Conectar
Providing comprehensible information is essential to the process of valid informed consent. Recruitment materials designed by sponsoring institutions in English-speaking, high-income countries are commonly translated for use in global health studies in other countries; however, key concepts are often missed, misunderstood or ‘lost in translation’. The aim of this study was to explore the language barriers to informed consent, focusing on the challenges of translating recruitment materials for maternal health studies into Zambian languages.
We used a qualitative approach, which incorporated a multistakeholder workshop (11 participants), in-depth interviews with researchers and translators (8 participants) and two community-based focus groups with volunteers from community advisory boards (20 participants). Content analysis was used to identify terms commonly occurring in recruitment materials prior to the workshop. The framework analysis approach was used to analyse interview data, and a simple inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyse focus group data.
The study was based in Lusaka, Zambia.
The workshop highlighted difficulties in translating research terms and pregnancy-specific terms, as well as widespread concern that current templates are too long, use overly formal language and are designed with little input from local teams. Framework analysis of in-depth interviews identified barriers to participant understanding relating to design and development of recruitment materials, language, local context and communication styles. Focus group participants confirmed these findings and suggested potential solutions to ensure the language and content of recruitment materials can be better understood.
Our findings demonstrate that the way in which recruitment materials are currently designed, translated and disseminated may not enable potential trial participants to fully understand the information provided. Instead of using overly complex institutional templates, recruitment materials should be created through an iterative and interactive process that provides truly comprehensible information in a format appropriate for its intended participants.
The cumulative stress toll on nurses increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. An evidence-based practice (EBP) project was conducted to understand what is known about the impacts of cumulative stress within nursing and if there are ways to mitigate stress during a nurse's shift.
A project team from three clinical units completed an extensive literature review and identified the need to promote detachment while supporting parasympathetic recovery. Based on this review, leaders from three pediatric clinical units (neonatal intensive care unit, cardiovascular intensive care unit, and acute pulmonary floor) implemented respite rooms.
Follow-up outcomes showed a statistically significant stress reduction. For all shifts combined, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test revealed that perceived stress scores from an 11-point Likert scale (0 = no stress and 10 = maximum perceived stress) were significantly lower in the post-respite room (Md = 3, n = 68) compared to in the pre-respite room (Md = 6, n = 68), Z = −7.059, p < .001, with a large effect size, r = .605. Nurses and other staff frequently utilized respite rooms during shifts.
Clinical inquiry and evidence-based practice processes can mitigate cumulative stress and support staff wellbeing. Respite rooms within the hospital can promote a healthy work environment among nurses and promote a self-care culture change. Evidence-based strategies to mitigate cumulative stress using respite rooms are a best practice to promote nurse wellbeing and mitigate cumulative stress.
Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death worldwide and most patients present with extensive disease. One-year survival is improving but remains low (37%) despite novel systemic anti-cancer treatments forming the current standard of care. Although new therapies improve survival, most patients have residual disease after treatment, and little is known on how best to manage it. Therefore, residual disease management varies across the UK, with some patients receiving only maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment while others receive local consolidative treatment (LCT), alongside maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment. LCT can be a combination of surgery, radiotherapy and/or ablation to remove all remaining cancer within the lung and throughout the body. This is intensive, expensive and impacts quality of life, but we do not know if it results in better survival, nor the extent of impact on quality of life and what the cost might be for healthcare providers. The RAMON study (RAdical Management Of Advanced Non-small cell lung cancer) will evaluate the acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LCT versus no LCT after first-line systemic treatment for advanced lung cancer.
RAMON is a pragmatic open multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. We aim to recruit 244 patients aged 18 years and over with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from 40 UK NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive LCT alongside maintenance treatment, or maintenance treatment alone. LCT will be tailored to each patient’s specific disease sites. Participants will be followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is overall survival from randomisation.
The West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (22/WS/0121) gave ethical approval in August 2022 and the Health Research Authority in September 2022. Participants will provide written informed consent before participating in the study. Findings will be presented at international meetings, in peer-reviewed publications, through patient organisations and notifications to patients.
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.
FreshRSS 