Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Study protocol

The TOPSY pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation

Authors: Carol Bugge, Rohna Kearney, Melanie Dembinsky, Aethele Khunda, Margaret Graham, Wael Agur, Suzanne Breeman, Lucy Dwyer, Andrew Elders, Mark Forrest, Kirsteen Goodman, Karen Guerrero, Christine Hemming, Helen Mason, Doreen McClurg, Lynn Melone, John Norrie, Ranee Thakar, Suzanne Hagen

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Process evaluations have become a valued component, alongside clinical trials, of the wider evaluation of complex health interventions. They support understanding of implementation, and fidelity, related to the intervention and provide valuable insights into what is effective in a practical setting by examining the context in which interventions are implemented. The TOPSY study consists of a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of pessary self-management with clinic-based care in improving women’s condition-specific quality of life, and a nested process evaluation. The process evaluation aims to examine and maximise recruitment to the trial, describe intervention fidelity and explore participants’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences.

Methods

The trial will recruit 330 women from approximately 17 UK centres. The process evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with randomised women (18 per randomised group/n = 36), women who declined trial participation but agreed to interview (non-randomised women) (n = 20) and healthcare professionals recruiting to the trial (n ~ 17) and delivering self-management and clinic-based care (n ~ 17). The six internal pilot centres will be asked to record two to three recruitment discussions each (total n = 12–18). All participating centres will be asked to record one or two self-management teaching appointments (n = 30) and self-management 2-week follow-up telephone calls (n = 30). Process data (quantitative and qualitative) will be gathered in participant completed trial questionnaires. Interviews will be analysed thematically and recordings using an analytic grid to identify fidelity to the intervention. Quantitative analysis will be predefined within the process evaluation analysis plan.

Discussion

The wide variety of pessary care delivered across the UK for women with pelvic organ prolapse presents specific localised contexts in which the TOPSY interventions will be implemented. Understanding this contextual variance is central to understanding how and in what circumstances pessary self-management can be implemented (should it be effective). The inclusion of non-randomised women provides an innovative way of collecting indispensable information about eligible women who decline trial participation, allowing broader contextualisation and considerations of generalisability of trial findings. Methodological insights from examination of recruitment processes and mechanisms have the potential to inform recruitment mechanisms and future recruitment strategies and study designs.

