To compare differences in recruitment and attrition between placebo control randomised trials of surgery, and trials of the same surgical interventions and conditions that used non-operative (non-placebo) controls.

Meta-epidemiological study.

Randomised controlled trials were identified from an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception date to 21 November 2018.

Placebo control trials evaluating efficacy of any surgical intervention and non-operative control trials of the same surgical intervention were included in this study. 25 730 records were retrieved from our systemic search, identifying 61 placebo control and 38 non-operative control trials for inclusion in analysis.

Primary outcome measures were recruitment and attrition. These were assessed in terms of recruitment rate (number of participants enrolled, as a proportion of those eligible) and overall attrition rate (composite of dropout, loss to follow-up and cross-overs, expressed as proportion of total sample size). Secondary outcome measures included participant cross-over rate, dropout and loss to follow-up.

Unadjusted pooled recruitment and attrition rates were similar between placebo and non-operative control trials. Study characteristics were not significantly different apart from time to primary timepoint which was shorter in studies with placebo controls (365 vs 274 days, p=0.006). After adjusting for covariates (follow-up duration and number of timepoints), the attrition rate of placebo control trials was almost twice as high compared with non-operative controlled-trials (incident rate ratio (IRR) (95% CI) 1.8 (1.1 to 3.0), p=0.032). The incorporation of one additional follow-up timepoint (regardless of follow-up duration) was associated with reduced attrition in placebo control surgical trials (IRR (95% CI) 0.64 (0.52 to 0.79), p

Placebo control trials of surgery have similar recruitment issues but higher attrition compared with non-operative (non-placebo) control trials. Study design should incorporate strategies such as increased timepoints for given follow-up duration to mitigate losses to follow-up and dropout.

CRD42019117364.

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder caused by alcohol exposure during pregnancy. FASD is associated with neurodevelopmental deviations, and 50%–94% of children with FASD meet the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-fifth edition diagnostic criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). There is a paucity of evidence around medication efficacy for ADHD symptoms in children with FASD. This series of N-of-1 trials aims to provide pilot data on the feasibility of conducting N-of-1 trials in children with FASD and ADHD.

A pilot N-of-1 randomised trial design with 20 cycles of stimulant and placebo (four cycles of 2-week duration) for each child will be conducted (n=20) in Melbourne, Australia.

Feasibility and tolerability will be assessed using recruitment and retention rates, protocol adherence, adverse events and parent ratings of side effects. Each child’s treatment effect will be determined by analysing teacher ADHD ratings across stimulant and placebo conditions (Wilcoxon rank). N-of-1 data will be aggregated to provide an estimate of the cohort treatment effect as well as individual-level treatment effects. We will assess the sample size and number of cycles required for a future trial. Potential mediating factors will be explored to identify variables that might be associated with treatment response variability.

The study was approved by the Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/74678/MonH-2021-269029), Monash (protocol V6, 25 June 2023).

Individual outcome data will be summarised and provided to participating carers and practitioners to enhance care. Group-level findings will be presented at a local workshop to engage stakeholders. Findings will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. All results will be reported so that they can be used to inform prior information for future trials.

NCT04968522.

Diagnostic testing is an important tool to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, yet access to and uptake of testing vary widely 3 years into the pandemic. The WHO recommends the use of COVID-19 self-testing as an option to help expand testing access. We aimed to calculate the cost of providing COVID-19 self-testing across countries and distribution modalities.

We estimated economic costs from the provider perspective to calculate the total cost and the cost per self-test kit distributed for three scenarios that differed by costing period (pilot, annual), the number of tests distributed (actual, planned, scaled assuming an epidemic peak) and self-test kit costs (pilot purchase price, 50% reduction).

We used data collected between August and December 2022 in Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines from pilot implementation studies designed to provide COVID-19 self-tests in a variety of settings—namely, workplace and healthcare facilities.

Across all five countries, 173 000 kits were distributed during pilot implementation with the cost/test distributed ranging from $2.44 to $12.78. The cost/self-test kit distributed was lowest in the scenario that assumed implementation over a longer period (year), with higher test demand (peak) and a test kit price reduction of 50% ($1.04–3.07). Across all countries and scenarios, test procurement occupied the greatest proportion of costs: 58–87% for countries with off-site self-testing (outside the workplace, for example, home) and 15–50% for countries with on-site self-testing (at the workplace). Staffing was the next key cost driver, particularly for distribution modalities that had on-site self-testing (29–35%) versus off-site self-testing (7–27%).

