Explore the vast range of titles available.

Keywords: PPI, RCT, Lessons learned

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for the clinical trial community, both in the rapid establishment of COVID-19 clinical trials and many existing non-COVID-19 studies either being temporarily paused (whether that is a complete pause or pause in some activities) and/or adapting their processes. Trial managers have played a key role in decision-making, undertaking risk assessments and adapting trial processes, working closely with other members of the research team. This article presents some of the ways in which trial management processes have been altered and the key role that trial managers have played. It has been born out of discussions between trial managers in the UK who are members of the UK Trial Managers’ Network (UKTMN), a national network of trial management professionals managing non-commercial trials. In these unprecedented times, clinical trials have faced many uncertainties and broad-ranging challenges encompassing a range of activities including prioritising patient safety amidst the pandemic, consenting and recruiting new participants into trials, data collection and management and intervention delivery. In many cases, recruitment has been paused whilst mitigations have been put in place to continue data collection. Innovative solutions have been implemented to ensure we continue, where possible, to deliver high-quality clinical trials. Technology has provided many solutions to these challenges, and trial managers have adapted to new ways of working whilst continuing to deliver their clinical trials. Trial management groups are now faced with new uncertainties around re-starting clinical trials, and it is unclear currently how this will go, though working together with sponsors, funders and site teams is clearly a priority. Clinical trial teams have worked together to ensure their trials have adapted quickly whilst ensuring participant safety is given utmost importance. There are clear examples where the trial community have come together to share experiences and expertise, and this should continue in the future to ensure the innovative practices developed become embedded in the design and conduct of clinical trials in the future.

Background Pelvic organ prolapse negatively affects women’s quality of life globally. Vaginal pessaries are a common first-line treatment. The evidence base to support pessary self-management and to understand how it affects women’s lives is poor. This study aimed to identify the acceptability, effectiveness, fidelity to delivery, and adherence for women treated with vaginal pessary for prolapse and the healthcare professionals who treat them and how these differed between self-management and clinic-based care. Methods Multi-method process evaluation embedded within a randomised controlled trial in 21 UK secondary care centres. Data were collected using the following: Recordings of self-management support appointments ( n  = 21) and 2-week post-support follow-up phone calls ( n  = 34), healthcare professional completed fidelity checklists of self-management support appointments ( n  = 156) and 2-week follow-up calls ( n  = 145), interviews with purposively sampled women randomised to each trial group at baseline ( n  = 36 total) and 18 months ( n  = 23), interviews with women who declined randomisation to the trial at baseline ( n  = 20) and 18 months ( n  = 18), interviews with healthcare professionals ( n  = 36), and a free-text response question in the trial questionnaire ( n  = 77 comments at baseline, n  = 136 6 months, n  = 127 12 months, n  = 98 18 months). Results Self-management was acceptable with all intervention components perceived as important for women’s self-management ability and to how the intervention worked. Women’s adherence to self-management and clinic-based care varied. Pessary-related complications negatively influenced adherence in both groups. Emotional labour from healthcare professionals in both types of pessary management was a moderator on the pathway to effectiveness. Women’s and healthcare professionals’ positive attitudes were central to successful implementation. Self-managing women expressed self-efficacy differently than those who received clinic-based care in that they were more confident in addressing common pessary problems, and their confidence grew over time. Women in the clinic-based care group had confidence but in paternalistic pessary care. Self-management and clinic-based care were delivered differently, and thus, the trial was a true test of the effectiveness of self-management. Conclusions This is the first study to provide a programme theory for pessary self-management. Given the acceptability of self-management, the programme theory developed could be used to support the implementation of self-management in clinical practice. Further research is needed to support widespread implementation. Trial registration ISRCTN62510577 (date of first recruitment was 16th May 2018).

Background Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition in women, where the downward descent of pelvic organs into the vagina causes symptoms which impacts quality of life. Vaginal pessaries offer an effective alternative to surgery for the management of POP. However, the need for regular follow-up can be burdensome for women and requires significant healthcare resources. The TOPSY study is a randomised controlled trial which aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of self-management of vaginal pessaries. This paper describes the theoretical and practical development of the self-management intervention. Methods The intervention was developed using the MRC complex intervention framework, normalisation process theory (NPT) and self-management theory. The intervention aims to boost perceived self-efficacy in accordance with Bandura’s social cognitive theory and is guided by the tasks and skills Lorig and Hollman describe as necessary to self-manage a health condition. Results The TOPSY intervention was designed to support women to undertake the medical management, role management and emotional management of their pessary. The six self-management skills described by Lorig and Hollman: problem-solving, decision-making, resource utilisation, formation of a patient-provider partnership role, action planning and self-tailoring, are discussed in detail, including how women were supported to achieve each task within the context of pessary self-management. The TOPSY intervention includes a self-management support session with a pessary practitioner trained in intervention delivery, a follow-up phone call 2 weeks later and ongoing telephone or face-to-face support as required by the woman initiated by contacting a member of the research team. Conclusions The TOPSY study intervention was developed utilising the findings from a prior service development project, intervention development and self-efficacy theory, relevant literature, clinician experience and feedback from pessary using women and members of the public. In 2022, the findings of the TOPSY study will provide further evidence to inform this important aspect of pessary management. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62510577 . Registered on June 10, 2017

Clinical trial managers play a vital role in the design and conduct of clinical trials in the UK. There is a current recruitment and retention crisis for this specialist role due to a complex set of factors, most likely to have come to a head due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Academic clinical trial units and departments are struggling to recruit trial managers to vacant positions, and multiple influences are affecting the retention of this highly skilled workforce. Without tackling this issue, we face major challenges in the delivery on the Department of Health and Social Care’s Future of UK Clinical Research Delivery implementation plan. This article, led by a leading network of and for UK Trial Managers, presents some of the issues and ways in which national stakeholders may be able to address this.

