Conectar
Poor participant retention in randomised clinical trials, resulting in missing outcome data, can impact the validity, reliability and generalisability of results. While participants’ views on general non-retention issues have been reported elsewhere, a qualitative evidence synthesis specifically focusing on trial processes (ie, outcome data collection) impacting retention has not been undertaken to date. This is an important research question to inform targeted interventions to support retention. This review aims to address this by systematically searching and synthesising the evidence on participant reasons for trial non-completion, linked to outcome data collection.
We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis of qualitative studies and mixed methods studies with a qualitative component, in Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Social Science Citation Index, Cumulative Index of Nursing & Allied Health Literature and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, up to February 2025. We used Thomas and Harden’s thematic synthesis approach. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative framework was used to assess confidence in the review findings.
We identified 11 studies reporting qualitative data from 14 separate trials, with findings from 105 trial non-retainers. The studies were undertaken between 2007 and 2025.
There were three types of participant non-retention behaviours reported across the studies, where participants either: (1) missed at least one clinic visit; (2) did not complete a postal questionnaire or (3) did not complete online data collection. We developed four analytical themes outlining participant-reported influences on trial non-retention, specifically related to trial processes (ie, data collection for outcome measures): fluctuating health, balancing trial burdens, navigating life as a trial participant and managing expectations of participation.
This review generates important insights into participants’ reasons for trial non-completion linked to outcome data collection. The review highlights the need for further research into supporting trial recruitment discussions that provide clear, realistic expectations for potential trial participants, as well as strategies that recognise, and where possible, address some of the influences on participants to improve outcome data completeness and ultimately improve trial retention.
To explore midwives' experiences of providing psychosocial interventions to parents following perinatal bereavement in maternity care settings.
A descriptive qualitative study.
Twenty-two midwives were recruited from three maternity services in Ireland using purposive and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between July and November 2024. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.
Four themes were identified: (1) Building relationships as a foundation for psychosocial intervention delivery; (2) Psychosocial intervention as the core element of perinatal bereavement care; (3) Negotiating intervention delivery in a constrained system; and (4) Navigating emotional labour and professional growth. Midwives advocated provision of compassionate and relationship-based psychosocial interventions, but often faced systemic barriers, limited guidance, and insufficient training. Supportive structures and psychosocial intervention focused training were seen as critical to sustaining care quality and midwives' wellbeing.
Applying the Socio-Ecological Model (SEM) revealed that midwives' delivery of PSIs to support grieving parents after perinatal bereavement is influenced by multi-level factors, underscoring the need for policy integration, institutional support, and contextually grounded, midwife-led approaches.
Integrating SEM into intervention design can guide the development of multi-component PSIs that address multilevel influences and align with both parents' needs and midwives' capacities.
This adds to the understanding of how midwives deliver psychosocial interventions in perinatal bereavement care. Midwives view the delivery of these interventions as central to their role, while acknowledging the need for the development of, and training in structured, midwife-led psychosocial interventions in perinatal bereavement care.
COREQ.
Patients and members of the public were involved in study design, data collection and validation of findings. Their contributions included reviewing protocols and recruiting materials, facilitating recruitment and participating in advisory groups, ensuring the relevance and sensitivity of the research.
High quality handover is critical for patient safety and care continuity. Existing practice is based on a weak evidence base in which the patient voice is poorly captured. The aim of this study was to identify outcomes of importance to patients, families and carers regarding interventions to improve in-hospital handover between healthcare practitioners.
A rapid systematic review of qualitative literature was carried out after prospective registration with PROSPERO and was reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guidelines.
The Ovid MEDLINE database was searched.
Qualitative or mixed-methods studies reporting patient, family or caregiver perspectives on in-hospital handovers were eligible for inclusion.
Synthesis was informed by the best-fit framework approach using a published taxonomy of handover-related outcomes and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. Outcomes were reported according to two distinct types of handover: bedside (patient-involved) and provider-focused (patient-uninvolved).
A total of 34 studies, including 1262 participants across a range of specialties and predominantly high-income settings, were analysed. 53 bedside and 31 provider-focused handover outcomes were identified according to four domains; adverse events, quality of patient care, quality of handover and patient/caregiver satisfaction. Bedside handover studies frequently reported outcomes relating to patient engagement and communication with healthcare staff. One study was carried out in a low income country; however, outcomes identified were broadly similar.
These findings expand the known outcomes for evaluating handover interventions and highlight the importance of prioritising the patient and public perspective in research. This work will contribute to developing a core outcome set for trials in surgical handover but can also be applied to handover practices for any other discipline within the hospital environment.
CRD42023493367.
Scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps (collectively known as ‘big picture reviews’) in health continue to gain popularity within the evidence ecosystem. These big-picture reviews are beneficial for policy-makers, guideline developers and researchers within the field of health for understanding the available evidence, characteristics, concepts and research gaps, which are often needed to support the development of policies, guidelines and practice. However, these reviews often face criticism related to poor and inconsistent methodological conduct and reporting. There is a need to understand which areas of these reviews require further methodological clarification and exploration. The aim of this project is to develop a research agenda for scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps in health by identifying and prioritising specific research questions related to methodological uncertainties.
A modified e-Delphi process will be adopted. Participants (anticipated N=100) will include patients, clinicians, the public, researchers and others invested in creating a strategic research agenda for these reviews. This Delphi will be completed in four consecutive stages, including a survey collecting the methodological uncertainties for each of the big picture reviews, the development of research questions based on that survey and two further surveys and four workshops to prioritise the research questions.
This study was approved by the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee (H-2024-188). The results will be communicated through open-access peer-reviewed publications and conferences. Videos and infographics will be developed and placed on the JBI (previously Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Network webpage.
FreshRSS 