Our results indicate that it is likely to cost between $2.44 and $12.78 per test to distribute COVID-19 self-tests across common settings in five heterogeneous countries. Cost-effectiveness analyses using these results will allow policymakers to make informed decisions on optimally scaling up COVID-19 self-test distribution programmes across diverse settings and evolving needs.

International trials can be challenging to operationalise due to incompatibilities between country-specific policies and infrastructures. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the operational complexities of conducting international trials and identify potential solutions for overcoming them.

Systematic review.

Medline, Embase and Health Management Information Consortium were searched from 2006 to 30 January 2023.

All studies reporting operational challenges (eg, site selection, trial management, intervention management, data management) of conducting international trials were included.

Search results were independently screened by at least two reviewers and data were extracted into a proforma.

38 studies (35 RCTs, 2 reports and 1 qualitative study) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The median sample size was 1202 (IQR 332–4056) and median number of sites was 40 (IQR 13–78). 88.6% of studies had an academic sponsor and 80% were funded through government sources. Operational complexities were particularly reported during trial set-up due to lack of harmonisation in regulatory approvals and in relation to sponsorship structure, with associated budgetary impacts. Additional challenges included site selection, staff training, lengthy contract negotiations, site monitoring, communication, trial oversight, recruitment, data management, drug procurement and distribution, pharmacy involvement and biospecimen processing and transport.

International collaborative trials are valuable in cases where recruitment may be difficult, diversifying participation and applicability. However, multiple operational and regulatory challenges are encountered when implementing a trial in multiple countries. Careful planning and communication between trials units and investigators, with an emphasis on establishing adequately resourced cross-border sponsorship structures and regulatory approvals, may help to overcome these barriers and realise the benefits of the approach.

osf-registrations-yvtjb-v1.

Trauma contributes to the greatest loss of disability-adjusted life-years for adolescents and young adults worldwide. In the context of global abdominal trauma, the trauma laparotomy is the most commonly performed operation. Variation likely exists in how these patients are managed and their subsequent outcomes, yet very little global data on the topic currently exists. The objective of the GOAL-Trauma study is to evaluate both patient and injury factors for those undergoing trauma laparotomy, their clinical management and postoperative outcomes.

We describe a planned prospective multicentre observational cohort study of patients undergoing trauma laparotomy. We will include patients of all ages who present to hospital with a blunt or penetrating injury and undergo a trauma laparotomy within 5 days of presentation to the treating centre. The study will collect system, patient, process and outcome data, following patients up until 30 days postoperatively (or until discharge or death, whichever is first). Our sample size calculation suggests we will need to recruit 552 patients from approximately 150 recruiting centres.

The GOAL-Trauma study will provide a global snapshot of the current management and outcomes for patients undergoing a trauma laparotomy. It will also provide insight into the variation seen in the time delays for receiving care, the disease and patient factors present, and patient outcomes. For current standards of trauma care to be improved worldwide, a greater understanding of the current state of trauma laparotomy care is paramount if appropriate interventions and targets are to be identified and implemented.

Acute chest pain is one of the most common reasons for emergency system activation and transfer to the emergency department (ED).1 Only a minority of...

International guidelines recommend that adults with peripheral artery disease (PAD) be prescribed antiplatelet, statin and antihypertensive medications. However, it is unclear how often people with PAD are underprescribed these drugs, which characteristics predict clinician underprescription of and patient non-adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications, and whether underprescription and non-adherence are associated with adverse health and health system outcomes.

We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews from 2006 onwards. Two investigators will independently review abstracts and full-text studies. We will include studies that enrolled adults and reported the incidence and/or prevalence of clinician underprescription of or patient non-adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications among people with PAD; adjusted risk factors for underprescription of/non-adherence to these medications; and adjusted associations between underprescription/non-adherence to these medications and outcomes. Outcomes will include mortality, major adverse cardiac and limb events (including revascularisation procedures and amputations), other reported morbidities, healthcare resource use and costs. Two investigators will independently extract data and evaluate study risk of bias. We will calculate summary estimates of the incidence and prevalence of clinician underprescription/patient non-adherence across studies. We will also conduct subgroup meta-analyses and meta-regression to determine if estimates vary by country, characteristics of the patients and treating clinicians, population-based versus non-population-based design, and study risks of bias. Finally, we will calculate pooled adjusted risk factors for underprescription/non-adherence and adjusted associations between underprescription/non-adherence and outcomes. We will use Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation to determine estimate certainty.

