IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0343981.html

Methodological review of the design, objectives and sample size of Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) applications that use an external randomised controlled pilot trial design: A protocol

Author

Listed:
  • Claire L Chan
  • Saskia Eddy
  • Jennie Hejdenberg
  • Ben Morgan
  • Heather M Morgan
  • Gillian Lancaster
  • Clare Robinson
  • Sandra M Eldridge

Abstract

Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Research accepts applications for pilot and feasibility studies to their Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) programme. There has been limited work describing the design practices of these applications and funding status. Knowing some of the qualities which may contribute towards a pilot or feasibility study application successfully gaining funding could help researchers improve the quality of their applications. Therefore, this study describes the protocol for a review looking at the characteristics of funded and non-funded external pilot trial applications. In particular, the primary objective is to describe the planned sample size and sample size justifications. Methods: The study will be conducted on 100 applications from Competition 31–37 with a randomised feasibility design, identified and given access to us by RfPB where the lead applicant has consented. We will screen these applications to identify the external pilot trials, first looking through the titles and then the full text. Following this, we will extract data on information such as medical area, study design, objective(s), sample size, sample size justification, and funding outcome stage one and two. Validation will be performed on 20% of the data extracted; discrepancies will be resolved by discussion or a third reviewer will decide if there is no consensus. We will use descriptive statistics to summarise quantitative data, and will analyse qualitative data using thematic analysis. Findings will be summarised through discussion with the project contributors to produce a reader-friendly guidance document. Discussion: This work will provide a more complete picture of RfPB external randomised pilot and feasibility trials. The findings will assist researchers when planning their pilot trials, and could help improve the quality of submitted applications. Protocol Registration: Open Science Framework protocol registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PYKVG.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire L Chan & Saskia Eddy & Jennie Hejdenberg & Ben Morgan & Heather M Morgan & Gillian Lancaster & Clare Robinson & Sandra M Eldridge, 2026. "Methodological review of the design, objectives and sample size of Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) applications that use an external randomised controlled pilot trial design: A protocol," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(3), pages 1-11, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0343981
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0343981
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0343981
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0343981&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0343981?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0343981. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.