Ethical issues in implementation research: a discussion of the problems in achieving informed consent

Background: Improved quality of care is a policy objective of health care systems around the world. Implementation research is the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of clinical research findings into routine clinical practice, and hence to reduce inappropriate care. It includes the study of influences on healthcare professionals' behaviour and methods to enable them to use research findings more effectively. Cluster randomized trials represent the optimal design for evaluating the effectiveness of implementation strategies. Various codes of medical ethics, such as the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki inform medical research, but their relevance to cluster randomised trials in implementation research is unclear. This paper discusses the applicability of various ethical codes to obtaining consent in cluster trials in implementation research. Discussion: The appropriate application of biomedical codes to implementation research is not obvious. Discussion of the nature and practice of informed consent in implementation research cluster trials must consider the levels at which consent can be sought, and for what purpose it can be sought. The level at which an intervention is delivered can render the idea of patient level consent meaningless. Careful consideration of the ownership of information, and rights of access to and exploitation of data is required. For health care professionals and organizations, there is a balance between clinical freedom and responsibility to participate in research. Summary: While ethical justification for clinical trials relies heavily on individual consent, for implementation research aspects of distributive justice, economics, and political philosophy underlie the debate. Societies may need to trade off decisions on the choice between individualized consent and valid implementation research. We suggest that social sciences codes could usefully inform the consideration of implementation research by members of Research Ethics Committees

A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors for foot ulceration in people with diabetes: the international research collaboration for the prediction of diabetic foot ulcerations (PODUS)

Background: Annual foot risk assessment of people with diabetes is recommended in national and international clinical guidelines. At present, these are consensus based and use only a proportion of the available evidence. Objectives: We undertook a systematic review of individual patient data (IPD) to identify the most highly prognostic factors for foot ulceration (i.e. symptoms, signs, diagnostic tests) in people with diabetes. Data sources: Studies were identified from searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Review methods: The electronic search strategies for MEDLINE and EMBASE databases created during an aggregate systematic review of predictive factors for foot ulceration in diabetes were updated and rerun to January 2013. One reviewer applied the IPD review eligibility criteria to the full-text articles of the studies identified in our literature search and also to all studies excluded from our aggregate systematic review to ensure that we did not miss eligible IPD. A second reviewer applied the eligibility criteria to a 10% random sample of the abstract search yield to check that no relevant material was missed. This review includes exposure variables (risk factors) only from individuals who were free of foot ulceration at the time of study entry and who had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (either type 1 or type 2). The outcome variable was incident ulceration. Results: Our search identified 16 cohort studies and we obtained anonymised IPD for 10. These data were collected from more than 16,000 people with diabetes worldwide and reanalysed by us. One data set was kept for independent validation. The data sets contributing IPD covered a range of temporal, geographical and clinical settings. We therefore selected random-effects meta-analysis, which assumes not that all the estimates from each study are estimates of the same underlying true value, but rather that the estimates belong to the same distribution. We selected candidate variables for meta-analysis using specific criteria. After univariate meta-analyses, the most clinically important predictors were identified by an international steering committee for inclusion in the primary, multivariable meta-analysis. Age, sex, duration of diabetes, monofilaments and pulses were considered most prognostically important. Meta-analyses based on data from the entire IPD population found that an inability to feel a 10-g monofilament [odds ratio (OR) 3.184, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.654 to 3.82], at least one absent pedal pulse (OR 1.968, 95% CI 1.624 to 2.386), a longer duration of a diagnosis of diabetes (OR 1.024, 95% CI 1.011 to 1.036) and a previous history of ulceration (OR 6.589, 95% CI 2.488 to 17.45) were all predictive of risk. Female sex was protective (OR 0.743, 95% CI 0.598 to 0.922). Limitations: It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis using a one-step approach because we were unable to procure copies of one of the data sets and instead accessed data via Safe Haven. Conclusions: The findings from this review identify risk assessment procedures that can reliably inform national and international diabetes clinical guideline foot risk assessment procedures. The evidence from a large sample of patients in worldwide settings show that the use of a 10-g monofilament or one absent pedal pulse will identify those at moderate or intermediate risk of foot ulceration, and a history of foot ulcers or lower-extremity amputation is sufficient to identify those at high risk. We propose the development of a clinical prediction rule (CPR) from our existing model using the following predictor variables: insensitivity to a 10-g monofilament, absent pedal pulses and a history of ulceration or lower-extremities amputations. This CPR could replace the many tests, signs and symptoms that patients currently have measured using equipment that is either costly or difficult to use. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001841. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

A multicentre, randomised, parallel group, superiority study to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of external frame versus internal locking plate for complete articular pilon fracture fixation in adults: protocol for the ACTIVE randomised controlled trial

Aims A pilon fracture is a severe ankle joint injury caused by high-energy trauma, typically affecting men of working age. Although relatively uncommon (5-7% of all tibial fractures), this injury causes amongst the worst functional and health outcomes of any skeletal injury, with a high risk of serious complications and long-term disability, and with devastating consequences on patients’ quality of life and financial prospects. Robust evidence to guide treatment is currently lacking. This study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two surgical interventions that are most commonly used to treat pilon fractures. Methods A randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 334 adult patients diagnosed with a closed type C pilon fracture will be conducted. Internal locking plate fixation will be compared with external frame fixation. The primary outcome and endpoint will be the Disability Rating Index (a patient selfreported assessment of physical disability) at 12 months. This will also be measured at baseline, 3, 6 and 24 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), the EQ-5D-5L score, complications (including bone healing), resource use, work impact and patient treatment preference. The acceptability of the treatments and study design to patients and health care professionals will be explored through qualitative methods. Discussion The two treatments being compared are the most commonly used for this injury, however there is uncertainty over which is most clinically and cost-effective. ACTIVE is a sufficiently powered and rigorously designed study to inform clinical decisions for the treatment of adults with this injury. Clinical relevance of the paper Recent reviews of the literature and NICE treatment guidance have identified the need for robust RCTs to assess whether internal or external fixation is better for management of pilon fractures. The outcome of this study will directly influence clinical decision-making and health policy by informing international and United Kingdom national guidance, improve outcomes for patients and reduce the financial burden associated with the injury. A systematic review by NICE identified no economic evaluations, which this study is addressing