Ethics approval is not required as we are studying published data. This systematic review will synthesise existing evidence regarding clinician underprescription of and patient non-adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications in adults with PAD. Results will be used to identify evidence-care gaps and inform where interventions may be required to improve clinician prescribing and patient adherence to prescribed medications.

CRD42022362801.

We aimed to determine the feasibility of quality indicators (QIs) for prehospital advanced airway management (PAAM) from a provider point of view.

The study is a survey based feasibility assessment following field testing of QIs for PAAM.

The study was performed in two physician staffed emergency medical services in Switzerland.

42 of the 44 emergency physicians who completed at least one case report form (CRF) dedicated to the collection of the QIs on PAAM between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2021 participated in the study.

The data required to calculate the 17 QIs was systematically collected through a dedicated electronic CRF.

Primary outcomes were provider-related feasibility criteria: relevance and acceptance of the QIs, as well as reliability of the data collection. Secondary outcomes were effort to collect specific data and to complete the CRF.

Over the study period, 470 CRFs were completed, with a median of 11 per physician (IQR 4–17; range 1–48). The median time to complete the CRF was 7 min (IQR 3–16) and was considered reasonable by 95% of the physicians. Overall, 75% of the physicians assessed the set of QIs to be relevant, and 74% accepted that the set of QIs assessed the quality of PAAM. The reliability of data collection was rated as good or excellent for each of the 17 QIs, with the lowest rated for the following 3 QIs: duration of preoxygenation, duration of laryngoscopy and occurrence of desaturation during laryngoscopy.

Collection of QIs on PAAM appears feasible. Electronic medical records and technological solutions facilitating automatic collection of vital parameters and timing during the procedure could improve the reliability of data collection for some QIs. Studies in other services are needed to determine the external validity of our results.

To determine and identify distance patterns in the movements of medical students and junior doctors between their training locations.

A retrospective cohort study of UK medical students from 2002 to 2015 (UKMED data).

All UK medical schools, foundations and specialty training organisation.

All UK medical students from 2002 to 2015, for a total of 97 932 participants.

Individual movements and number of movements by county of students from family home to medical school training, from medical school to foundation training and from foundation to specialty training.

Leslie matrix, principal components analysis, Gini coefficient, ² test, generalised linear models and variable selection methods were employed to explore the different facets of students’ and junior doctors’ movements from the family home to medical school and for the full pathway (from family home to specialty training).

The majority of the movements between the different stages of the full pathway were restricted to a distance of up to 50 km; although the proportion of movements changed from year-to-year, with longer movements during 2007–2008. At the individual level, ethnicity, socioeconomic class of the parent(s) and the deprivation score of the family home region were found to be the most important factors associated with the length of the movements from the family home to medical school. Similar results were found when movements were aggregated at the county level, with the addition of factors such as gender and qualification at entry (to medical school) being statistically associated with the number of new entrant students moving between counties.

Our findings show that while future doctors do not move far from their family home or training location, this pattern is not homogeneous over time. Distances are influenced by demographics, socioeconomic status and deprivation. These results may contribute in designing interventions aimed at solving the chronic problems of maldistribution and underdoctoring in the UK.

Autism (formally autism spectrum disorder) encompasses a group of complex neurodevelopmental conditions, characterised by differences in communication and social interactions. Co-occurring chronic gastrointestinal symptoms are common among autistic individuals and can adversely affect their quality of life. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of oral encapsulated faecal microbiome transfer (FMT) in improving gastrointestinal symptoms and well-being among autistic adolescents and adults.

This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial will recruit 100 autistic adolescents and adults aged 16–45 years, who have mild to severe gastrointestinal symptoms (Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (GSRS) score ≥2.0). We will also recruit eight healthy donors aged 18–32 years, who will undergo extensive clinical screening. Recipients will be randomised 1:1 to receive FMT or placebo, stratified by biological sex. Capsules will be administered over two consecutive days following an overnight bowel cleanse with follow-up assessments at 6, 12 and 26 weeks post-treatment. The primary outcome is GSRS score at 6 weeks. Other assessments include anthropometry, body composition, hair cortisol concentration, gut microbiome profile, urine/plasma gut-derived metabolites, plasma markers of gut inflammation/permeability and questionnaires on general well-being, sleep quality, physical activity, food diversity and treatment tolerability. Adverse events will be recorded and reviewed by an independent data monitoring committee.

