Community-led, peer-facilitated Advance Care Planning workshops prompt increased Advance Care Planning behaviors among public attendees.

Objective: Despite recognized benefits, engagement in Advance Care Planning (ACP) remains low. Research into peer-facilitated, group ACP interventions is limited. This study investigated the acceptability of community-led peer-facilitated ACP workshops for the public and whether these workshops are associated with increased knowledge, motivation and engagement in ACP behaviors. Methods: Peer-facilitators from 9 community organizations were recruited and trained to deliver free ACP workshops to members of the public with an emphasis on conversation. Using a cohort design, workshop acceptability and engagement in ACP behaviors was assessed by surveying public participants at the end of the workshop and 4-6 weeks later. Results: 217 participants returned post-workshop questionnaires, and 69 returned follow-up questionnaires. Over 90% of participants felt they gained knowledge across all 6 learning goals. Every ACP behavior saw a statistically significant increase in participant completion after 4-6 weeks. Almost all participants were glad they attended (94%) and would recommend the workshop to others (95%). Conclusion: This study revealed an association of peer-facilitated ACP workshops and completion of ACP behaviors in public participants. Innovation: This innovative approach supports investment in the spread of community-based, peer-facilitated ACP workshops for the public as important ACP promotion strategies.

"Now I get what's important" - Shifting philosophies of hospice society staff and trained volunteers involved in peer-facilitated Advance Care Planning workshops for the public.

OBJECTIVE: Community-led approaches can increase public engagement in Advance Care Planning (ACP). Better understanding of the experiences and perspectives of community staff and volunteers who host and facilitate community-led, peer-facilitated ACP workshops is valuable when considering the spread of these approaches. METHODS: Content analysis of qualitative data from community-based hospice societies delivering ACP workshops to the public in British Columbia: one-on-one interviews with 5 organizational representatives and focus groups with 13 peer facilitators. RESULTS: Three main categories emerged: 1) ACP is about 'Living well'; 2) Transitioning focus from legal forms to conversations; 3) Benefits to all involved. CONCLUSIONS: Community staff and volunteers acknowledge the role they could play in promoting ACP in their communities. They recognize the benefits to the facilitators and public participants from following a community-led approach that emphasizes the importance of ACP conversations over the completion of relevant legal forms. Additional potential benefits of this approach, as reported by the organizational representatives, are increased volunteer engagement, more community partnerships, and an enhanced organizational profile. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This community-led model can be a meaningful and approachable way to engage the public in ACP. Hospice societies are well positioned in the community to incorporate ACP workshops into their programming.

Part of the solution: A survey of community organisation perspectives on barriers and facilitating actions to Advance Care Planning in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Despite the established benefits of Advance Care Planning (ACP), engagement remains low in British Columbia. Since 2016, a growing number of community-based nonprofits have offered ACP education. To date, no study has focused on the perspectives of nonprofits on ACP in British Columbia. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitating actions to ACP as perceived by British Columbian nonprofits. DESIGN: A mixed-methods design was used. Data were collected through online surveys and telephone interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Staff and volunteers from British Columbian nonprofits that are providing or interested in providing public education on ACP were recruited for this study. RESULTS: The lack of public awareness of ACP, the emotional difficulty of the conversation, the complicated ACP process, the belief that ACP is synonymous with completing a medical order form, the challenge of introducing ACP in different cultural contexts and the siloed approach to ACP education were rated as the most important barriers to ACP engagement. The most important facilitating actions were developing clear messages, improving ACP literacy, reframing ACP as part of life planning, simplifying ACP documentation and transfer, integrating ACP conversations into clinical practice and better collaboration between the health system and nonprofits. DISCUSSION: This study identifies numerous opportunities to improve ACP engagement in British Columbia from a community lens. To maximize ACP engagement, community-led ACP education should be offered in coordination with the health system. CONCLUSION: Community-led ACP education as well as collaboration and consultation with nonprofits are part of the solution to the low ACP engagement in British Columbia. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Study participants, including staff and volunteers at nonprofits, are members of the public.

An overview of precision oncology basket and umbrella trials for clinicians.

