Development of consensus quality indicators for cancer supportive care: a Delphi study and pilot testing.

BACKGROUND: High quality supportive care is fundamental to achieve optimal health outcomes for people affected by cancer. Use of quality indicators provides comparative information for monitoring, management, and improvement of care within and across healthcare systems. The aim of this Australian study was to develop and test a minimum viable set of cancer supportive care quality indicators that would be feasible to implement and generate usable data for policy and practice. METHODS: A two-round, modified reactive Delphi process was employed firstto develop the proposed indicators. Participants with expertise in cancer control in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada rated their level of agreement on a 7-point Likert scale against criteria assessing the importance, feasibility, and usability of proposed indicators. Relative response frequencies were assessed against pre-specified consensus criteria and a ranking exercise, which delivered the list of proposed indicators. Draft indicators were then presented to a purposive sample of clinicial and health management staff via qualitative interviews at two acute care settings in Melbourne, Australia for feedback regarding feasibility. Desktop audits of online published health service policy and practice descriptions were also conducted at participating acute care settings to confirm health service data availability and feasibility of collection to report against proposed indicators. RESULTS: Sixteen quality indicators associated with the delivery of quality cancer supportive care in Australian acute healthcare settings met pre-specified criteria for inclusion. Indicators deemed 'necessary' were mapped and ranked across five key categories: Screening, Referrals, Data Management, Communication and Training, and Culturally Safe and Accessible Care. Testing confirmed indicators were viewed as feasible by clinical and health management staff, and desktop audits could provide a fast and reasonably effective method to assess general adherence and performance. CONCLUSIONS: The development of quality indicators specific to cancer supportive care provides a strong framework for measurement and monitoring, service improvement, and practice change with the potential to improve health outcomes for people affected by cancer. Evaluation of implementation feasibility of these expert consensus generated quality indicators is recommended.

Measuring context-response associations that drive habits.

People achieve important life outcomes of health, financial security, and productivity by repeating operant behavior. To identify whether such operants reflect goal pursuit or habit, the present research introduces a new paradigm that yields objective measures of learning and controls for the motivations of goal pursuit. In two experiments, participants practiced a sequential task of making sushi and then completed a test of the strength of cue-response (habit) associations in memory. Finally, they repeated the sushi task without instructions while under cognitive load (designed to impede deliberation about goals). As predicted, greater task practice yielded stronger cue-response associations, which in turn promoted task success. Practice did not improve performance by enhancing goal intentions or other task motivations. We conclude that repetition facilitates performance by creating mental associations that automatically activate practiced, habitual responses upon perception of recurring context cues.

Testing interventions to reduce clinical inertia in the treatment of hypertension: rationale and design of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical inertia, or failure to intensify treatment when indicated, leads to suboptimal blood pressure control. Interventions to overcome inertia and increase antihypertensive prescribing have been modestly successful in part because their effectiveness varies based on characteristics of the provider, the patient, or the provider-patient interaction. Understanding for whom each intervention is most effective could help target interventions and thus increase their impact. METHODS: This three-arm, randomized trial tests the effectiveness of 2 interventions to reduce clinical inertia in hypertension prescribing compared to usual care. Forty five primary care providers (PCPs) caring for patients with hypertension in need of treatment intensification completed baseline surveys that assessed behavioral traits and were randomized to one of three arms: 1) Pharmacist e-consult, in which a clinical pharmacist provided patient-specific recommendations for hypertension medication management to PCPs in advance of upcoming visits, 2) Social norming dashboards that displayed PCP's hypertension control rates compared to those of their peers, or 3) Usual care (no intervention). The primary outcome was the rate of intensification of hypertension treatment. We will compare this outcome between study arms and then evaluate the association between characteristics of providers, patients, their clinical interactions, and intervention responsiveness. RESULTS: Forty-five primary care providers were enrolled and randomized: 16 providers and 173 patients in the social norming dashboards arm, 15 providers and 143 patients in the pharmacist e-consult arm, and 14 providers and 150 patients in the usual care arm. On average, the mean patient age was 64 years, 47% were female, and 73% were white. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of patients were similar across arms, with the exception of more Hispanic patients in the usual care arm and fewest in the pharmacist e-consult arm. CONCLUSIONS: This study can help identify interventions to reduce inertia in hypertension care and potentially identify the characteristics of patients, providers, or patient-provider interactions to understand for whom each intervention would be most beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT, Registered: NCT04603560).

Habits are not goal-dependent: Commentary on Buabang et al. (2023).

People sometimes commit action slips by absentmindedly repeating unwanted responses, such as entering an old password instead of the current one. Most accounts hold that such slips demonstrate stimulus-response habits in which familiar contexts directly trigger well-practiced but now-incorrect responses. In contrast, Buabang et al. (2023) argue that action slips arise due to the continued influence of old, no longer accurate goal outcomes. In a reanalysis, we show that Buabang et al.'s participants actually provide striking evidence of goal-independent S-R habits: They correctly repeated well-practiced responses despite reporting incorrect goals. We also show that Buabang et al. misinterpreted the results of their mediation analyses by overlooking the direct influence of stimuli on responses. Understanding how habits work is important because habit change interventions are unlikely to succeed with goal-directed strategies that overlook context cues' direct activation of practiced responses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Distance to vaccine sites is tied to decreased COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

COVID-19 remains a leading cause of mortality in the United States, despite the widespread availability of vaccines. Conventional wisdom ties failure to vaccinate primarily to vaccine-skeptic beliefs (e.g. conspiracy theories, partisanship). Yet in this research, we find that vaccination is also hindered by travel distance to vaccine sites (a form of friction, or structural barriers). In study 1, Californians living farther from vaccine sites had lower vaccination rates, and this effect held regardless of partisanship. In study 2, Chicago zip codes saw an uptick in vaccination following vaccine site opening. These results proved robust in multiverse analyses accounting for a wide range of covariates, outcomes, and distance indicators. COVID-19 vaccination is hampered not only by vaccine hesitancy but also by structural barriers like distance. Efforts to boost vaccination could benefit from minimizing friction.

Sharing of misinformation is habitual, not just lazy or biased.

Why do people share misinformation on social media? In this research (N = 2,476), we show that the structure of online sharing built into social platforms is more important than individual deficits in critical reasoning and partisan bias-commonly cited drivers of misinformation. Due to the reward-based learning systems on social media, users form habits of sharing information that attracts others' attention. Once habits form, information sharing is automatically activated by cues on the platform without users considering response outcomes such as spreading misinformation. As a result of user habits, 30 to 40% of the false news shared in our research was due to the 15% most habitual news sharers. Suggesting that sharing of false news is part of a broader response pattern established by social media platforms, habitual users also shared information that challenged their own political beliefs. Finally, we show that sharing of false news is not an inevitable consequence of user habits: Social media sites could be restructured to build habits to share accurate information.

The Unintentional Nonconformist: Habits Promote Resistance to Social influence.

This research tests a novel source of resistance to social influence-the automatic repetition of habit. In three experiments, participants with strong habits failed to align their behavior with others. Specifically, participants with strong habits to drink water in a dining hall or snack while working did not mimic others' drinking or eating, whereas those with weak habits conformed. Similarly, participants with strong habits did not shift expectations that they would act in line with descriptive norms, whereas those with weak habits reported more normative behavioral expectations. This habit resistance was not due to a failure to perceive influence: Both strong and weak habit participants' recalled others' behavior accurately, and it was readily accessible. Furthermore, strong habit participants shifted their normative beliefs but not behavior in line with descriptive norms. Thus, habits create behavioral resistance despite people's recognition and acceptance of social influence.

Altered sagittal plane mechanics is associated with Functional Movement Screen deep squat score.

Background: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) assesses the quality of movements, including the deep squat (DS), which is used in sports settings. The validity of the individual item scores has yet to be established. Objectives: To investigate the validity of the FMS DS by comparing the sagittal plane kinematics of participants who achieve different observer scores. Method: Seventeen injury-free, adolescent male cricket bowlers were assessed. The movement was captured using the Optitrack® motion capture system. Simultaneously, observers scored participants' execution of the DS according to the standard FMS scoring criteria. Participants were grouped into Group 1 (lowest score), Group 2 (altered movement mechanics) or Group 3 (perfect score) according to observer scores. Specific joint angles of each group were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: There were significant differences in the degree to which the femur passed the horizontal between Group 3 and Group 1 (p = 0.04, r = 0.61) and Group 2 and Group 1 (p = 0.03, r = 0.66) and the difference in the degree to which the torso was kept vertical between Group 3 and Group 1 (p = 0.02, r = 0.66) and Group 2 and Group 1 (p = 0.02; r = 0.72). Conclusion: Kinematic differences exist between participants who achieve different observer scores for the FMS DS. Clinical implications: While differences in sagittal plane kinematics have been observed in participants scoring high on the FMS DS and participants scoring low, further investigation into the validity of the frontal plane kinematics is warranted, as well as the concurrent validity of the individual scoring criteria.

Feasibility of an adaptive riding pilot study and acceptability to dementia care partners: "Your spirits are lifted".

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the feasibility and acceptability of an adaptive riding program with dyads (persons living with dementia, family care partners) and a gardening comparison condition. DESIGN: This is a two-arm (adaptive riding and adaptive gardening), mixed methods, convergent, feasibility study that occurred February 2019-June 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Upon enrollment, dyads (n=9) self-selected into either community-based adaptive riding (n=5) or adaptive gardening (n=4), two complementary interventions in Northern Colorado. Interventions occurred for hour-long, weekly sessions for eight weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility was measured with recruitment (actual/planned, response rate, participants enrolled/month) retention, adherence to study procedures (attendance, retention, fidelity), and data collection processes (planned versus collected); and analyzed with descriptive statistics. Acceptability of adaptive riding was measured with pre/post care partner interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis. Afterwards, findings were converged. RESULTS: We recruited n=10/24 dyads (6 dyads per month), with the highest response rates for referrals and in-person events, n=9 dyads enrolled. We adhered to study procedures with attendance (6/8 gardening, 8/8 riding), retention (100%), fidelity (100%) and data collected (98%). Care partners (n=5) found the adaptive riding intervention acceptable with two themes Overall hopes: "Joy in the present moment" and "Experience as a Whole: "Your spirits are lifted," affirming quantitative attendance and retention data. CONCLUSION: Findings underscore the feasibility and acceptability of including care partners of persons living with dementia in complementary interventions involving horsemanship activities. Feasibility data can guide study designs and implementation processes for other nature-based complementary interventions for this population.

Americans discount the effect of friction on voter turnout.

Whether or not someone turns out to vote depends on their beliefs (such as partisanship or sense of civic duty) and on friction-external barriers such as long travel distance to the polls. In this exploratory study, we tested whether people underestimate the effect of friction on turnout and overestimate the effect of beliefs. We surveyed a representative sample of eligible US voters before and after the 2020 election (n = 1,280). Participants' perceptions consistently underemphasized friction and overemphasized beliefs (mean d = 0.94). In participants' open-text explanations, 91% of participants listed beliefs, compared with just 12% that listed friction. In contrast, turnout was shaped by beliefs only slightly more than friction. The actual belief-friction difference was about one-fourth the size of participants' perceptions (d = 0.24). This bias emerged across a range of survey measures (open- and close-ended; other- and self-judgments) and was implicated in downstream consequences such as support for friction-imposing policies and failing to plan one's vote.

Illusory Feelings, Elusive Habits: People Overlook Habits in Explanations of Behavior.

Habits underlie much of human behavior. However, people may prefer agentic accounts that overlook habits in favor of inner states, such as mood. We tested this misattribution hypothesis in an online experiment of helping behavior (N = 809 adults) as well as in an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study of U.S. college students' everyday coffee drinking (N = 112). Both studies revealed a substantial gap between perceived and actual drivers of behavior: Habit strength outperformed or matched inner states in predicting behavior, but participants' explanations of their behavior emphasized inner states. Participants continued to misattribute habits to inner states when incentivized for accuracy and when explaining other people's behavior. We discuss how this misperception could adversely influence self-regulation.

Preliminary Efficacy of Occupational Therapy in an Equine Environment for Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The purpose of this study was to identify appropriate outcome measures and assess preliminary efficacy of occupational therapy in an equine environment (OTee HORSPLAY) for youth with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Twenty-four youth with ASD aged 6-13 were randomized to 10 weeks of OTee HORSPLAY or to a waitlist control condition, occupational therapy in a garden. Youth demonstrated significantly improved goal attainment and social motivation, and decreased irritability after OTee HORSPLAY. When compared to the subset of participants who completed the waitlist control condition, the OTee HORSPLAY group still demonstrated significant improvements in goal attainment. This study provides preliminary evidence that horses can be integrated into occupational therapy for youth with ASD to improve social and behavioral goals.

Habits and Goals in Human Behavior: Separate but Interacting Systems.

People automatically repeat behaviors that were frequently rewarded in the past in a given context. Such repetition is commonly attributed to habit, or associations in memory between a context and a response. Once habits form, contexts directly activate the response in mind. An opposing view is that habitual behaviors depend on goals. However, we show that this view is challenged by the goal independence of habits across the fields of social and health psychology, behavioral neuroscience, animal learning, and computational modeling. It also is challenged by direct tests revealing that habits do not depend on implicit goals. Furthermore, we show that two features of habit memory-rapid activation of specific responses and resistance to change-explain the different conditions under which people act on habit versus persuing goals. Finally, we tested these features with a novel secondary analysis of action-slip data. We found that habitual responses are activated regardless of goals, but they can be performed in concert with goal pursuit.

Randomised controlled trial targeting habit formation to improve medication adherence to daily oral medications in patients with gout.