Ethics approval for the study was granted by the Central Health and Disability Ethics Committee on 24 August 2021 (reference number: 21/CEN/211). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented to both scientific and consumer group audiences.

ACTRN12622000015741.

Evidence shows a high rate of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care. There is increasing evidence showing that shorter courses for RTIs are safe and help in reducing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Stopping antibiotics earlier, as soon as patients feel better, rather than completing antibiotic courses, may help reduce unnecessary exposure to antibiotics and AMR.

The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and views of primary care healthcare professionals about customising antibiotic duration for RTIs by asking patients to stop the antibiotic course when they feel better.

Qualitative research.

A total of 21 qualitative interviews with primary care professionals (experts and non-experts in AMR) were conducted from June to September 2023. Data were audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Overall, experts seemed more amenable to tailoring the antibiotic duration for RTIs when patients feel better. They also found the dogma of ‘completing the course’ to be obsolete, as evidence is changing and reducing the duration might lead to less AMR, but claimed that evidence that this strategy is as beneficial and safe as fixed courses was unambiguous. Non-experts, however, believed the dogma of completing the course. Clinicians expressed mixed views on what feeling better might mean, supporting a shared decision-making approach when appropriate. Participants claimed good communication to professionals and patients, but were sceptical about the risk of medicalisation when asking patients to contact clinicians again for a check-up visit.

Clinicians reported positive and negative views about individualising antibiotic courses for RTIs, but, in general, experts supported a customised antibiotic duration as soon as patients feel better. The information provided by this qualitative study will allow improving the performance of a large randomised clinical trial aimed at evaluating if this strategy is safe and beneficial.

The National Congenital Anomaly and Rare Disease Registration Service (NCARDRS), part of National Disease Registration Service in National Health Service England, quality assures, curates and analyses individual data on the pregnancies, fetuses, babies, children and adults with congenital anomalies and rare diseases across England. The congenital anomaly (CA) register provides a resource for patients and their families, clinicians, researchers and public health professionals in furthering the understanding of CAs.

NCARDRS registers CAs occurring in babies born alive and stillborn, fetal losses and terminations in England. NCARDRS collects data from secondary and tertiary healthcare providers, private providers and laboratories covering fetal medicine, maternity or paediatric services. Data describe the pregnancy, mother, baby and anomaly. Established in 2015, NCARDRS expanded CA registration coverage from 22% of total births in England in 2015 to national coverage, which was achieved in 2018. Prior to 2015, data collection was performed independently by regional registers in England; these data are also held by NCARDRS.

NCARDRS registers approximately 21 000 babies with CAs per year with surveillance covering around 600 000 total births, the largest birth coverage for a CA register globally. Data on prevalence, risk factors and survival for children with CAs are available. Data have been used in several peer-reviewed publications. Birth prevalence statistics, including public health indicators such as the association with maternal age, infant and perinatal mortality, are published annually. NCARDRS supports clinical audit for screening programmes and service evaluation.

NCARDRS provides a valuable resource for the understanding of the epidemiology, surveillance, prevention and treatment of CAs. Currently, approximately 21 000 new registrations of babies or fetuses with suspected or confirmed CAs are added each year. Identifiers are collected, enabling linkage to routinely collected healthcare and population statistics, further enhancing the value of the data.

Integrated care is seen as an enabling strategy in organising healthcare to improve quality, finances, personnel and sustainability. Developments in the organisation of maternity care follow this trend. The way care is organised should support the general aims and outcomes of healthcare systems. Organisation itself consists of a variety of smaller ‘elements of organisation’. Various elements of organisation are implemented in different organisations and networks. We will examine which elements of integrated maternity care are associated with maternal and neonatal health outcomes, experiences of women and professionals, healthcare spending and care processes.

We will conduct this review using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the reporting guideline PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews). We will undertake a systematic search in the databases PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and PsycINFO. A machine learning tool, ASReview, will be used to select relevant papers. These papers will be analysed and classified thematically using the framework of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC). The Population Concept Context framework for scoping reviews will be used in which ‘Population’ is defined as elements of the organisation of integrated maternity care, ‘Context’ as high-income countries and ‘Concepts’ as outcomes stated in the objective of this review. We will include papers from 2012 onwards, in Dutch or English language, which describe both ‘how the care is organised’ (elements) and ‘outcomes’.

