Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33032651›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

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

Carol Bugge, Rohna Kearney, Melanie Dembinsky, Aethele Khunda, Margaret Graham, Wael Agur, Suzanne Breeman, Lucy Dwyer, Andrew Elders, Mark Forrest and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. 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

19 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Carol BuggeFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK. carol.bugge@stir.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4071-0803
Rohna KearneyThe Warrell Unit, St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Melanie DembinskyFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Aethele KhundaSouth Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
Margaret GrahamFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Wael AgurNHS Ayrshire & Arran, Crosshouse Hospital, School of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing, University of Glasgow, Kilmarnock, UK.
Suzanne BreemanHealth Services Research Unit (HSRU), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Lucy DwyerThe Warrell Unit, St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Andrew EldersNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Mark ForrestHealth Services Research Unit (HSRU), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Kirsteen GoodmanNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Karen GuerreroDepartment of Urogynaecology, NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Christine HemmingGrampian University Hospitals NHS Trust, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital & Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Helen MasonYunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Doreen McClurgNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Lynn MeloneNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
John NorrieUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Ranee ThakarCroydon Health Services NHS Trust, Croydon University Hospital, Croydon, UK.
Suzanne HagenNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Glasgow Caledonian University · GBUniversity of Stirling · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBAberdeen Royal Infirmary · GBCroydon University Hospital · GBJames Cook University Hospital · GBNHS Ayrshire and Arran · GBNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Department of Health 16/82/01Health Technology Assessment Programme 16/82/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProcess 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.

methodsThe 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 registrationISRCTN62510577 . Registered on 6 October 2017.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapseSelf-ManagementFemaleHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicPessariesQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesPessaryProcess evaluationProlapseRandomised controlled trialSelf-management

Identifiers

PMID33032651
PMCPMC7542744
OpenAlexW3092168859

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.