Protocol for a systematic scoping review of reasons given to justify the performance of randomised controlled trials.

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed to generate the most reliable medical knowledge. However, RCTs are not always scientifically necessary and therefore not always ethical. Unfortunately, it is not clear when an RCT is not necessary or how this should be established. This study seeks to systematically catalogue justifications offered throughout the medical and ethics literature for performing randomisation within clinical trials.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search electronic databases of the medical literature including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov; databases of philosophical literature including Philosopher's Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE, National Reference Centre for Bioethics; the library catalogue at the University of Ottawa; bibliographies of retrieved papers; and the grey literature. We will also pursue suggestions from experts in the fields of medical ethics, philosophy and clinical trial methodology. Article screening, selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers based on prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will be consulted to resolve any discrepancies. We will then extract the reasons given to justify randomisation using methodology established to extract data in a defensible, systematic manner. We will track the reasons given, their frequency of use and changes over time. Finally, using grounded theory, we will combine the reasons into broader themes. These themes will form the foundation of our subsequent analysis from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. This review will map existing arguments that clinicians, ethicists and philosophers use to ethically justify randomisation in clinical trials.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics board approval is necessary because we are not examining patient-level data. This protocol complies with the reported guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. The findings of this paper will be disseminated via presentations and academic publication. In a subsequent phase of this research, we hope to engage with stakeholders and translate any recommendations derived from our findings into operational guidelines

Can patient decision aids help people make good decisions about participating in clinical trials? A study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence shows that the standard process for obtaining informed consent in clinical trials can be inadequate, with study participants frequently not understanding even basic information fundamental to giving informed consent. Patient decision aids are effective decision support tools originally designed to help patients make difficult treatment or screening decisions. We propose that incorporating decision aids into the informed consent process will improve the extent to which participants make decisions that are informed and consistent with their preferences. A mixed methods study will test this proposal.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Phase one of this project will involve assessment of a stratified random sample of 50 consent documents from recently completed investigator-initiated clinical trials, according to existing standards for supporting good decision making. Phase two will involve interviews of a purposive sample of 50 trial participants (10 participants from each of five different clinical areas) about their experience of the informed consent process, and how it could be improved. In phase three, we will convert consent forms for two completed clinical trials into decision aids and pilot test these new tools using a user-centered design approach, an iterative development process commonly employed in computer usability literature. In phase four, we will conduct a pilot observational study comparing the new tools to standard consent forms, with potential recruits to two hypothetical clinical trials. Outcomes will include knowledge of key aspects of the decision, knowledge of the probabilities of different outcomes, decisional conflict, the hypothetical participation decision, and qualitative impressions of the experience.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This work will provide initial evidence about whether a patient decision aid can improve the informed consent process. The larger goal of this work is to examine whether study recruitment can be improved from (barely) informed consent based on disclosure-oriented documents, towards a process of high-quality participant decision-making.</p

Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomized trials : review of random sample of published trials

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Ethical and policy issues in cluster randomized trials: rationale and design of a mixed methods research study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cluster randomized trials are an increasingly important methodological tool in health research. In cluster randomized trials, intact social units or groups of individuals, such as medical practices, schools, or entire communities – rather than individual themselves – are randomly allocated to intervention or control conditions, while outcomes are then observed on individual cluster members. The substantial methodological differences between cluster randomized trials and conventional randomized trials pose serious challenges to the current conceptual framework for research ethics. The ethical implications of randomizing groups rather than individuals are not addressed in current research ethics guidelines, nor have they even been thoroughly explored. The main objectives of this research are to: (1) identify ethical issues arising in cluster trials and learn how they are currently being addressed; (2) understand how ethics reviews of cluster trials are carried out in different countries (Canada, the USA and the UK); (3) elicit the views and experiences of trial participants and cluster representatives; (4) develop well-grounded guidelines for the ethical conduct and review of cluster trials by conducting an extensive ethical analysis and organizing a consensus process; (5) disseminate the guidelines to researchers, research ethics boards (REBs), journal editors, and research funders.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We will use a mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) approach incorporating both empirical and conceptual work. Empirical work will include a systematic review of a random sample of published trials, a survey and in-depth interviews with trialists, a survey of REBs, and in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with trial participants and gatekeepers. The empirical work will inform the concurrent ethical analysis which will lead to a guidance document laying out principles, policy options, and rationale for proposed guidelines. An Expert Panel of researchers, ethicists, health lawyers, consumer advocates, REB members, and representatives from low-middle income countries will be appointed. A consensus conference will be convened and draft guidelines will be generated by the Panel; an e-consultation phase will then be launched to invite comments from the broader community of researchers, policy-makers, and the public before a final set of guidelines is generated by the Panel and widely disseminated by the research team.</p

Patient, informal caregiver and care provider acceptance of a hospital in the home program in Ontario, Canada

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hospital in the home programs have been implemented in several countries and have been shown to be safe substitutions (alternatives) to in-patient hospitalization. These programs may offer a solution to the increasing demands made on tertiary care facilities and to surge capacity. We investigated the acceptance of this type of care provision with nurse practitioners as the designated principal home care providers in a family medicine program in a large Canadian urban setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients requiring hospitalization to the family medicine service ward, for any diagnosis, who met selection criteria, were invited to enter the hospital in the home program as an alternative to admission. Participants in the hospital in the home program, their caregivers, and the physicians responsible for their care were surveyed about their perceptions of the program. Nurse practitioners, who provided care, were surveyed and interviewed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ten percent (104) of admissions to the ward were screened, and 37 patients participated in 44 home hospital admissions. Twenty nine patient, 17 caregiver and 38 provider surveys were completed. Most patients (88%–100%) and caregivers (92%–100%) reported high satisfaction levels with various aspects of health service delivery. However, a significant proportion in both groups stated that they would select to be treated in-hospital should the need arise again. This was usually due to fears about the safety of the program. Physicians (98%–100%) and nurse practitioners also rated the program highly. The program had virtually no negative impact on the physician workload. However nurse practitioners felt that the program did not utilize their full expertise.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Provision of hospital level care in the home is well received by patients, their caregivers and health care providers. As a new program, investment in patient education about program safety may be necessary to ensure its long term success. A small proportion of hospital admissions were screened for this program. Appropriate dissemination of program information to family physicians should help buy-in and participation. Nurse practitioners' skills may not be optimally utilized in this setting.</p

Does clinical equipoise apply to cluster randomized trials in health research?

This article is part of a series of papers examining ethical issues in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) in health research. In the introductory paper in this series, Weijer and colleagues set out six areas of inquiry that must be addressed if the cluster trial is to be set on a firm ethical foundation. This paper addresses the third of the questions posed, namely, does clinical equipoise apply to CRTs in health research? The ethical principle of beneficence is the moral obligation not to harm needlessly and, when possible, to promote the welfare of research subjects. Two related ethical problems have been discussed in the CRT literature. First, are control groups that receive only usual care unduly disadvantaged? Second, when accumulating data suggests the superiority of one intervention in a trial, is there an ethical obligation to act