INTRODUCTION: Medication adherence for patients with chronic conditions such as gout, a debilitating form of arthritis that requires daily medication to prevent flares, is a costly problem. Existing interventions to improve medication adherence have only been moderately effective. Habit formation theory is a promising strategy to improve adherence. The cue-reward-repetition principle posits that habits are formed by repeatedly completing an activity after the same cue and having the action rewarded every time. Over time, cues become increasingly important whereas rewards become less salient because the action becomes automatic. Leveraging the cue-reward-repetition principle could improve adherence to daily gout medications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This three-arm parallel randomised controlled trial tests an adaptive intervention that leverages the repetition cue-reward principle. The trial will began recruitment in August 2021 in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Eligible patients are adults with gout who have been prescribed a daily oral medication for gout and whose most recent uric acid is above 6 mg/dL. Participants will be randomised to one of three arms and given electronic pill bottles. In the two intervention arms, participants will select a daily activity to link to their medication-taking (cue) and a charity to which money will be donated every time they take their medication (reward). Participants in Arm 1 will receive reminder texts about their cue and their charity reward amount will be US$0.50 per day of medication taken. Arm 2 will be adaptive; participants will receive a US$0.25 per adherent-day and no reminder texts. If their adherence is <75% 6 weeks postrandomisation, their reward will increase to US$0.50 per adherent-day and they will receive reminder texts. The primary outcome is adherence to gout medications over 18 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has ethical approval in the USA. Results will be published in a publicly accessible peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04776161.

Toward Robust Assessments of Student Knowledge of Occupation.

IMPORTANCE: Occupational therapy students must master knowledge of occupation, yet how educators assess such knowledge has not been explored. In this study, we elucidate robust assessment practices that can help students master knowledge of occupation. OBJECTIVE: To examine practices that educators use to assess knowledge of occupation. DESIGN: Basic qualitative research. Using inductive and constant comparative methods, we coded 25 interviews and 82 educational artifacts for assessment practices, categorized practices as direct or indirect, and analyzed their alignments with features of robust assessments. SETTING: Twenty-five randomly selected occupational therapy and occupational therapy assistant academic programs in the United States, stratified by geographic region and institution type. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-nine educators who represented selected programs. RESULTS: We found occupation at instruction and program levels primarily in relation to practice using indirect more than direct practices. Assignments were often highly creative and experiential, yet varied in their alignments with established criteria of robust assessments. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Knowledge of occupation was often intertwined with practice-oriented learning experiences and skills; hence, it was not assessed as a distinctly indispensable learning outcome. Educators can build on current practices to design robust assessments that require students to demonstrate knowledge of occupation in practice contexts and everyday life. WHAT THIS ARTICLE ADDS: In this study, we elucidate a continuum of prevalent educational practices used to assess knowledge of occupation; we also review best practices for robust assessments of such knowledge not only related to practice but also as a dynamic instrument of individual and societal well-being more broadly.

