-birth-weight infants. A preliminary report of a randomized, prospective study. J Reprod Med 1984;29:736–40.
Barrett JF, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, Willan AR, Allen AC, Armson BA, et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1295–305. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1214939
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214939
Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E, Guise JM, Horey D. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;12:CD004224. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004224.pub3
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004224.pub3
Crowther CA, Dodd JM, Hiller JE, Haslam RR, Robinson JS, Birth After Caesarean Study Group. Planned vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean: patient preference restricted cohort with nested randomised trial. PLOS Med 2012;9:e1001192. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001192
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001192
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, Tugwell P. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 2012;13:132. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-132
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-132
Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 1990.
Kitzinger J. The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between participants. Sociol Health Illn 1994;6:103–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
Wilkinson CE, Rees CE, Knight LV. ‘From the heart of my bottom’: negotiating humor in focus group discussions. Qual Health Res 2007;17:411–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306298375
doi: 10.1177/1049732306298375
Duggleby W. What about focus group interaction data? Qual Health Res 2005;15:832–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304273916
doi: 10.1177/1049732304273916
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2019.
Turner CE, Young JM, Solomon MJ, Ludlow J, Benness C, Phipps H. Willingness of pregnant women and clinicians to participate in a hypothetical randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal delivery and elective caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;48:542–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2008.00923.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2008.00923.x
Lilford RJ, Jackson J. Equipoise and the ethics of randomization. J R Soc Med 1995;88:552–9.
Chard JA, Lilford RJ. The use of equipoise in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med 1998;47:891–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00153-1
doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00153-1
Garcia J, Elbourne D, Snowdon C. Equipoise: a case study of the views of clinicians involved in two neonatal trials. Clin Trials 2004;1:170–8. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774504cn020xx
doi: 10.1191/1740774504cn020xx
Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials 2014;15:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-5
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-5
Donovan JL, de Salis I, Toerien M, Paramasivan S, Hamdy FC, Blazeby JM. The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:912–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.010
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.010
Hart RI, Hallowell N, Harden J, Jesudason AB, Lawton J. Clinician-researchers and custodians of scarce resources: a qualitative study of health professionals’ views on barriers to the involvement of teenagers and young adults in cancer trials. Trials 2020;21:67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3942-y
doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3942-y
McCann SK, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA. Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials 2010;11:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-11-31
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-31
Locock L, Smith L. Personal benefit, or benefiting others? Deciding whether to take part in clinical trials. Clin Trials 2011;8:85–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774510392257
doi: 10.1177/1740774510392257
Lawton J, Blackburn M, Breckenridge JP, Hallowell N, Farrington C, Rankin D. Ambassadors of hope, research pioneers and agents of change-individuals’ expectations and experiences of taking part in a randomised trial of an innovative health technology: longitudinal qualitative study. Trials 2019;20:289. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3373-9
doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3373-9
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
Royal College of Midwives. Midwifery Care in Labour Guidance for All Women in All Settings. London: Royal College of Midwives; 2018.
Rowland L, Jones C. Research midwives: importance and practicalities. Br J Midwifery 2013;21:60–4. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2013.21.1.60
doi: 10.12968/bjom.2013.21.1.60
Boulton M, Fitzpatrick R. Evaluating qualitative research. Evid Based Healthc 1997;4:83–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9410(05)80078-6
doi: 10.1016/S1462-9410(05)80078-6
Steinke I. Quality Criteria in Qualitative Research. In Flick U, von Kardorff E, Steinke I, editors. A Companion to Qualitative Research. London, Sage Publications Ltd; 2004. pp. 184–90.
Fielding N, Thomas H. Qualitative Interviewing. In Gilber N, editor. Researching Social Life. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2008. pp. 245–65.
Patton M. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2002.
Ruan G, Bernard H. Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods 2003;15:85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569
doi: 10.1177/1525822X02239569
Lincoln YS, Gubba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications Ltd; 1985.
Kitzinger J. Focus Group Research: Using Group Dynamics to Explore Perceptions, Experiences and Understandings. In Holloway I, editor. Qualitative Research in Health Care. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005. pp. 56–70.
O’Dell L, Crafter S, de Abreu G, Cline T. The problem of interpretation in vignette methodology in research with young people. Qual Res 2012;12:702–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439003
doi: 10.1177/1468794112439003
Liamputtong P. Focus Group Methodology: Principles and Practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2011. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957657
doi: 10.4135/9781473957657
Barbour R, Kitzinger J. Developing Focus Group Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 1999. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208857
doi: 10.4135/9781849208857
Oppenheim M. Baby ‘accidentally decapitated inside mother’s womb’ during delivery. Independent, 5 June 2018. URL: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/decapitated-baby-doctor-mothers-womb-delivery-death-vaishnavy-laxman-tribunal-ninewells-hospital-a8344696.html (accessed 1 September 2021).
Lawton J, Snowdon C, Morrow S, Norman JE, Denison FC, Hallowell N. Recruiting and consenting into a peripartum trial in an emergency setting: a qualitative study of the experiences and views of women and healthcare professionals. Trials 2016;17:195. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1323-3
doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1323-3
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Obtaining Valid Consent. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2015.
Vernon G, Alfirevic Z, Weeks A. Issues of informed consent for intrapartum trials: a suggested consent pathway from the experience of the Release trial [ISRCTN13204258]. Trials 2006;7:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-7-13
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-7-13
Hussain-Gambles M, Atkin K, Leese B. Why ethnic minority groups are under-represented in clinical trials: a review of the literature. Health Soc Care Community 2004;12:382–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00507.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00507.x
Hussain-Gambles M, Leese B, Atkin K, Brown J, Mason S, Tovey P. Involving South Asian patients in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(42). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta8420
doi: 10.3310/hta8420
Witham MD, Anderson E, Carroll C, Dark PM, Down K, Hall AS, et al. Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process. Trials 2020;21:694. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04613-7
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04613-7
National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands. Increasing Participation of Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Groups in Health and Social Care Research. URL: http://arc-em.nihr.ac.uk/clahrcs-store/increasing-participation-black-asian-and-minority-ethnic-bame-groups-health-and-social (accessed 2 September 2021).
National Institute for Health Research. Studies Within a Trial (SWAT). URL: www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/studies-within-a-trial-swat/21512 (accessed 2 September 2021).
Walker KF, Cohen AL, Walker SH, Allen KM, Baines DL, Thornton JG. The dangers of the day of birth. BJOG 2014;121:714–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12544
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12544

Auteurs

Jane E Norman (JE)

Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Julia Lawton (J)

Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Sarah J Stock (SJ)

Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Dimitrios Siassakos (D)

Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.

John Norrie (J)

Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Nina Hallowell (N)

Ethox Centre and Wellcome Centre for Ethics & Humanities, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Sushila Chowdhry (S)

School of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.

Ruth I Hart (RI)

Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

David Odd (D)

Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Cardiff, Cardiff, UK.

Sonia Whyte (S)

Tommy's Centre for Maternal and Fetal Health, MRC Centre for Maternal and Fetal Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH