Rapid qualitative analysis of recruitment obstacles in the FORVAD (Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy surgery versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy surgery in the treatment of cervical brachialgia) randomised, controlled trial.
Equipoise
Experience
Interview
Neurosurgery
Process evaluation
Qualitative
Randomised controlled trial
Rapid qualitative analysis
Surgery
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Aug 2024
17 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
12
03
2024
accepted:
08
08
2024
medline:
17
8
2024
pubmed:
17
8
2024
entrez:
16
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The number of surgical trials is increasing but such trials can be complex to deliver and pose specific challenges. A multi-centre, Phase III, RCT comparing Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of Cervical Brachialgia (FORVAD Trial) was unable to recruit to target. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during trial closedown to understand the experiences of healthcare professionals who participated in the FORVAD Trial, with the aim of informing future research in this area. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 healthcare professionals who had participated in the FORVAD Trial. Interviews explored participants' experiences of the FORVAD trial. A rapid qualitative analysis was conducted, informed by Normalisation Process Theory. Four main themes were generated in the data analysis: (1) individual vs. community equipoise; (2) trial set-up and delivery; (3) identifying and approaching patients; and (4) timing of randomisation. The objectives of the FORVAD trial made sense to participants and they supported the idea that there was clinical or collective equipoise regarding the two FORVAD interventions; however, many surgeons had treatment preferences and lacked individual equipoise. The site which had most recruitment success had adopted a more structured process for identification and recruitment of patients, whereas other sites that adopted more "ad hoc" screening strategies struggled to identify patients. Randomisation on the day of surgery caused both medico-legal and practical concerns at some sites. Organisation and implementation of a surgical trial in neurosurgery is complex and presents many challenges. Sites often reported low recruitment and discussed the logistical issues of conducting a complex surgical RCT. Future trials in neurosurgery may need to offer more flexibility and time during set-up to maximise opportunities for larger recruitment numbers. Rapid qualitative analysis informed by Normalisation Process Theory was able to quickly identify key issues with trial implementation so rapid qualitative analysis may be a useful approach for teams conducting qualitative research in trials. ISRCTN, ISRCTN reference: 10,133,661. Registered 23rd November 2018.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The number of surgical trials is increasing but such trials can be complex to deliver and pose specific challenges. A multi-centre, Phase III, RCT comparing Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of Cervical Brachialgia (FORVAD Trial) was unable to recruit to target. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during trial closedown to understand the experiences of healthcare professionals who participated in the FORVAD Trial, with the aim of informing future research in this area.
METHODS
METHODS
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 healthcare professionals who had participated in the FORVAD Trial. Interviews explored participants' experiences of the FORVAD trial. A rapid qualitative analysis was conducted, informed by Normalisation Process Theory.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Four main themes were generated in the data analysis: (1) individual vs. community equipoise; (2) trial set-up and delivery; (3) identifying and approaching patients; and (4) timing of randomisation. The objectives of the FORVAD trial made sense to participants and they supported the idea that there was clinical or collective equipoise regarding the two FORVAD interventions; however, many surgeons had treatment preferences and lacked individual equipoise. The site which had most recruitment success had adopted a more structured process for identification and recruitment of patients, whereas other sites that adopted more "ad hoc" screening strategies struggled to identify patients. Randomisation on the day of surgery caused both medico-legal and practical concerns at some sites.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Organisation and implementation of a surgical trial in neurosurgery is complex and presents many challenges. Sites often reported low recruitment and discussed the logistical issues of conducting a complex surgical RCT. Future trials in neurosurgery may need to offer more flexibility and time during set-up to maximise opportunities for larger recruitment numbers. Rapid qualitative analysis informed by Normalisation Process Theory was able to quickly identify key issues with trial implementation so rapid qualitative analysis may be a useful approach for teams conducting qualitative research in trials.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ISRCTN, ISRCTN reference: 10,133,661. Registered 23rd November 2018.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39152476
doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08391-4
pii: 10.1186/s13063-024-08391-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
546Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Sampath P, Bendebba M, Davis JD, Ducker T. Outcome in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Prospective, multicenter study with independent clinical review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(6):591–7.
pubmed: 10101827
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199903150-00021
Fouyas IP, Statham PF, Sandercock PA. Cochrane review on the role of surgery in cervical spondylotic radiculomyelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(7):736–47.
pubmed: 11923667
doi: 10.1097/00007632-200204010-00011
Persson LC, Moritz U, Brandt L, Carlsson CA. Cervical radiculopathy: pain, muscle weakness and sensory loss in patients with cervical radiculopathy treated with surgery, physiotherapy or cervical collar. A prospective, controlled study. Eur Spine J. 1997;6(4):256–66.
pubmed: 9294750
pmcid: 3454639
doi: 10.1007/BF01322448
Whybrow P, Pickard R, Hrisos S, et al. Equipoise across the patient population: optimising recruitment to a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18:140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1711-8 .
Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, Smisson HF, Johnston KW, Grigorian AA, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(21):2310–7.
pubmed: 17906571
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318154c57e
Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(4):519–28.
pubmed: 10225797
doi: 10.2106/00004623-199904000-00009
Wang MC, Kreuter W, Wolfla CE, Maiman DJ, Deyo RA. Trends and Variations in Cervical Spine Surgery in the United States: Medicare Beneficiaries, 1992 to 2005. Spine. 2009;34(9):955-61.
Selvanathan SK, Beagrie C, Thomson S, Corns R, Deniz K, Derham C, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of brachialgia: the Leeds spinal unit experience (2008–2013). Acta Neurochir. 2015;157(9):1595–600.
pubmed: 26144567
doi: 10.1007/s00701-015-2491-8
Wirth FP, Dowd GC, Sanders HF, Wirth C. Cervical discectomy. A prospective analysis of three operative techniques. Surg Neurol. 2000;53(4):340–6 discussion 6–8.
pubmed: 10825519
doi: 10.1016/S0090-3019(00)00201-9
Thomson S, Ainsworth G, Selvanathan S, Kelly R, Collier H, Mujica-Mota R, et al. Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2023;27(21):1–228.
pubmed: 37929307
pmcid: 10641711
doi: 10.3310/OTOH7720
Thomson S, Ainsworth G, Selvanathan S, Brown S, Croft J, Kelly R, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of PCF versus ACD in the treatment of cervical brachialgia (FORVAD trial). Br J Neurosurg. 2024;38(1):141–8.
pubmed: 37807634
doi: 10.1080/02688697.2023.2267119
Clement C, Edwards SL, Rapport F, Russell IT, Hutchings HA. Exploring qualitative methods reported in registered trials and their yields (EQUITY): systematic review. Trials. 2018;19(1):589.
pubmed: 30373646
pmcid: 6206926
doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2983-y
Clement C, Rapport F, Seagrove A, Alrubaiy L, Williams J. Healthcare professionals’ views of the use and administration of two salvage therapy drugs for acute ulcerative colitis: a nested qualitative study within the CONSTRUCT trial. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2): e014512.
pubmed: 28399515
pmcid: 5337666
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014512
Blencowe N, Brown J, Cook J, Metcalfe C, Morton D, Nicholl J, et al. Interventions in randomised controlled trials in surgery: Issues to consider during trial design. Trials. 2015;16:392.
pubmed: 26337522
pmcid: 4558964
doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0918-4
Phelps EE, Tutton E, Griffin X, Baird J, Costa ML, Parsons N, et al. Facilitating trial recruitment: A qualitative study of patient and staff experiences of an orthopaedic trauma trial. Trials. 2019;20(1):492.
pubmed: 31399134
pmcid: 6688236
doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3597-8
Phelps EE, Tutton E, Griffin X, Baird J. A mixed-methods systematic review of patients’ experience of being invited to participate in surgical randomised controlled trials. Soc Sci Med. 2020;253: 112961.
pubmed: 32247942
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112961
Ziebland S, Featherstone K, Snowdon C, Barker K, Frost H, Fairbank J. Does it matter if clinicians recruiting for a trial don’t understand what the trial is really about? Qualitative study of surgeons’ experiences of participation in a pragmatic multi-centre RCT. Trials. 2007;8(1):4.
pubmed: 17257440
pmcid: 1794540
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-8-4
Featherstone K, Donovan JL. “Why don’t they just tell me straight, why allocate it?” The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(5):709–19.
pubmed: 12190265
doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00197-6
Lawton J, Jenkins N, Darbyshire J, Farmer A, Holman R, Hallowell N. Understanding the outcomes of multi-centre clinical trials: a qualitative study of health professional experiences and views. 2012;74:574–81.
Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. 2014;15:5.
pubmed: 24393291
Donovan JL, Peters TJ, Noble S, Powell P, Gillatt D, Oliver SE, et al. Who can best recruit to randomized trials? Randomized trial comparing surgeons and nurses recruiting patients to a trial of treatments for localized prostate cancer (the ProtecT study). J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(7):605–9.
pubmed: 12921927
doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00083-0
McCann SK, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA. Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. 2010;11:31.
Horwood J, Johnson E, Gooberman-Hill R. Understanding involvement in surgical orthopaedic randomized controlled trials: A qualitative study of patient and health professional views and experiences. International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing. 2016;20:3–12.
pubmed: 26772763
pmcid: 4720819
doi: 10.1016/j.ijotn.2015.05.002
Cook JA. The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2009;10(1):9.
pubmed: 19200379
pmcid: 2654883
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-10-9
Mittal R, Harris IA, Adie S, Naylor JM. Factors affecting patient participation in orthopaedic trials comparing surgery to non-surgical interventions. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications. 2016;3:153–7.
pubmed: 29736464
pmcid: 5935881
doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2016.05.007
Newington L, Metcalfe A. Researchers’ and clinicians’ perceptions of recruiting participants to clinical research: a thematic meta-synthesis. J Clin Med Res. 2014;6(3):162–72.
pubmed: 24734142
pmcid: 3985558
Newington L, Metcalfe A. Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:10.
pubmed: 24456229
pmcid: 3903025
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-10
McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7:9.
pubmed: 16603070
pmcid: 1475627
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-7-9
Wade J, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it: opening the “black box” of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(11):2018–28.
pubmed: 19364625
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023
Hamilton DW, de Salis I, Donovan JL, Birchall M. The recruitment of patients to trials in head and neck cancer: a qualitative study of the EaStER trial of treatments for early laryngeal cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;270(8):2333–7.
pubmed: 23334205
doi: 10.1007/s00405-013-2349-8
Zahren C, Harvey S, Weekes L, Bradshaw C, Butala R, Andrews J, O'Callaghan S. Clinical trials site recruitment optimisation: Guidance from Clinical Trials: Impact and Quality. Clin Trials. 2021;18(5):594–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745211015924 .
Paleri V, Patterson J, Rousseau N, Moloney E, Craig D, Tzelis D, et al. Gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for chemoradiation patients with head and neck cancer: the TUBE pilot RCT. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2018;22(16):1–144.
pubmed: 29650060
doi: 10.3310/hta22160
Mills N, Donovan J, Wade J, Hamdy F, Neal D, Lane A. Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1127–36.
pubmed: 21477994
pmcid: 3167372
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.017
Garcea G, Lloyd T, Steward WP, Dennison AR, Berry DP. Differences in attitudes between patients with primary colorectal cancer and patients with secondary colorectal cancer: is it reflected in their willingness to participate in drug trials? Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2005;14(2):166–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2005.00535.x .
Davies G, Mills N, Holcombe C, Potter S, Barnes NLP, Blazeby JM, et al. Perceived barriers to randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction: obstacle to trial initiation or opportunity to resolve? A qualitative study. Trials. 2020;21(1):316.
pubmed: 32252788
pmcid: 7132957
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4227-1
Rooshenas L, Elliott D, Wade J, Jepson M, Paramasivan S, Strong S, et al. Conveying Equipoise during Recruitment for Clinical Trials: Qualitative Synthesis of Clinicians’ Practices across Six Randomised Controlled Trials. PLoS Med. 2016;13(10): e1002147.
pubmed: 27755555
pmcid: 5068710
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002147
Rabinstein AA, Brinjikji W, Kallmes DF. Equipoise in Clinical Trials. Circ Res. 2016;119(7):798–800.
pubmed: 27635084
doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.309594
McDermott C, Vennik J, Philpott C, le Conte S, Thomas M, Eyles C, Little P, Blackshaw H, Schilder A, Hopkins C. Maximising recruitment to a randomised controlled trial for chronic rhinosinusitis using qualitative research methods: the MACRO conversation study. Trials. 2021;22(1):54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04993-w .
Legrand C, Ducrocq V, Janssen P, Sylvester R, Duchateau L. A Bayesian approach to jointly estimate centre and treatment by centre heterogeneity in a proportional hazards model. Stat Med. 2005;24(24):3789–804.
pubmed: 16320274
doi: 10.1002/sim.2475
Larson AN, Floccari LV, Garg S, Erickson MA, Sponseller PD, Brito JP, et al. Willingness to enroll in a surgical randomized controlled trial: patient and parent preferences regarding implant density for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis fusion. Spine Deformity. 2020;8(5):957–63.
pubmed: 32495208
doi: 10.1007/s43390-020-00143-z
Mansouri A, Cooper B, Shin SM, Kondziolka D. Randomized controlled trials and neurosurgery: the ideal fit or should alternative methodologies be considered? J Neurosurg. 2016;124(2):558–68.
pubmed: 26315006
doi: 10.3171/2014.12.JNS142465
May C, Finch T. Implementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of Normalization Process Theory. Sociology. 2009;43(3):535–54.
doi: 10.1177/0038038509103208
Vindrola-Padros C, Andrews L, Dowrick A, Djellouli N, Fillmore H, Bautista Gonzalez E, et al. Perceptions and experiences of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. BMJ Open. 2020;10(11): e040503.
pubmed: 33154060
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040503
Beebe J. Basic Concepts and Techniques of Rapid Appraisal. Hum Organ. 2008;54(1):42–51.
doi: 10.17730/humo.54.1.k84tv883mr2756l3
Sheard L, Marsh C. How to analyse longitudinal data from multiple sources in qualitative health research: the pen portrait analytic technique. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):169.
pubmed: 31375082
pmcid: 6679485
doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0810-0
May CR, Cummings A, Girling M, Bracher M, Mair FS, May CM, et al. Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):80.
pubmed: 29879986
pmcid: 5992634
doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1
Huddlestone L, Turner J, Eborall H, Hudson N, Davies M, Martin G. Application of normalisation process theory in understanding implementation processes in primary care settings in the UK: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):52.
pubmed: 32178624
pmcid: 7075013
doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-01107-y
Murray E, Treweek S, Pope C, MacFarlane A, Ballini L, Dowrick C, et al. Normalisation process theory: a framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions. BMC Med. 2010;8:63.
pubmed: 20961442
pmcid: 2978112
doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-63
Bamford C, Heaven B, May C, Moynihan P. Implementing nutrition guidelines for older people in residential care homes: a qualitative study using Normalization Process Theory. Implement Sci. 2012;7:106.
pubmed: 23110857
pmcid: 3514214
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-106
Hastings CE, Fisher CA, McCabe MA, National Clinical Research Nursing C, Allison J, Brassil D, et al. Clinical research nursing: a critical resource in the national research enterprise. Nurs Outlook. 2012;60(3):149-56.e1563.
pubmed: 22172370
doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2011.10.003
Griffin XL, Costa ML, Achten J, Dritsaki M, Baird J, Parsons N. Trial of Acute Femoral Fracture Fixation (TrAFFix): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial. Trials. 2017;18(1):538.
pubmed: 29137679
pmcid: 5686825
doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2265-0
Alsagheir A, Koziarz A, Belley-Côté EP, Whitlock RP. Expertise-based design in surgical trials: a narrative review. Can J Surg. 2021;64(6):E594-602. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.008520 .
Cook JA, Elders A, Boachie C, Bassinga T, Fraser C, Altman DG, et al. A systematic review of the use of an expertise-based randomised controlled trial design. Trials. 2015;16:241.
pubmed: 26025450
pmcid: 4468810
doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0739-5
Cook JA, Campbell MK, Gillies K, Skea Z. Surgeons’ and methodologists’ perceptions of utilising an expertise-based randomised controlled trial design: a qualitative study. Trials. 2018;19(1):478.
pubmed: 30189868
pmcid: 6127897
doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2832-z
Bond C, Lancaster GA, Campbell M, Chan C, Eddy S, Hopewell S, et al. Pilot and feasibility studies: extending the conceptual framework. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2023;9(1):24.
pubmed: 36759879
pmcid: 9909985
doi: 10.1186/s40814-023-01233-1
Vindrola-Padros C, Brage E, Johnson GA. Rapid, Responsive, and Relevant?: A Systematic Review of Rapid Evaluations in Health Care. Am J Eval. 2021;42(1):13–27.
doi: 10.1177/1098214019886914
Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):10.
pubmed: 22587960
pmcid: 3351736
doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-10
Vindrola-Padros C, Froghi F, Gopalan V, Maruthan S, Filipe H, McNeil M, et al. The integration of rapid qualitative research in clinical trials: reflections from the ward-based goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) in acute pancreatitis feasibility trial. Trials. 2023;24(1):227.
pubmed: 36964583
pmcid: 10039605
doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07191-6
Sutton E, Herbert G, Burden S, Lewis S, Thomas S, Ness A, et al. Using the Normalization Process Theory to qualitatively explore sense-making in implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme: "It's not rocket science". PLoS ONE. 2018;13(4):e0195890. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195890 .
Paleri V, Patterson J, Rousseau N, Moloney E, Craig D, Tzelis D, et al. Gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for chemoradiation patients with head and neck cancer: the TUBE pilot RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2018;22(16).
pubmed: 34273978
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06702-y
Higham R, Pini S, Quyn A, Kowal M, Helliwell J, Saman R, et al. Rapid qualitative analysis in a mixed-methods evaluation of an infection prevention intervention in a UK hospital setting during the COVID-19 pandemic: A discussion of the CLEAN study methodology. Front Sociol. 2022;7:958250. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.958250 .
McNaughton RJ, Steven A, Shucksmith J. Using Normalization Process Theory as a Practical Tool Across the Life Course of a Qualitative Research Project. Qual Health Res. 2020;30(2):217–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732319863420 .