Conservative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis in children: the CONTRACT feasibility study, including feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Although non-operative treatment is known to be effective for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children, randomised trial data comparing important outcomes of non-operative treatment with those of appendicectomy are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to ascertain the feasibility of conducting a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods study, which included a feasibility randomised controlled trial, embedded and parallel qualitative and survey studies, a parallel health economic feasibility study and the development of a core outcome set. SETTING: This study was set in three specialist NHS paediatric surgical units in England. PARTICIPANTS: Children (aged 4-15 years) clinically diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis participated in the feasibility randomised controlled trial. Children, their families, recruiting clinicians and other health-care professionals involved in caring for children with appendicitis took part in the qualitative study. UK specialist paediatric surgeons took part in the survey. Specialist paediatric surgeons, adult general surgeons who treat children, and children and young people who previously had appendicitis, along with their families, took part in the development of the core outcome set. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the feasibility randomised controlled trial were randomised to a non-operative treatment pathway (broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation) or appendicectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited to the feasibility trial. DATA SOURCES: Data were sourced from NHS case notes, questionnaire responses, transcribed audio-recordings of recruitment discussions and qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Overall, 50% (95% confidence interval 40% to 59%) of 115 eligible patients approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. There was high acceptance of randomisation and good adherence to trial procedures and follow-up (follow-up rates of 89%, 85% and 85% at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months, respectively). More participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated. Qualitative work enabled us to communicate about the trial effectively with patients and families, to design and deliver bespoke training to optimise recruitment and to understand how to optimise the design and delivery of a future trial. The health economic study indicated that the main cost drivers are the ward stay cost and the cost of the operation; it has also informed quality-of-life assessment methods for future work. A core outcome set for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people was developed, containing 14 outcomes. There is adequate surgeon interest to justify proceeding to an effectiveness trial, with 51% of those surveyed expressing a willingness to recruit with an unchanged trial protocol. LIMITATIONS: Because the feasibility randomised controlled trial was performed in only three centres, successful recruitment across a larger number of sites cannot be guaranteed. However, the qualitative work has informed a bespoke training package to facilitate this. Although survey results suggest adequate clinician interest to make a larger trial possible, actual participation may differ, and equipoise may have changed over time. CONCLUSIONS: A future effectiveness trial is feasible, following limited additional preparation, to establish appropriate outcome measures and case identification. It is recommended to include a limited package of qualitative work to optimise recruitment, in particular at new centres. FUTURE WORK: Prior to proceeding to an effectiveness trial, there is a need to develop a robust method for distinguishing children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis from those with more advanced appendicitis, and to reach agreement on a primary outcome measure and effect size that is acceptable to all stakeholder groups involved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15830435. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Appendicitis is usually treated with an operation to remove the appendix. But we have learned, from other research, that some children with appendicitis may not need an operation, and could be treated with antibiotics instead. To find out how these two different treatments compare with one another, we need to do a big study. First, though, we need to see if doing that kind of study would even be possible (or 'feasible'). We carried out a feasibility study that had several parts. First, we did a small study with children who had appendicitis, whereby children were randomly allocated to have either antibiotics or an operation, with an equal chance of having either treatment. Second, we asked parents and health-care staff about why they wanted, or did not want, to take part in that small study. This helped us to understand how to make a bigger future study as acceptable as possible to children, families and surgeons. Third, we asked parents, patients and surgeons what they think are the most important things ­ or 'outcomes' ­ we should look at in future research on children who have appendicitis. From that, we developed a list of outcomes that should be included in our future big study, so we can be certain that the research we do is likely to help parents and surgeons. Overall, we established that a future big study is feasible and we have plenty of information to help us with how to plan it best, so that it has the greatest possible chance of success. We were also guided in all of these steps of the research by a group of parents, children and young people, some of whom had appendicitis and some of whom did not.

A comparison of quality of life indicators during two complementary interventions: adaptive gardening and adaptive riding for people with dementia.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to provide a fine-grain description and comparison of how people living with dementia responded to adaptive gardening and adaptive riding through durations of their observed participation and emotional well-being, two dimensions of quality of life. DESIGN: A descriptive case study design enabled in-depth description and comparison of participation and emotional well-being, two quality of life indicators, observed during four videotaped sessions of adaptive gardening and adaptive riding. INTERVENTIONS: Eight people living with dementia self-selected into one of two complementary interventions, community-based adaptive gardening (n = 4) or adaptive riding (n = 4), in Northern Colorado. Both occurred for hour-long, weekly sessions for eight-weeks. OUTCOME MEASURE: Durations of observed quality of life indicators of participation and apparent affect were documented using a modified version of the Activity-in-Context-in-Time on 31 hours of videotaped data. Durations for each quality of life indicator were averaged per participant and aggregated by group for comparison using a Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test RESULTS: Both interventions supported emotional well-being and participation. Longer durations of active participation were observed during adaptive riding with significantly higher durations of complex active participation (U = 16, p= 0.029). CONCLUSION: Both interventions supported quality of life and merit continued development. Adaptive riding appeared to support longer durations of active participation with more complex forms when compared to adaptive gardening. Findings can inform healthcare providers' recommendations for adaptive gardening and adaptive riding for people with dementia. More research is needed with a larger sample size to further examine similarities and differences.

CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children: a randomised controlled feasibility Trial (CONTRACT).

OBJECTIVE: To establish the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared with appendicectomy in children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. DESIGN: Feasibility randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study to inform recruiter training to optimise recruitment and the design of a future definitive trial. SETTING: Three specialist paediatric surgery centres in the UK. PATIENTS: Children (aged 4-15 years) with a clinical diagnosis of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. INTERVENTIONS: Appendicectomy or a non-operative treatment pathway (comprising broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited. Secondary outcomes evaluated adherence to interventions, data collection during follow-up, safety of treatment pathways and clinical course. RESULTS: Fifty per cent of eligible participants (95% CI 40 to 59) approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. Repeated bespoke recruiter training was associated with an increase in recruitment rate over the course of the trial from 38% to 72%. There was high acceptance of randomisation, good patient and surgeon adherence to trial procedures and satisfactory completion of follow-up. Although more participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated, treatment pathways were found to be safe and adverse event profiles acceptable. CONCLUSION: Recruitment to a randomised controlled trial examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15830435.