With advancements in biomarkers and momentum in precision medicine, biomarker-guided trials such as basket trials and umbrella trials have been developed under the master protocol framework. A master protocol refers to a single, overarching design developed to evaluate multiple hypotheses with the general goal of improving the efficiency of trial evaluation. One type of master protocol is the basket trial, in which a targeted therapy is evaluated for multiple diseases that share common molecular alterations or risk factors that may help predict whether the patients will respond to the given therapy. Another variant of a master protocol is the umbrella trial, in which multiple targeted therapies are evaluated for a single disease that is stratified into multiple subgroups based on different molecular or other predictive risk factors. Both designs follow the core principle of precision medicine-to tailor intervention strategies based on the patient's risk factor(s) that can help predict whether they will respond to a specific treatment. There have been increasing numbers of basket and umbrella trials, but they are still poorly understood. This article reviews common characteristics of basket and umbrella trials, key trials and recent US Food and Drug Administration approvals for precision oncology, and important considerations for clinical readers when critically evaluating future publications on basket trials and umbrella trials and for researchers when designing these clinical trials.

Systematic review of basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials: a landscape analysis of master protocols.

BACKGROUND: Master protocols, classified as basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials, are novel designs that investigate multiple hypotheses through concurrent sub-studies (e.g., multiple treatments or populations or that allow adding/removing arms during the trial), offering enhanced efficiency and a more ethical approach to trial evaluation. Despite the many advantages of these designs, they are infrequently used. METHODS: We conducted a landscape analysis of master protocols using a systematic literature search to determine what trials have been conducted and proposed for an overall goal of improving the literacy in this emerging concept. On July 8, 2019, English-language studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and hand searches of published reviews and registries. RESULTS: We identified 83 master protocols (49 basket, 18 umbrella, and 16 platform trials). The number of master protocols has increased rapidly over the last five years. Most have been conducted in the US (n = 44/83) and investigated experimental drugs (n = 82/83) in the field of oncology (n = 76/83). The majority of basket trials were exploratory (i.e., phase I/II; n = 47/49) and not randomized (n = 44/49), and more than half (n = 28/48) investigated only a single intervention. The median sample size of basket trials was 205 participants (interquartile range, Q3-Q1 [IQR]: 500-90 = 410), and the median study duration was 22.3 (IQR: 74.1-42.9 = 31.1) months. Similar to basket trials, most umbrella trials were exploratory (n = 16/18), but the use of randomization was more common (n = 8/18). The median sample size of umbrella trials was 346 participants (IQR: 565-252 = 313), and the median study duration was 60.9 (IQR: 81.3-46.9 = 34.4) months. The median number of interventions investigated in umbrella trials was 5 (IQR: 6-4 = 2). The majority of platform trials were randomized (n = 15/16), and phase III investigation (n = 7/15; one did not report information on phase) was more common in platform trials with four of them using seamless II/III design. The median sample size was 892 (IQR: 1835-255 = 1580), and the median study duration was 58.9 (IQR: 101.3-36.9 = 64.4) months. CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that the number of master protocols will continue to increase at a rapid pace over the upcoming decades. More efforts to improve awareness and training are needed to apply these innovative trial design methods to fields outside of oncology.