Since this is a scoping review of previously published summary data, ethical approval for this study is not needed. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed international journal, discussed in a webinar and presented at (inter)national conferences and meetings of professional associations.

The findings of this scoping review will give insight into the nature and effectiveness of elements of integrated care and will generate hypotheses for further research.

To reduce obesity-related disparities, reaching economically disadvantaged and/or minority status adolescents to assist them in meeting physical activity (PA) and nutrition recommendations is important. To address the problem, a 16-week intervention called Guys/Girls Opt for Activities for Life (GOAL) was designed. The purpose of this randomised controlled trial is to evaluate any effect of the intervention, compared with a control condition, on improving: (1) adolescents’ % body fat (primary outcome), moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), diet quality and cardiorespiratory fitness from 0 to 4 months; (2) body mass index (BMI), overweight/obesity percentage and quality of life from 0 to 4 months and to 13 months; and (3) perceived social support, self-efficacy and motivation from 0 to 4 months with evaluation of any mediating effect on adolescent PA and diet quality. An exploratory aim is to evaluate any effect of the intervention, compared with the control, on improving parents’/guardians’ home environment, MVPA and diet quality from 0 to 4 months; and BMI from 0 to 4 months and to 13 months.

Adolescents (fifth to eighth grade) in 14 schools located in underserved urban communities are randomly assigned to the intervention or usual school offerings. One parent per adolescent is enrolled (882 dyads total). Cohort 1 includes four schools (2022–2023). Cohorts 2 and 3 include 5 schools in 2023–2024 and 2024–2025, respectively. The 16-week intervention has three components: (1) after-school GOAL club for adolescents to engage in PA and healthy eating/cooking activities; (2) three parent–adolescent meetings to empower parents to assist adolescents; and (3) GOAL social networking website for parents to share how they helped their adolescent.

The Michigan State University Biomedical Institutional Review Board provided ethical approval for the study. Findings will be shared via the trial registration database, peer-reviewed publications, conferences and community-oriented strategies.

NCT04213014.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been marked by a massive death toll. However, the overall effect of the pandemic, including potential unintended negative impacts of some control measures, on mortality remains poorly understood in low-income and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs). This review aims to summarise the available literature on excess mortality in LLMICs, focusing on the methods and data sources used in estimating excess mortality and the drivers of excess mortality.

We will review the available literature and report results in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Searches will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and Scopus. All published studies that report on the estimates of excess mortality in populations of LLMICs will be included. This will include those with a publication date from 2019 onwards and those with at least a 1-year non-COVID-19 period as the comparator in the estimation of excess mortality during the pandemic. There will be no language restrictions on the search. The meta-analysis will include studies with extractable data on excess mortality, methods, population size, and observed and expected deaths. We will use the Mantel-Haenszel method to estimate the pooled risk ratio with 95% CIs.

As there is no primary data collection, there is no requirement for ethical review. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publication and conference presentations.

CRD42022378267.

Countries in the WHO’s African region have found community-based surveillance useful in ensuring the effectiveness of the Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response strategy. This approach encourages community participation in the surveillance system, in addition to early detection of outbreaks and other health threats. Thus, advancements in mobile health have the potential to improve community-based surveillance in Africa. The purpose of this review is to map evidence on available mhealth tools for community-based infectious disease surveillance in Africa.

The scoping review will follow a mixed-methods approach in line with the framework of Arksey and O’Malley amended by Levac and colleagues and the Joanna Briggs Institute. To retrieve published literature, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Google databases will be explored. Websites of organisations involved in surveillance activities across the African region will also be explored. Authors will be interested in published literature between 2000 and 2022 in any language. The primary investigator and a second author will independently review the retrieved titles according to the inclusion criteria, while a third reviewer will resolve conflicts that may arise. The review will map evidence according to the key concepts (mhealth, community-based surveillance and Africa) to inform stakeholders and mhealth designers on best practices to adopt involving mhealth approaches at the community level and mhealth tool designs, respectively. Results following the review will be presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Extension for Scoping Review Guidelines.

Ethical approval is not required for scoping reviews as it does not involve the use of human subjects. This review is the first phase in an overall project on digital health. The findings of the review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at suitable forums and conferences.

