Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Contamination in trials of educational interventions

By M.R. Keogh-Brown, M.O. Bachmann, L. Shepstone, C. Hewitt, A. Howe, F Song, J.N.V. Miles, D.J. Torgerson, S. Miles, Diana R. Elbourne, I. Harvey, M.J. Campbell and Craig R Ramsay

Abstract

Objectives: To consider the effects of contamination on the magnitude and statistical significance (or precision) of the estimated effect of an educational intervention, to investigate the mechanisms of contamination, and to consider how contamination can be avoided. Data sources: Major electronic databases were searched up to May 2005. Methods: An exploratory literature search was conducted. The results of trials included in previous relevant systematic reviews were then analysed to see whether studies that avoided contamination resulted in larger effect estimates than those that did not. Experts’ opinions were elicited about factors more or less likely to lead to contamination. We simulated contamination processes to compare contamination biases between cluster and individually randomised trials. Statistical adjustment was made for contamination using Complier Average Causal Effect analytic methods, using published and simulated data. The bias and power of cluster and individually randomised trials were compared, as were Complier Average Causal Effect, intention-to-treat and per protocol methods of analysis. Results: Few relevant studies quantified contamination. Experts largely agreed on where contamination was more or less likely. Simulation of contamination processes showed that, with various combinations of timing, intensity and baseline dependence of contamination, cluster randomised trials might produce biases greater than or similar to those of individually randomised trials. Complier Average Causal Effect analyses produced results that were less biased than intention-to-treat or per protocol analyses. They also showed that individually randomised trials would in most situations be more powerful than cluster randomised trials despite contamination. Conclusions: The probability, nature and process of contamination should be considered when designing and analysing controlled trials of educational interventions in health. Cluster randomisation may or may not be appropriate and should not be uncritically assumed always to be a solution. Complier Average Causal Effect models are an appropriate way to adjust for contamination if it can be measured. When conducting such trials in future, it is a priority to report the extent, nature and effects of contamination.We are grateful to the National Health Service Research and Development National Coordinating Centre for Research Methodology for funding this research

Topics: Clinical Trials, Contamination, Medical Education, Statistical Analysis
Publisher: Gray Publishing
Year: 2007
OAI identifier: oai:aura.abdn.ac.uk:2164/184
Journal:
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://hdl.handle.net/2164/184 (external link)
  • http://www.ncchta.org/fullmono... (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    Citations

    1. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. doi
    2. (1997). Bayesian inference for causal effects in randomized experiments with noncompliance. doi
    3. (1997). Cluster versus individual randomization in adolescent tobacco and alcohol studies: illustrations for design decisions. doi
    4. (1991). Compliance as an explanatory variable in clinical trials. doi
    5. (2007). Diffusion effects: control group contamination threats to the validity of teacher-administered interventions. J Educ Psychol 2001;93:639–45. Health Technology Assessment doi
    6. Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly reduce mortality? Analysis using instrumental variables. doi
    7. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. doi
    8. (1997). Estimating outcome distributions for compliers in instrumental variables models. Rev Econ Stud doi
    9. (2005). Estimating treatment effects from randomized clinical trials with noncompliance and loss to follow-up: the role of instrumental variable methods. Stat Methods Med Res doi
    10. (1988). Explanatory and pragmatic estimates of the treatment effect when deviations from allocated treatment occur. Stat Med doi
    11. Food elimination based on IgG antibodies in irritable bowel syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. doi
    12. (1987). Influence of participation on mortality in a randomized trial of vitamin-A prophylaxis.
    13. (2001). Modeling of intervention effects with noncompliance: a latent variable modeling approach for randomized trials.
    14. (2004). Randomized controlled trial of hip protectors among women living in the community. Osteoporos Int doi
    15. (1989). Simultaneous-equation estimation in a clinical trial of the effect of smoking on birth-weight. Biometrics doi
    16. (1998). Statistical techniques for analyzing data from prevention trials: treatment of no-shows using Rubin’s causal model. Psychol Methods doi
    17. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. doi
    18. (1991). Tsiatis AA. Correcting for noncompliance in randomized trials using rank preserving structural failure time models. Commun Stat Theory Methods doi
    19. (1992). Tsiatis AA. Semiparametric estimation of an accelerated failure time model with timedependent covariates. doi

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.