Conectar
To undertake further psychometric testing of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and examine whether reversing the scale reduced floor effects.
Survey.
UK primary care.
Adults (≥18 years) with three or more long-term conditions randomly selected from four general practices and invited by post.
Baseline survey: sociodemographics, MTBQ (original or version with scale reversed), Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ), four questions (from QQ-10) on ease of completing the questionnaires. Follow-up survey (1–4 weeks after baseline): MTBQ, TBQ and QQ-10. Anonymous data collected from electronic GP records: consultations (preceding 12 months) and long-term conditions. The proportion of missing data and distribution of responses were examined for the original and reversed versions of the MTBQ and the TBQ. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Spearman’s rank correlation (Rs) assessed test–retest reliability and construct validity, respectively. Ease of completing the MTBQ and TBQ was compared. Interpretability was assessed by grouping global MTBQ scores into 0 and tertiles (>0).
244 adults completed the baseline survey (consent rate 31%, mean age 70 years) and 225 completed the follow-up survey. Reversing the scale did not reduce floor effects or data skewness. The global MTBQ scores had good test–retest reliability (ICC for agreement at baseline and follow-up 0.765, 95% CI 0.702 to 0.816). Global MTBQ score was correlated with global TBQ score (Rs 0.77, ps 0.17, p=0.010), and number of different general practitioners consulted (Rs 0.23, ps –0.063, p=0.330). Most participants agreed that both the MTBQ and TBQ were easy to complete and included aspects they were concerned about.
This study demonstrates test–retest reliability and ease of completion of the MTBQ and builds on a previous study demonstrating good content validity, construct validity and internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire.
The Bronchiolitis Endotracheal Surfactant Study (BESS) is a randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy of endo-tracheal surfactant therapy for critically ill infants with bronchiolitis. To explore acceptability of BESS, including approach to consent within a limited time frame, we explored parent and staff experiences of trial involvement in the first two bronchiolitis seasons to inform subsequent trial conduct.
A mixed-method embedded study involving a site staff survey, questionnaires and interviews with parents approached about BESS.
Fourteen UK paediatric intensive care units.
Of the 179 parents of children approached to take part in BESS, 75 parents (of 69 children) took part in the embedded study. Of these, 55/69 (78%) completed a questionnaire, and 15/69 (21%) were interviewed. Thirty-eight staff completed a questionnaire.
Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. All constructs of the Adapted Theoretical Framework of Acceptability were met. Parents viewed surfactant as being low risk and hoped their child’s participation would help others in the future. Although parents supported research without prior consent in studies of time critical interventions, they believed there was sufficient time to consider this trial. Parents recommended that prospective informed consent should continue to be sought for BESS. Many felt that the time between the consent process and intervention being administered took too long and should be ‘streamlined’ to avoid delays in administration of trial interventions. Staff described how the training and trial processes worked well, yet patients were missed due to lack of staff to deliver the intervention, particularly at weekends.
Parents and staff supported BESS trial and highlighted aspects of the protocol, which should be refined, including a streamlined informed consent process. Findings will be useful to inform proportionate approaches to consent in future paediatric trials where there is a short timeframe for consent discussions.
Despite significant advances in managing acute stroke and reducing stroke mortality, preventing complications like post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) has seen limited progress. PSE research has been scattered worldwide with varying methodologies and data reporting. To address this, we established the International Post-stroke Epilepsy Research Consortium (IPSERC) to integrate global PSE research efforts. This protocol outlines an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) to determine outcomes in patients with post-stroke seizures (PSS) and develop/validate PSE prediction models, comparing them with existing models. This protocol informs about creating the International Post-stroke Epilepsy Research Repository (IPSERR) to support future collaborative research.
We utilised a comprehensive search strategy and searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases until 30 January 2023. We extracted observational studies of stroke patients aged ≥18 years, presenting early or late PSS with data on patient outcome measures, and conducted the risk of bias assessment. We did not apply any restriction based on the date or language of publication. We will invite these study authors and the IPSERC collaborators to contribute IPD to IPSERR. We will review the IPD lodged within IPSERR to identify patients who developed epileptic seizures and those who did not. We will merge the IPD files of individual data and standardise the variables where possible for consistency. We will conduct an IPD-MA to estimate the prognostic value of clinical characteristics in predicting PSE.
Ethics approval is not required for this study. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. This study will contribute to IPSERR, which will be available to researchers for future PSE research projects. It will also serve as a platform to anchor future clinical trials.
FreshRSS 