Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34212120›Full record

ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2021

Incorporating parent, former patient and clinician perspectives in the design of a national UK double-cluster, randomised controlled trial addressing uncertainties in preterm nutrition.

William Lammons, Becky Moss, Cheryl Battersby, Victoria Cornelius, Daphne Babalis, Neena Modi

Open access · diamondAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

William LammonsSection of Neonatal Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8302-9831
Becky MossSection of Neonatal Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Cheryl BattersbyNeonatal Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2898-553X
Victoria CorneliusImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Daphne BabalisImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Neena ModiSection of Neonatal Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Imperial College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T016752/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Comparative effectiveness randomised controlled trials are powerful tools to resolve uncertainties in existing treatments and care processes. We sought parent and patient perspectives on the design of a planned national, double-cluster randomised controlled trial (COLLABORATE) to resolve two longstanding uncertainties in preterm nutrition. Methods: We used qualitative focus groups and interviews with parents, former patients and clinicians. We followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist and conducted framework analysis, a specific methodology within thematic analysis. Results: We identified support for the trial's methodology and vision, and elicited themes illustrating parents' emotional needs in relation to clinical research. These were: relieving the pressure on mothers to breastfeed; opt-out consent as reducing parent stress; the desire for research to be a partnership between clinicians, parents and researchers; the value of presenting trial information in a collaborative tone; and in a format that allows assimilation by parents at their own pace. We identified anxiety and cognitive dissonance among some clinicians in which they recognised the uncertainties that justify the trial but felt unable to participate because of their strongly held views. Conclusions: The early involvement of parents and former patients identified the centrality of parents' emotional needs in the design of comparative effectiveness research. These insights have been incorporated into trial enrolment processes and information provided to participants. Specific outputs were a two-sided leaflet providing very brief as well as more detailed information, and use of language that parents perceive as inclusive and participatory. Further work is warranted to support clinicians to address personal biases that inhibit trial participation.

Indexed as

Comparative Effectiveness ResearchParentsHumansInfant, NewbornQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUncertaintyUnited Kingdomhealth services researchneonatologyqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID34212120
PMCPMC8208018
OpenAlexW3171039035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.