Association of Early Interventions With Birth Outcomes and Child Linear Growth in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries: Bayesian Network Meta-analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: The first 1000 days of life represent a critical window for child development. Pregnancy, exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) period (0-6 months), and complementary feeding (CF) period (6-24 months) have different growth requirements, so separate considerations for intervention strategies are needed. No synthesis to date has attempted to quantify the associations of interventions under multiple domains of micronutrient and balanced energy protein and food supplements, deworming, maternal education, water sanitation, and hygiene across these 3 life periods with birth and growth outcomes. Objective: To determine the magnitude of association of interventions with birth and growth outcomes based on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) using Bayesian network meta-analyses. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from their inception up to August 14, 2018. Study Selection: Included were LMIC-based RCTs of interventions provided to pregnant women, infants (0-6 months), and children (6-24 months). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers used a standardized data extraction and quality assessment form. Random-effects network meta-analyses were performed for each life period. Effect sizes are reported as odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MeanDiffs) for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). This study calculated probabilities of interventions being superior to standard of care by at least a minimal clinically important difference. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study compared ORs on preterm birth and MeanDiffs on birth weight for pregnancy, length for age (LAZ) for EBF, and height for age (HAZ) for CF. Results: Among 302 061 participants in 169 randomized clinical trials, the network meta-analyses found several nutritional interventions that demonstrated greater association with improved birth and growth outcomes compared with standard of care. For instance, compared with standard of care, maternal supplements of multiple micronutrients showed reduced odds for preterm birth (OR, 0.54; 95% CrI, 0.27-0.97) and improved mean birth weight (MeanDiff, 0.08 kg; 95% CrI, 0.00-0.17 kg) but not LAZ during EBF (MeanDiff, -0.02; 95% CrI, -0.18 to 0.14). Supplementing infants and children with multiple micronutrients showed improved LAZ (MeanDiff, 0.20; 95% CrI, 0.03-0.35) and HAZ (MeanDiff, 0.14; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.25). The study found that pregnancy interventions generally had higher probabilities of a minimal clinically importance difference than the interventions for the EBF or CF in the first 1000 days of life. Conclusions and Relevance: These analyses highlight the importance of intervening early for child development, during pregnancy if possible. Results of this study suggest that there is a need to combine interventions from multiple domains and test for their effectiveness as a package.

Reporting of master protocols towards a standardized approach: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In September 2018 the FDA provided a draft guidance on master protocols reflecting an increased interest in these designs by industry. Master protocols refer to a single overarching protocol developed to evaluate multiple hypotheses and may be further categorized as basket, umbrella, and platform trials. However, inconsistencies in reporting persist in the literature. We conducted a systematic review to describe master protocol reporting with the goal of facilitating the further development and spread of these innovative trial designs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to April 25, 2019 for English articles on master protocols. This was supplemented by hand searches of trial registries and of the bibliographies of published reviews. We used the FDA's definitions of master protocols as references and compared them to self-reported master protocols. RESULTS: We identified 278 master protocol publications, consisting of 228 protocols and 50 reviews. Sixty-six records provided unique definitions of master protocol types. We observed considerable heterogeneity in definitions of master protocols, and over half (54%) used oncology-specific language. The majority of self-classified master protocols (57%) were consistent with the FDA's definitions of master protocols. CONCLUSION: The terms 'master protocol', 'basket trial', 'umbrella trial', and 'platform trial' are inconsistently described. Careful treatment of these terms and adherence to the definitions set forth by the FDA will facilitate better understanding of these trial designs and allow them to be used broadly and to their full potential in clinical research. We encourage trial methodologists to use these trial designations when applicable.

Interventions to improve linear growth during exclusive breastfeeding life-stage for children aged 0-6 months living in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review with network and pairwise meta-analyses.

Background: Exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) during the first six months of life is critical for child's linear growth. While there is strong evidence in favor of EBF, the evidence with regards to other interventions for linear growth is unclear. We evaluated intervention domains of micronutrients, food supplements, deworming, maternal education, water sanitation and hygiene (WASH), and kangaroo care, for their comparative effectiveness on linear growth. Methods: For this review, we searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of the interventions provided to infants aged 0-6 months and/or their breastfeeding mothers in low- and middle-income countries reporting on length-for-age z-score (LAZ), stunting, length, and head circumference. We searched for reports published until September 17 th, 2019 and hand-searched bibliographies of existing reviews. For LAZ and stunting, we used network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the effects of all interventions except for kangaroo care, where we used pairwise meta-analysis to compare its effects versus standard-of-care. For length and head circumference, we qualitatively summarized our findings. Results: We found 29 RCTs (40 papers) involving 35,119 mother and infant pairs reporting on the effects of aforementioned interventions on linear growth outcomes. Our NMA on LAZ found that compared to standard-of-care, multiple micronutrients administered to infants (MMN-C) improved LAZ (mean difference: 0.20; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.03,0.35), whereas supplementing breastfeeding mothers with MMN did not (MMN-M, mean difference: -0.02, 95%CrI: -0.18,0.13). No interventions including MMN-C (relative risk: 0.74; 95%CrI: 0.36,1.44) reduced risk for stunting compared to standard-of-care. Kangaroo care, on the other hand, improved head circumference (mean difference: 0.20 cm/week; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.09,0.31 cm/week) and length (mean difference: 0.23 cm/week; 95%CI: 0.10,0.35 cm/week) compared to standard-of-care.   Conclusion: Our study found important improvements for kangaroo care, but we did not find sufficient evidence for other interventions. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018110450; registered on 17 October 2018.