Nutritional ultrasound (US) is an emerging technique in clinical nutrition for the morphological and structural study of muscle mass. Currently, all definitions of malnutrition include the measurement of muscle mass; however, there is no single way to assess it. It is necessary to develop new techniques to identify muscle involvement in malnutrition that are valid, standardised, reliable, accurate and profitable.

To value the new muscle US techniques aimed to measure muscle and functional status, to make a more accurate diagnosis and a better prediction of complications and morbidity and mortality in patients at nutritional risk. Primary outcome: to assess the feasibility of US or muscle US techniques in both nutritional diagnosis and follow-up in a nutritional intervention programme.

Disease-Related caloric-protein malnutrition EChOgraphy (DRECO) is a prospective, multicentre (25 Spanish hospitals), uncontrolled clinical study in standard clinical practice to value the usefulness of nutritional US (muscle US) in the nutritional diagnosis and follow-up, over 3–6 months, after standard nutritional clinical practice intervention and physical activity, to control their disease-related malnutrition. 1000 patients are expected to be included in.

This study will standardise nutritional US measures. It will validate and define specific cut-off values for nutritional US and correlate it with already well-known nutritional tools such as Subjective Global Assessment or Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. Thus, muscle US will become not only a tool to diagnose malnutrition, but it will also be integrated in the daily practice to evaluate nutritional interventions.

All DRECO study materials have been approved by each of the IRB/IEC of all the sites enrolled (either approval of the own IRB/IEC or validating the approval of the IRB/IEC of another hospital). The study has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, on 27 June 2022. The results from this study will be presented at scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

NCT05433831.

There is an urgent need to support primary care organisations in implementing safe and high-quality virtual consultations. We have previously performed qualitative research to capture the views of 1600 primary care physicians across 20 countries on the main benefits and challenges of using virtual consultations. Subsequently, a prototype of a framework to guide the implementation of high-quality virtual primary care was developed.

To explore general practitioners’ perspectives on the appropriateness and relevance of each component of the framework’s prototype, to further refine it and optimise its practical use in primary care facilities.

Participants will be primary care physicians with active experience providing virtual care, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. This study will use a systematic and iterative online Delphi research approach (eDelphi), with a minimum of three rounds. A pre-round will be used to circulate items for initial feedback and adjustment. In subsequent rounds, participants will be asked to rate the relevance of the framework’s components. Consensus will be defined as >70% of participants agreeing/strongly agreeing or disagreeing/strongly disagreeing with a component. Data will be collected using structured online questionnaires. The primary outcome of the study will be a list of the essential components to be incorporated in the final version of the framework.

The study has received ethical approval conceded by the Imperial College London Science, Engineering and Technology Research Ethics Committee (SETREC) (reference no .6559176/2023). Anonymous results will be made available to the public, academic organisations and policymakers.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a placebo comparator are considered the gold standard study design when evaluating healthcare interventions. These are challenging to design and deliver in surgery. Guidance recommends pilot and feasibility work to optimise main trial design and conduct; however, the extent to which this occurs in surgery is unknown.

A systematic review identified randomised placebo-controlled surgical trials. Articles published from database inception to 31 December 2020 were retrieved from Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE and CENTRAL electronic databases, hand-searching and expert knowledge. Pilot/feasibility work conducted prior to the RCTs was then identified from examining citations and reference lists. Where studies explicitly stated their intent to inform the design and/or conduct of the future main placebo-controlled surgical trial, they were included. Publication type, clinical area, treatment intervention, number of centres, sample size, comparators, aims and text about the invasive placebo intervention were extracted.

From 131 placebo surgical RCTs included in the systematic review, 47 potentially eligible pilot/feasibility studies were identified. Of these, four were included as true pilot/feasibility work. Three were original articles, one a conference abstract; three were conducted in orthopaedic surgery and one in oral and maxillofacial surgery. All four included pilot RCTs, with an invasive surgical placebo intervention, randomising 9–49 participants in 1 or 2 centres. They explored the acceptability of recruitment and the invasive placebo intervention to patients and trial personnel, and whether blinding was possible. One study examined the characteristics of the proposed invasive placebo intervention using in-depth interviews.

Published studies reporting feasibility/pilot work undertaken to inform main placebo surgical trials are scarce. In view of the difficulties of undertaking placebo surgical trials, it is recommended that pilot/feasibility studies are conducted, and more are reported to share key findings and optimise the design of main RCTs.

CRD42021287371.