Chronic rhinosinusitis: a qualitative study of patient and clinician experiences of the MACRO randomised controlled trial of surgical versus medical management

TL;DR

This study explores how patients and doctors experienced a trial comparing surgery and medicine for chronic sinusitis, highlighting challenges in adopting surgery as a treatment option.

Contribution

The study provides insights into patient and clinician perspectives on implementing trial results showing surgery's effectiveness for chronic rhinosinusitis.

Findings

Patients had mixed views on endoscopic sinus surgery, with some fearing complications and others reporting rapid symptom improvement.

Clinicians noted resource challenges in offering surgery to more patients and emphasized the need for informed decision-making support.

Clear communication and tailored post-surgical care are essential for successful implementation of trial findings.

Abstract

To explore patient and clinician experiences of participation in the MACRO randomised controlled trial (RCT)—which found endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) to be clinically effective whereas clarithromycin was no better than placebo for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS)—and to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the trial results.

Qualitative study embedded within the multicentre MACRO RCT. Semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians were analysed using thematic analysis.

21 secondary and tertiary ear, nose and throat centres in England and Scotland participating in the MACRO RCT.

20 CRS patients (16 with nasal polyps, 4 without) were interviewed approximately 6 months after trial completion, and 17 clinical staff including principal investigators (PIs), associate PIs and research nurses.

This study explored patients’ and clinicians’ experiences of the trial to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing the findings. Adopting the outcomes of the trial would involve recommending surgery to more patients with CRS. Yet patient and clinician interviews highlighted polarised views on ESS among patients, between those with positive experiences and expectations of ESS and those expressing fear of complications and hesitancy to receive surgery. During the trial, many participants randomised to surgery reported rapid improvement in symptoms, but with postoperative challenges for some patients including pain, unexpected symptoms and variations in recovery period. Priorities for implementation include providing patients with information about risks and support to make informed choices. Clinicians also reflected on the resource implications for offering ESS to more patients.

ESS is effective for CRS, but patient hesitancy and recovery concerns persist. Implementation requires clear communication, recognition and respect for individual preferences, tailored support for decision-making and post-surgical care to optimise acceptance and outcomes.

ISRCTN36962030.