Dataset Information

Establishing and augmenting views on the acceptability of a paediatric critical care randomised controlled trial (the FEVER trial): a mixed methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore parent and staff views on the acceptability of a randomised controlled trial investigating temperature thresholds for antipyretic intervention in critically ill children with fever and infection (the FEVER trial) during a multi-phase pilot study.

Design

Mixed methods study with data collected at three time points: (1) before, (2) during and (3) after a pilot trial.

Setting

English, Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs).

Participants

(1) Pre-pilot trial focus groups with pilot site staff (n=56) and interviews with parents (n=25) whose child had been admitted to PICU in the last 3 years with a fever and suspected infection, (2) Questionnaires with parents of randomised children following pilot trial recruitment (n=48 from 47 families) and (3) post-pilot trial interviews with parents (n=19), focus groups (n=50) and a survey (n=48) with site staff. Analysis drew on Sekhon et al's theoretical framework of acceptability.

Results

There was initial support for the trial, yet some held concerns regarding the proposed temperature thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain or discomfort. Pre-trial findings informed protocol changes and training, which influenced views on trial acceptability. Staff trained by the FEVER team found the trial more acceptable than those trained by colleagues. Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. Some concerns about pain or discomfort during weaning from ventilation remained.

Conclusions

Pre-trial findings and pilot trial experience influenced acceptability, providing insight into how challenges may be overcome. We present an adapted theoretical framework of acceptability to inform future trial feasibility studies.

Trial registration numbers

ISRCTN16022198 and NCT03028818.

SUBMITTER: Deja E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7949453 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Selected variables for the French Paediatric Intensive Care registry.Rationale, aims, and objectivesProviding quality care requires follow-up in regard to clinical and economic activities. Over the past decade, medical databases and patient registries have expanded considerably, particularly in paediatric critical care medicine (eg, the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANet) in the UK, the Australian and New Zealand Paediatric Intensive Care (ANZPIC) Registry in Australia and New Zealand, and the Virtual Paediatric Intensive Care Unit Performance System (VPS) in the USA). Such a registry is not yet available in France. The aim of this study was to determine variables that ought to be included in a French paediatric critical care registry.MethodsVariables, items, and subitems from 3 foreign registries and 2 French local databases were used. Items described each variable, and subitems described items. The Delphi method was used to evaluate and rate 65 variables, 90 items, and 17 subitems taking into account importance or relevance based on input from 28 French physicians affiliated with the French Paediatric Critical Care Group. Two ratings were used between January and May 2013.ResultsFifteen files from 10 paediatric intensive care units were included. Out of 65 potential variables, 48 (74%) were considered to be indispensable, 16 (25%) were considered to be optional, and 1 (2%) was considered to be irrelevant. Out of 90 potential items, 62 (69%) were considered to be relevant, 23 (26%) were considered to be of little relevance, and 5 (6%) were considered to be irrelevant. Out of 17 potential subitems, 9 (53%) were considered to be relevant, 6 (35%) were considered to be of little relevance, and 2 (12%) were considered to be irrelevant.ConclusionsThe necessary variables that ought to be included in a French paediatric critical care registry were identified. The challenge now is to develop the French registry for paediatric intensive care units.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate adherence and acceptability of intermittent vaginal probiotic or antibiotic use to prevent bacterial vaginosis (BV) recurrence. DESIGN:Repeated adherence and acceptability assessments using mixed methods within a pilot randomised controlled trial. SETTING:Research clinic in Kigali, Rwanda. PARTICIPANTS:Rwandan women with high sexual risk. INTERVENTIONS:Women diagnosed with BV and/or trichomoniasis were randomised to four groups (n=17?each) after completing metronidazole treatment: behavioural counselling only, or behavioural counselling plus 2-month intermittent use of oral metronidazole, Ecologic Femi+ (EF+) vaginal capsule or Gynophilus LP (GynLP) vaginal tablet. OUTCOME MEASURES:Adherence and acceptability were assessed by structured face-to-face interviews, semi-structured focus group discussions and in-depth interviews, daily diaries and counting of used/unused study products in randomised women (n=68). Vaginal infection knowledge was assessed by structured face-to-face interviews in randomised women and women attending recruitment sessions (n=131). RESULTS:Most women (93%) were sex workers, 99.2% were unfamiliar with BV and none had ever used probiotics. All probiotic users (n=32) reported that insertion became easier over time. Triangulated adherence data showed that 17/17 EF+ users?and 13/16 GynLP users used ?80% of required doses (Fisher's exact p=0.103). Younger age (p=0.076), asking many questions at enrolment (p=0.116), having menses (p=0.104) and reporting urogenital symptoms (p=0.103) were non-significantly associated with lower perfect adherence. Women believed that the probiotics reduced BV recurrence, but reported that partners were sometimes unsupportive of study participation. Self-reported vaginal washing practices decreased during follow-up, but sexual risk behaviours did not. Most women (12/15) with an uncircumcised steady partner discussed penile hygiene with him, but many women found this difficult, especially with male clients. CONCLUSIONS:High-risk women require education about vaginal infections. Vaginal probiotic acceptability and adherence were high in this cohort. Our results can be used to inform future product development and to fine-tune counselling messages in prevention programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02459665.