Background Data collection consumes a large proportion of clinical trial resources. Each data item requires time and effort for collection, processing and quality control procedures. In general, more data equals a heavier burden for trial staff and participants. It is also likely to increase costs. Knowing the types of data being collected, and in what proportion, will be helpful to ensure that limited trial resources and participant goodwill are used wisely. Aim The aim of this study is to categorise the types of data collected across a broad range of trials and assess what proportion of collected data each category represents. Methods We developed a standard operating procedure to categorise data into primary outcome, secondary outcome and 15 other categories. We categorised all variables collected on trial data collection forms from 18, mainly publicly funded, randomised superiority trials, including trials of an investigational medicinal product and complex interventions. Categorisation was done independently in pairs: one person having in-depth knowledge of the trial, the other independent of the trial. Disagreement was resolved through reference to the trial protocol and discussion, with the project team being consulted if necessary. Key results Primary outcome data accounted for 5.0% (median)/11.2% (mean) of all data items collected. Secondary outcomes accounted for 39.9% (median)/42.5% (mean) of all data items. Non-outcome data such as participant identifiers and demographic data represented 32.4% (median)/36.5% (mean) of all data items collected. Conclusion A small proportion of the data collected in our sample of 18 trials was related to the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes accounted for eight times the volume of data as the primary outcome. A substantial amount of data collection is not related to trial outcomes. Trialists should work to make sure that the data they collect are only those essential to support the health and treatment decisions of those whom the trial is designed to inform.

Background Clinical trials commonly have a dedicated trial manager and effective trial management is essential to the successful delivery of high-quality trials. Trial managers have diverse experience and currently there is no standardised structured career pathway. The UK Trial Managers’ Network (UKTMN) surveyed its members to understand what is important to them with respect to career development since this would be important in the development of any initiative intended to develop a skilled workforce. Methods We conducted an online survey of UKTMN members, who are trial management professionals, working on academic-led trials in the UK. Members were asked what they perceive as opportunities and barriers to career development. Two reminders were sent to facilitate completion of the survey, and responders were offered the opportunity to enter a prize draw for waived fees at the UKTMN annual meeting. Data were analysed descriptively by using Stata (version 15.1), and free-text responses were reviewed for themes. Results The survey was sent to 819 UKTMN members; 433 responses were received, although 13 were from non-UKTMN members; thus 420 respondents' data were included in analyses. Respondents were representative of UKTMN membership; however, more responses were received by trial managers based in registered clinical trials units (CTUs). The top three opportunities for career development were (i) training, (ii) helping design trials and (iii) undertaking relevant qualifications. The top three barriers were (i) funding, (ii) few opportunities to get involved in development activities aside from managing a trial and (iii) unclear organisational career pathway. Almost all respondents (401/420, 95.4%) considered career development either very or quite important. Although all respondents had a day-to-day role in managing trials, there was huge disparity between job titles. Conclusion Career development is important to trial managers yet there is a lack of a structured pathway. The enablers and disablers to career development for trial managers should be clearly considered by the clinical trial community and, in particular, employers, sponsors and funders in order to develop a highly skilled workforce of trial managers, who are key to the delivery of trials.

Background Pelvic organ prolapse (or prolapse) is a common condition in women where the pelvic organs (bladder, bowel or womb) descend into the vagina and cause distressing symptoms that adversely affect quality of life. Many women will use a vaginal pessary to treat their prolapse symptoms. Clinic-based care usually consists of having a pessary fitted in a primary or secondary care setting, and returning approximately every 6 months for healthcare professional review and pessary change. However, it is possible that women could remove, clean and re-insert their pessary themselves; this is called self-management. This trial aims to assess if self-management of a vaginal pessary is associated with better quality of life for women with prolapse when compared to clinic-based care. Methods This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in at least 17 UK centres. The intervention group will receive pessary self-management teaching, a self-management information leaflet, a follow-up phone call and access to a local telephone number for clinical support. The control group will receive the clinic-based pessary care which is standard at their centre. Demographic and medical history data will be collected from both groups at baseline. The primary outcome is condition-specific quality of life at 18 months’ post-randomisation. Several secondary outcomes will also be assessed using participant-completed questionnaires. Questionnaires will be administered at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months’ post-randomisation. An economic evaluation will be carried out alongside the trial to evaluate cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation will run parallel to the trial, the protocol for which is reported in a companion paper. Discussion The results of the trial will provide robust evidence of the effectiveness of pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care in terms of improving women’s quality of life, and of its cost-effectiveness. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62510577 . Registered on June 10, 2017.

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 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 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 ISRCTN62510577 . Registered on 6 October 2017.

Background Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a life-long condition primarily affecting younger adults. Neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) occurs in 50–80% of these patients and is the term used to describe constipation and faecal incontinence, which often co-exist. Data from a pilot study suggested feasibility of using abdominal massage for the relief of constipation, but the effectiveness remains uncertain. Methods/design This is a multi-centred patient randomised superiority trial comparing an experimental strategy of once daily abdominal massage for 6 weeks against a control strategy of no massage in people with MS who have stated that their constipation is bothersome. The primary outcome is the Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score at 24 weeks. Both groups will receive optimised advice plus the MS Society booklet on bowel management in MS, and will continue to receive usual care. Participants and their clinicians will not be blinded to the allocated intervention. Outcome measures are primarily self-reported and submitted anonymously. Central trial staff who will manage and analyse the trial data will be unaware of participant allocations. Analysis will follow intention-to-treat principles. Discussion This pragmatic randomised controlled trial will demonstrate if abdominal massage is an effective, cost-effective and viable addition to the treatment of NBD in people with MS. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN85007023 . Registered on 10 June 2014.