Department of Physiotherapy, Lillebaelt Hospital - University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark
Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
BMJ Open. 2023 Apr 24;13(4):e070866. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070866.
To explore patient, clinician and decision-maker perceptions on a clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared with exercise to inform the trial protocol.
This is an exploratory qualitative case study using a constructivist paradigm.
Participants were enrolled into three key stakeholder groups: patients eligible for THA, clinicians, and decision makers. Focus group interviews were conducted in undisturbed conference rooms at two hospitals in Denmark, according to group status using semi-structured interview guides.
Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematic analysed using an inductive approach.
We conducted 4 focus group interviews with 14 patients, 1 focus group interview with 4 clinicians (2 orthopaedic surgeons and 2 physiotherapists) and 1 focus group interview with 4 decision-makers. Two main themes were generated. 'Treatment expectations and beliefs impact management choices' covered three supporting codes: Treatment without surgery is unlikely to lead to recovery; Clinician authority impacts the management narrative; The 'surgery vs exercise' debate. 'Factors influencing clinical trial integrity and feasibility' highlighted three supporting codes: Who is considered eligible for surgery?; Facilitators and barriers for surgery and exercise in a clinical trial context; Improvements in hip pain and hip function are the most important outcomes.
Based on key stakeholder treatment expectations and beliefs, we implemented three main strategies to improve the methodological rigorousness of our trial protocol. First, we added an observational study investigating the generalisability to address a potential low enrolment rate. Second, we developed an enrolment procedure using generic guidance and balanced narrative conveyed by an independent clinician to facilitate communication of clinical equipoise. Third, we adopted change in hip pain and function as the primary outcome. These findings highlight the value of patient and public involvement in the development of trial protocols to reduce bias in comparative clinical trials evaluating surgical and non-surgical management.
NCT04070027 (pre-results).
探讨患者、临床医生和决策者对评估全髋关节置换术(THA)与运动治疗效果的临床试验的看法,以为试验方案提供信息。
这是一项采用建构主义范式的探索性定性案例研究。
参与者被纳入三个主要利益相关者群体:有资格接受 THA 的患者、临床医生和决策者。根据群体状况,在丹麦的两家医院的未受干扰的会议室中,使用半结构化访谈指南对焦点小组访谈进行了分组。
访谈进行了录音、逐字记录,并采用归纳法进行主题分析。
我们共进行了 4 次患者焦点小组访谈(14 名患者)、1 次临床医生焦点小组访谈(4 名临床医生,2 名骨科医生,2 名物理治疗师)和 1 次决策者焦点小组访谈。生成了 2 个主要主题。“治疗期望和信念影响管理选择”涵盖了三个支持性编码:不进行手术治疗不太可能导致康复;临床医生的权威影响管理叙述;“手术与运动”的争论。“影响临床试验完整性和可行性的因素”突出了三个支持性编码:谁被认为有资格接受手术?在临床试验背景下,手术和运动的促进因素和障碍;髋关节疼痛和功能的改善是最重要的结果。
基于主要利益相关者的治疗期望和信念,我们实施了三项主要策略来提高试验方案的方法学严谨性。首先,我们增加了一项观察性研究,以调查普遍性,以解决潜在的低入组率。其次,我们制定了一项入组程序,使用通用指南和由独立临床医生传达的平衡叙述来促进临床均衡的沟通。第三,我们采用髋关节疼痛和功能的变化作为主要结局。这些发现强调了患者和公众参与试验方案制定的价值,以减少评估手术和非手术治疗的比较临床试验中的偏倚。
NCT04070027(预结果)。