Interventions to improve linear growth during complementary feeding period for children aged 6-24 months living in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Optimizing linear growth in children during complementary feeding period (CFP) (6-24 months) is critical for their development. Several interventions, such as micronutrient and food supplements, deworming, maternal education, and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), could potentially be provided to prevent stunting, but their comparative effectiveness are currently unclear. In this study, we evaluated comparative effectiveness of interventions under these domains on child linear growth outcomes of height-for-age z-score (HAZ) and stunting (HAZ <-2SD) Methods: For this study, we searched for low- and middle-income country (LMIC)-based randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of aforementioned interventions provided to children during CFP. We searched for reports published until September 17, 2019 and hand-searched bibliographies of existing reviews. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) for HAZ and stunting. Results: The evidence base for our NMA was based on 79 RCTs (96 papers) involving 81,786 children. Among the micronutrients, compared to standard-of-care, iron + folic acid (IFA) (mean difference =0.08; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.01, 0.15) and multiple micronutrients (MMN) (mean difference =0.06; 95%CrI: 0.01, 0.11) showed improvements for HAZ; MMN also reduced the risks for stunting (RR=0.86; 95%Crl: 0.73, 0.98), whereas IFA did not (RR=0.92; 95%Crl: 0.64, 1.23). For food supplements, flour in the caloric range of 270-340 kcal (RR=0.73; 95%Crl: 0.51, 1.00) and fortified lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS) containing 220-285 kcal (RR=0.80; 95%Crl: 0.66, 0.97) decreased the risk of stunting compared to standard-of-care, but these interventions and other food supplements did not show improvements for HAZ. Deworming, maternal education, and WASH interventions did not show improvements for HAZ nor stunting. Conclusion: While we found micronutrient and food supplements to be effective for HAZ and/or stunting, the evidence base for other domains in this life stage was limited, highlighting the need for more investigation. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018110449; registered on 17 October 2018.

Interventions to improve birth outcomes of pregnant women living in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Improving the health of pregnant women is important to prevent adverse birth outcomes, such as preterm birth and low birthweight. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of interventions under the domains of micronutrient, balanced energy protein, deworming, maternal education, and water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) for their effects on these adverse birth outcomes. Methods: For this network meta-analysis, we searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of interventions provided to pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We searched for reports published until September 17, 2019 and hand-searched bibliographies of existing reviews. We extracted data from eligible studies for study characteristics, interventions, participants' characteristics at baseline, and birth outcomes. We compared effects on preterm birth (<37 gestational week), low birthweight (LBW; <2500 g), and birthweight (continuous) using studies conducted in LMICs. Results: Our network meta-analyses were based on 101 RCTs (132 papers) pertaining to 206,531 participants. Several micronutrients and balanced energy food supplement interventions demonstrated effectiveness over standard-of-care. For instance, versus standard-of-care, micronutrient supplements for pregnant women, such as iron and calcium, decreased risks of preterm birth (iron: RR=0.70, 95% credible interval [Crl] 0.47, 1.01; calcium: RR=0.76, 95%Crl 0.56, 0.99). Daily intake of 1500kcal of local food decreased the risks of preterm birth (RR=0.36, 95%Crl 0.16, 0.77) and LBW (RR=0.17, 95%Crl 0.09, 0.29), respectively when compared to standard-of-care. Educational and deworming interventions did not show improvements in birth outcomes, and no WASH intervention trials reported on these adverse birth outcomes. Conclusion: We found several pregnancy interventions that improve birth outcomes. However, most clinical trials have only evaluated interventions under a single domain (e.g. micronutrients) even though the causes of adverse birth outcomes are multi-faceted. There is a need to combine interventions that of different domains as packages and test for their effectiveness. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018110446; registered on 17 October 2018.