Carl A Thompson, Thomas Willis, Amanda Farrin, Adam Gordon, Amrit Dafu-O'Reilly, Catherine Noakes, Kishwer Khaliq, Andrew Kemp, Tom Hall, Chris Bojke, Karen Spilsbury
{"title":"CONTACT:在 COVID-19 大流行期间在英国护理院开展的一项关于蓝牙可穿戴设备用于接触追踪的非随机可行性研究。","authors":"Carl A Thompson, Thomas Willis, Amanda Farrin, Adam Gordon, Amrit Dafu-O'Reilly, Catherine Noakes, Kishwer Khaliq, Andrew Kemp, Tom Hall, Chris Bojke, Karen Spilsbury","doi":"10.1186/s40814-024-01549-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The need for effective non-pharmaceutical infection prevention measures such as contact tracing in pandemics remains in care homes, but traditional approaches to contact tracing are not feasible in care homes. The CONTACT intervention introduces Bluetooth-enabled wearable devices (BLE wearables) as a potential solution for automated contact tracing. Using structured reports and reports triggered by positive COVID-19 cases in homes, we fed contact patterns and trends back to homes to support better-informed infection prevention decisions and reduce blanket application of restrictive measures. This paper reports on the evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention prior to a planned definitive cluster randomised trial of the CONTACT BLE wearable intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CONTACT was a non-randomised mixed-method feasibility study over 2 months in four English care homes. Recruitment was via care home research networks, with individual consent. Data collection methods included routine data from the devices, case report forms, qualitative interviews (with staff and residents), field observation of care, and an adapted version of the NoMaD survey instrument to explore implementation using Normalisation Process Theory. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistical methods. Qualitative data were thematically analysed using a framework approach and Normalisation Process Theory. Intervention and study delivery were evaluated against predefined progression criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 156 eligible residents, 105 agreed to wear a device, with 102 (97%) starting the intervention. Of 225 eligible staff, 82% (n = 178) participated. Device loss and damage were significant: 11% of resident devices were lost or damaged, ~ 50% were replaced. Staff lost fewer devices, just 6%, but less than 10% were replaced. Fob wearables needed more battery changes than card-type devices (15% vs. 0%). Structured and reactive feedback was variably understood by homes but unlikely to be acted on. Researcher support for interpreting reports was valued. Homes found information useful when it confirmed rather than challenged preconceived contact patterns. Staff privacy concerns were a barrier to adoption. Study procedures added to existing work, making participation burdensome. Study participation benefits did not outweigh perceived burden and were amplified by the pandemic context. CONTACT did not meet its quantitative or qualitative progression criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CONTACT found a large-scale definitive trial of BLE wearables for contact tracing and feedback-informed IPC in care homes unfeasible and unacceptable - at least in the context of shifting COVID-19 pandemic demands. Future research should co-design interventions and studies with care homes, focusing on successful intervention implementation as well as technical effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ISRCTN registration: 11204126 registered 17/02/2021.</p>","PeriodicalId":20176,"journal":{"name":"Pilot and Feasibility Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":"125"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11445870/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CONTACT: a non-randomised feasibility study of bluetooth-enabled wearables for contact tracing in UK care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic.\",\"authors\":\"Carl A Thompson, Thomas Willis, Amanda Farrin, Adam Gordon, Amrit Dafu-O'Reilly, Catherine Noakes, Kishwer Khaliq, Andrew Kemp, Tom Hall, Chris Bojke, Karen Spilsbury\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40814-024-01549-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The need for effective non-pharmaceutical infection prevention measures such as contact tracing in pandemics remains in care homes, but traditional approaches to contact tracing are not feasible in care homes. The CONTACT intervention introduces Bluetooth-enabled wearable devices (BLE wearables) as a potential solution for automated contact tracing. Using structured reports and reports triggered by positive COVID-19 cases in homes, we fed contact patterns and trends back to homes to support better-informed infection prevention decisions and reduce blanket application of restrictive measures. This paper reports on the evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention prior to a planned definitive cluster randomised trial of the CONTACT BLE wearable intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CONTACT was a non-randomised mixed-method feasibility study over 2 months in four English care homes. Recruitment was via care home research networks, with individual consent. Data collection methods included routine data from the devices, case report forms, qualitative interviews (with staff and residents), field observation of care, and an adapted version of the NoMaD survey instrument to explore implementation using Normalisation Process Theory. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistical methods. Qualitative data were thematically analysed using a framework approach and Normalisation Process Theory. Intervention and study delivery were evaluated against predefined progression criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 156 eligible residents, 105 agreed to wear a device, with 102 (97%) starting the intervention. Of 225 eligible staff, 82% (n = 178) participated. Device loss and damage were significant: 11% of resident devices were lost or damaged, ~ 50% were replaced. Staff lost fewer devices, just 6%, but less than 10% were replaced. Fob wearables needed more battery changes than card-type devices (15% vs. 0%). Structured and reactive feedback was variably understood by homes but unlikely to be acted on. Researcher support for interpreting reports was valued. Homes found information useful when it confirmed rather than challenged preconceived contact patterns. Staff privacy concerns were a barrier to adoption. Study procedures added to existing work, making participation burdensome. Study participation benefits did not outweigh perceived burden and were amplified by the pandemic context. CONTACT did not meet its quantitative or qualitative progression criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CONTACT found a large-scale definitive trial of BLE wearables for contact tracing and feedback-informed IPC in care homes unfeasible and unacceptable - at least in the context of shifting COVID-19 pandemic demands. Future research should co-design interventions and studies with care homes, focusing on successful intervention implementation as well as technical effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ISRCTN registration: 11204126 registered 17/02/2021.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pilot and Feasibility Studies\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"125\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11445870/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pilot and Feasibility Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-024-01549-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pilot and Feasibility Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-024-01549-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
CONTACT: a non-randomised feasibility study of bluetooth-enabled wearables for contact tracing in UK care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Background: The need for effective non-pharmaceutical infection prevention measures such as contact tracing in pandemics remains in care homes, but traditional approaches to contact tracing are not feasible in care homes. The CONTACT intervention introduces Bluetooth-enabled wearable devices (BLE wearables) as a potential solution for automated contact tracing. Using structured reports and reports triggered by positive COVID-19 cases in homes, we fed contact patterns and trends back to homes to support better-informed infection prevention decisions and reduce blanket application of restrictive measures. This paper reports on the evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention prior to a planned definitive cluster randomised trial of the CONTACT BLE wearable intervention.
Methods: CONTACT was a non-randomised mixed-method feasibility study over 2 months in four English care homes. Recruitment was via care home research networks, with individual consent. Data collection methods included routine data from the devices, case report forms, qualitative interviews (with staff and residents), field observation of care, and an adapted version of the NoMaD survey instrument to explore implementation using Normalisation Process Theory. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistical methods. Qualitative data were thematically analysed using a framework approach and Normalisation Process Theory. Intervention and study delivery were evaluated against predefined progression criteria.
Results: Of 156 eligible residents, 105 agreed to wear a device, with 102 (97%) starting the intervention. Of 225 eligible staff, 82% (n = 178) participated. Device loss and damage were significant: 11% of resident devices were lost or damaged, ~ 50% were replaced. Staff lost fewer devices, just 6%, but less than 10% were replaced. Fob wearables needed more battery changes than card-type devices (15% vs. 0%). Structured and reactive feedback was variably understood by homes but unlikely to be acted on. Researcher support for interpreting reports was valued. Homes found information useful when it confirmed rather than challenged preconceived contact patterns. Staff privacy concerns were a barrier to adoption. Study procedures added to existing work, making participation burdensome. Study participation benefits did not outweigh perceived burden and were amplified by the pandemic context. CONTACT did not meet its quantitative or qualitative progression criteria.
Conclusion: CONTACT found a large-scale definitive trial of BLE wearables for contact tracing and feedback-informed IPC in care homes unfeasible and unacceptable - at least in the context of shifting COVID-19 pandemic demands. Future research should co-design interventions and studies with care homes, focusing on successful intervention implementation as well as technical effectiveness.
期刊介绍:
Pilot and Feasibility Studies encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of pilot and feasibility studies in biomedicine. The journal publishes research articles that are intended to directly influence future clinical trials or large scale observational studies, as well as protocols, commentaries and methodology articles. The journal also ensures that the results of all well-conducted, peer-reviewed, pilot and feasibility studies are published, regardless of outcome or significance of findings. Pilot and feasibility studies are increasingly conducted prior to a full randomized controlled trial. However, these studies often lack clear objectives, many remain unpublished, and there is confusion over the meanings of the words “pilot” and “feasibility”. Pilot and Feasibility Studies provides a forum for discussion around this key aspect of the scientific process, and seeks to ensure that these studies are published, so as to complete the publication thread for clinical research.