为什么常识试验在英国失败了?从测试社区预防跌倒规划的有效性和成本效益的试验(Firefli研究)中获得的经验教训。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Trials Pub Date : 2025-09-26 DOI:10.1186/s13063-025-09116-x
Joy Adamson, Arabella Scantlebury, Avril Drummond, Caroline Fairhurst, Sarah Cockayne
{"title":"为什么常识试验在英国失败了?从测试社区预防跌倒规划的有效性和成本效益的试验(Firefli研究)中获得的经验教训。","authors":"Joy Adamson, Arabella Scantlebury, Avril Drummond, Caroline Fairhurst, Sarah Cockayne","doi":"10.1186/s13063-025-09116-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Firefli study was funded from a commissioned call to conduct a individually randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Home Fire Safety Visits (also known as Safe and Well Visits) in their ability to reduce falls and improve quality of life in older adults living in the community. These visits are routinely carried out by fire and rescue services in England and aim to reduce risk of fire, support independent living and improve quality of life. In this paper, we reflect on our experience of attempting to deliver a definitive trial within the fire service, with the aim of informing future commissioning and methodological practice for non-National Health Service hosted trials in the UK.</p><p><strong>Lesson learned: </strong>It proved impossible to conduct the trial as planned in the current research landscape, randomising only 63 participants from a target of 1156. Whilst there were challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, it was key issues pertaining to current regulatory requirements, the acquisition of data and lack of research culture and infrastructure with the fire service which were fundamental barriers to successful research delivery. Specifically, these barriers meant it was not feasible to implement the trial as designed to reflect actual service delivery. The adapted trial design had very low recruitment and resulted in differences between the target population and the trial population.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Conducting trials outside of health is extremely challenging in the UK. We recommend an urgent review of research governance processes which are primarily designed for health-related research in the National Health Service and are not fit for purpose when conducting research within other sectors. Many of the challenges identified are not exclusive to delivering trials in the fire service and have wider implications as the scope for evidence-based practice expands outside of health.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04717258.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"26 1","pages":"365"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12465928/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why do common sense trials fail in the UK? Lessons learned from a trial which tested the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a community falls prevention programme (the Firefli study).\",\"authors\":\"Joy Adamson, Arabella Scantlebury, Avril Drummond, Caroline Fairhurst, Sarah Cockayne\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13063-025-09116-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Firefli study was funded from a commissioned call to conduct a individually randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Home Fire Safety Visits (also known as Safe and Well Visits) in their ability to reduce falls and improve quality of life in older adults living in the community. These visits are routinely carried out by fire and rescue services in England and aim to reduce risk of fire, support independent living and improve quality of life. In this paper, we reflect on our experience of attempting to deliver a definitive trial within the fire service, with the aim of informing future commissioning and methodological practice for non-National Health Service hosted trials in the UK.</p><p><strong>Lesson learned: </strong>It proved impossible to conduct the trial as planned in the current research landscape, randomising only 63 participants from a target of 1156. Whilst there were challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, it was key issues pertaining to current regulatory requirements, the acquisition of data and lack of research culture and infrastructure with the fire service which were fundamental barriers to successful research delivery. Specifically, these barriers meant it was not feasible to implement the trial as designed to reflect actual service delivery. The adapted trial design had very low recruitment and resulted in differences between the target population and the trial population.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Conducting trials outside of health is extremely challenging in the UK. We recommend an urgent review of research governance processes which are primarily designed for health-related research in the National Health Service and are not fit for purpose when conducting research within other sectors. Many of the challenges identified are not exclusive to delivering trials in the fire service and have wider implications as the scope for evidence-based practice expands outside of health.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04717258.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trials\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"365\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12465928/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-09116-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-09116-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:Firefli研究是由委托进行的一项单独随机对照试验资助的,该试验旨在评估家庭消防安全访问(也称为安全和健康访问)在减少跌倒和改善社区老年人生活质量方面的有效性和成本效益。这些访问是由英格兰的消防和救援服务部门例行进行的,目的是减少火灾风险,支持独立生活和提高生活质量。在本文中,我们反思了我们试图在消防服务中进行最终试验的经验,目的是为英国非国家卫生服务机构主持的试验提供未来的调试和方法实践。经验教训:在目前的研究环境下,不可能按计划进行试验,从1156名目标受试者中只随机抽取了63名参与者。虽然存在与COVID-19大流行相关的挑战,但与当前监管要求、数据获取以及缺乏研究文化和消防服务基础设施有关的关键问题是成功提供研究的根本障碍。具体地说,这些障碍意味着按照设计反映实际服务提供情况的方式实施试验是不可行的。适应试验设计的招募率非常低,导致目标人群和试验人群之间存在差异。结论:在英国开展健康之外的试验极具挑战性。我们建议紧急审查研究治理程序,这些程序主要是为国家卫生服务体系中与健康相关的研究而设计的,并不适合在其他部门进行研究。所确定的许多挑战并不仅限于在消防部门进行试验,而且随着循证实践的范围扩展到卫生以外,它们具有更广泛的影响。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04717258。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why do common sense trials fail in the UK? Lessons learned from a trial which tested the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a community falls prevention programme (the Firefli study).

Background: The Firefli study was funded from a commissioned call to conduct a individually randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Home Fire Safety Visits (also known as Safe and Well Visits) in their ability to reduce falls and improve quality of life in older adults living in the community. These visits are routinely carried out by fire and rescue services in England and aim to reduce risk of fire, support independent living and improve quality of life. In this paper, we reflect on our experience of attempting to deliver a definitive trial within the fire service, with the aim of informing future commissioning and methodological practice for non-National Health Service hosted trials in the UK.

Lesson learned: It proved impossible to conduct the trial as planned in the current research landscape, randomising only 63 participants from a target of 1156. Whilst there were challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, it was key issues pertaining to current regulatory requirements, the acquisition of data and lack of research culture and infrastructure with the fire service which were fundamental barriers to successful research delivery. Specifically, these barriers meant it was not feasible to implement the trial as designed to reflect actual service delivery. The adapted trial design had very low recruitment and resulted in differences between the target population and the trial population.

Conclusions: Conducting trials outside of health is extremely challenging in the UK. We recommend an urgent review of research governance processes which are primarily designed for health-related research in the National Health Service and are not fit for purpose when conducting research within other sectors. Many of the challenges identified are not exclusive to delivering trials in the fire service and have wider implications as the scope for evidence-based practice expands outside of health.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04717258.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信