Trial registration

ISRCTN62510577. Registered on 6 October 2017.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical research council guidance. BMJ (clinical Research Ed.). 2015;350:h1258. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical research council guidance. BMJ (clinical Research Ed.). 2015;350:h1258.
5.
go back to reference Grant A, Dean S, Hay-Smith J, Hagen S, McClurg D, Taylor A, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial of basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence: protocol for the opal (optimising pelvic floor exercises to achieve long-term benefits) trial mixed methods longitudinal qualitative case study and process evaluation. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e024152.CrossRef Grant A, Dean S, Hay-Smith J, Hagen S, McClurg D, Taylor A, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial of basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence: protocol for the opal (optimising pelvic floor exercises to achieve long-term benefits) trial mixed methods longitudinal qualitative case study and process evaluation. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e024152.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Donovan JL, Rooshenas L, Jepson M, Elliott D, Wade J, Avery K, et al. Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: the development and implementation of the quintet recruitment intervention (qri). Trials. 2016;17(1):283.CrossRef Donovan JL, Rooshenas L, Jepson M, Elliott D, Wade J, Avery K, et al. Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: the development and implementation of the quintet recruitment intervention (qri). Trials. 2016;17(1):283.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Hendrix S, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1160–6.CrossRef Hendrix S, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1160–6.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Jelovsek JE, Barber MD. Women seeking treatment for advanced pelvic organ prolapse have decreased body image and quality of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1455–61.CrossRef Jelovsek JE, Barber MD. Women seeking treatment for advanced pelvic organ prolapse have decreased body image and quality of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1455–61.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kapoor DS, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Oliver R. Conservative versus surgical management of prolapse: what dictates patient choice? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:1157–61.CrossRef Kapoor DS, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Oliver R. Conservative versus surgical management of prolapse: what dictates patient choice? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:1157–61.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hagen S, Kearney R, Goodman K, Melone L, Elders A, Manoukian S, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management compared to clinic based care for pelvic organ prolapse: protocol for the TOPSY randomised controlled trial. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04738-9. Hagen S, Kearney R, Goodman K, Melone L, Elders A, Manoukian S, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management compared to clinic based care for pelvic organ prolapse: protocol for the TOPSY randomised controlled trial. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13063-020-04738-9.
12.
go back to reference Wilson C, Rooshenas L, Paramasivan S, Elliott D, Jepson M, Strong S, et al. Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (rcts): the Sear (screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) Framework. Trials. 2018;19(1):50.CrossRef Wilson C, Rooshenas L, Paramasivan S, Elliott D, Jepson M, Strong S, et al. Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (rcts): the Sear (screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) Framework. Trials. 2018;19(1):50.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2014;15(1):5.CrossRef Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2014;15(1):5.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Elliott D, Husbands S, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, Donovan JL. Understanding and improving recruitment to randomised controlled trials: qualitative research approaches. Eur Urol. 2017;72(5):789–98.CrossRef Elliott D, Husbands S, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, Donovan JL. Understanding and improving recruitment to randomised controlled trials: qualitative research approaches. Eur Urol. 2017;72(5):789–98.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Mills N, Donovan JL, Smith M, Jacoby A, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. Perceptions of equipoise are crucial to trial participation: a qualitative study of men in the protect study. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24(3):272–82.CrossRef Mills N, Donovan JL, Smith M, Jacoby A, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. Perceptions of equipoise are crucial to trial participation: a qualitative study of men in the protect study. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24(3):272–82.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Jepson M, Elliott D, Conefrey C, Wade J, Rooshenas L, Wilson C, et al. An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;99:75–83.CrossRef Jepson M, Elliott D, Conefrey C, Wade J, Rooshenas L, Wilson C, et al. An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;99:75–83.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in health psychology: a user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs. Windsor: NFER-NELSON; 1995. p. 35–7. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in health psychology: a user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs. Windsor: NFER-NELSON; 1995. p. 35–7.
18.
go back to reference Spencer L, Ritchie J, O’Connor W, Morrell G, Ormoston R. Carrying out qualitative analysis. In: Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage Publications; 2014. p. 296–345. Spencer L, Ritchie J, O’Connor W, Morrell G, Ormoston R. Carrying out qualitative analysis. In: Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage Publications; 2014. p. 296–345.
19.
go back to reference O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ. 2010;341:c4587.CrossRef O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ. 2010;341:c4587.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two conditionspecific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders. (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103–13. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two conditionspecific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders. (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103–13.
21.
go back to reference Marchal B, Westhorp G, Wong G, Van Belle S, Greenhalgh T, Kegels G, et al. Realist RCTs of complex interventions – an oxymoron. Soc Sci Med. 2013;94:124–8.CrossRef Marchal B, Westhorp G, Wong G, Van Belle S, Greenhalgh T, Kegels G, et al. Realist RCTs of complex interventions – an oxymoron. Soc Sci Med. 2013;94:124–8.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Blackwood B, O’Halloran P, Porter S. On the problems of mixing RCTs with qualitative research: the case of the MRC framework for the evaluation of complex healthcare interventions. J Res Nurs. 2010;15:511–21.CrossRef Blackwood B, O’Halloran P, Porter S. On the problems of mixing RCTs with qualitative research: the case of the MRC framework for the evaluation of complex healthcare interventions. J Res Nurs. 2010;15:511–21.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The TOPSY pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation
Authors
Carol Bugge
Rohna Kearney
Melanie Dembinsky
Aethele Khunda
Margaret Graham
Wael Agur
Suzanne Breeman
Lucy Dwyer
Andrew Elders
Mark Forrest
Kirsteen Goodman
Karen Guerrero
Christine Hemming
Helen Mason
Doreen McClurg
Lynn Melone
John Norrie
Ranee Thakar
Suzanne Hagen
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04729-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Trials 1/2020 Go to the issue