Project description:BackgroundThe evidence for systemic treatments for severe childhood eczema is limited and largely based on extrapolation of data from adult studies. Current therapies are often immunosuppressant and may be associated with both short- and long-term side effects. There is increasing in vitro and murine-model evidence for the role of IgE in the immunopathogenesis of atopic eczema. The aim of the study is to assess whether anti-IgE treatment (omalizumab) improves eczema, compared to placebo.Methods/designThe Atopic Dermatitis Anti-IgE Paediatric Trial (ADAPT) is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing the role of anti-IgE in the management of severe paediatric eczema. Children with severe atopic eczema, with an objective SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) score of over 40 will be recruited. These children are candidates for systemic therapy, have failed systemic therapy or have experienced side effects from systemic therapy. Sixty-two patients aged between 4 and 19 years will receive anti-IgE for 6 months. The primary outcome measure will be the validated eczema score, the objective SCORAD at 24 weeks. This study has 90% power to detect a 33% relative reduction in SCORAD between active and placebo groups, with 5% significance.DiscussionIgE may have a role to play in eczema, particularly in childhood. This forms the basis for the hypothesis that anti-IgE may be an effective treatment in this patient population. This will be the largest study to evaluate the efficacy of anti-IgE (omalizumab) versus placebo in children with severe eczema. The findings will help to clarify the role of anti-IgE as a potential treatment option in patients with severe childhood eczema.Trial registrationEuropean Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) Number: 2010-020841-29 . Assigned on 14 May 2010. ISRCTN Registry, Identifier: ISRCTN15090567 . Retrospectively assigned on 3 December 2014. ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02300701 . First received 21 November 2014.

Project description:IntroductionAcute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in children is the most frequent reason for non-elective hospital admission. During the initial phase, AHRF is a clinical syndrome defined for the purpose of this study by an oxygen requirement and caused by pneumonia, lower respiratory tract infections, asthma or bronchiolitis. Up to 20% of these children with AHRF can rapidly deteriorate requiring non-invasive or invasive ventilation. Nasal high-flow (NHF) therapy has been used by clinicians for oxygen therapy outside intensive care settings to prevent escalation of care. A recent randomised trial in infants with bronchiolitis has shown that NHF therapy reduces the need to escalate therapy. No similar data is available in the older children presenting with AHRF. In this study we aim to investigate in children aged 1 to 4 years presenting with AHRF if early NHF therapy compared with standard-oxygen therapy reduces hospital length of stay and if this is cost-effective compared with standard treatment.Methods and analysisThe study design is an open-labelled randomised multicentre trial comparing early NHF and standard-oxygen therapy and will be stratified by sites and into obstructive and non-obstructive groups. Children aged 1 to 4 years (n=1512) presenting with AHRF to one of the participating emergency departments will be randomly allocated to NHF or standard-oxygen therapy once the eligibility criteria have been met (oxygen requirement with transcutaneous saturation <92%/90% (dependant on hospital standard threshold), diagnosis of AHRF, admission to hospital and tachypnoea ?35 breaths/min). Children in the standard-oxygen group can receive rescue NHF therapy if escalation is required. The primary outcome is hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes will include length of oxygen therapy, proportion of intensive care admissions, healthcare resource utilisation and associated costs. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been obtained in Australia (HREC/15/QRCH/159) and New Zealand (HDEC 17/NTA/135). The trial commenced recruitment in December 2017. The study findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. Authorship of all publications will be decided by mutual consensus of the research team.Trial registration numberACTRN12618000210279.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if rapid rather than standard intravenous rehydration results in improved hydration and clinical outcomes when administered to children with gastroenteritis.DesignSingle centre, two arm, parallel randomised pragmatic controlled trial. Blocked randomisation stratified by site. Participants, caregivers, outcome assessors, investigators, and statisticians were blinded to the treatment assignment.SettingPaediatric emergency department in a tertiary care centre in Toronto, Canada.Participants226 children aged 3 months to 11 years; complete follow-up was obtained on 223 (99%). Eligible children were aged over 90 days, had a diagnosis of dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis, had not responded to oral rehydration, and had been prescribed intravenous rehydration. Children were excluded if they weighed less than 5 kg or more than 33 kg, required fluid restriction, had a suspected surgical condition, or had an insurmountable language barrier. Children were also excluded if they had a history of a chronic systemic disease, abdominal surgery, bilious or bloody vomit, hypotension, or hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia.InterventionsRapid (60 mL/kg) or standard (20 mL/kg) rehydration with 0.9% saline over an hour; subsequent fluids administered according to protocol.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomeclinical rehydration, assessed with a validated scale, two hours after the start of treatment.Secondary outcomesprolonged treatment, mean clinical dehydration scores over the four hour study period, time to discharge, repeat visits to emergency department, adequate oral intake, and physician's comfort with discharge. Data from all randomised patients were included in an intention to treat analysis.Results114 patients were randomised to rapid rehydration and 112 to standard. One child was withdrawn because of severe hyponatraemia at baseline. There was no evidence of a difference between the rapid and standard rehydration groups in the proportions of participants who were rehydrated at two hours (41/114 (36%) v 33/112 (30%); difference 6.5% (95% confidence interval -5.7% to 18.7%; P=0.32). The results did not change after adjustment for weight, baseline dehydration score, and baseline pH (odds ratio 1.8, 0.90 to 3.5; P=0.10). The rates of prolonged treatment were similar (52% rapid v 43% standard; difference 8.9%, 21% to -5%; P=0.19). Although dehydration scores were similar throughout the study period (P=0.96), the median time to discharge was longer in the rapid group (6.3 v 5.0 hours; P=0.03).ConclusionsThere are no relevant clinical benefits from the administration of rapid rather than standard intravenous rehydration to haemodynamically stable children deemed to require intravenous rehydration. Trail registration Clinical Trials NCT00392145.