Misrepresenting "Usual Care" in Research: An Ethical and Scientific Error

Defining usual care comparators when designing pragmatic trials of complex health interventions: a methodology review

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic trials evaluating complex health interventions often compare them to usual care. This comparator should resemble care as provided in everyday practice. However, usual care can differ for the same condition, between patients and practitioners, across clinical sites and over time. Heterogeneity within a usual care arm can raise methodological and ethical issues. To address these it may be necessary to standardise what usual care entails, although doing so may compromise a trial's external validity. Currently, there is no guidance detailing how researchers should decide the content of their usual care comparators. We conducted a methodology review to summarise current thinking about what should inform this decision.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2022. Articles and book chapters that discussed how to identify or develop usual care comparators were included. Experts in the field were also contacted. Reference lists and forward citation searches of included articles were screened. Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach.

RESULTS

One thousand nine hundred thirty records were identified, 1611 titles and abstracts screened, 112 full texts screened, and 16 articles included in the review. Results indicated that the content of a usual care comparator should be informed by the aims of the trial, existing care practices, clinical guidelines, and characteristics of the target population. Its content should also be driven by the trial's requirements to protect participants, inform practice, and be methodologically robust, efficient, feasible and acceptable to stakeholders. When deciding the content of usual care, researchers will need to gather information about these drivers, balance tensions that might occur when responding to different trial objectives, and decide how usual care will be described and monitored in the trial.

DISCUSSION

When deciding the content of a usual care arm, researchers need to understand the context in which a trial will be implemented and what the trial needs to achieve to address its aim and remain ethical. This is a complex decision-making process and trade-offs might need to be made. It also requires research and engagement with stakeholders, and therefore time and funding during the trial's design phase.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022307324.

Controls, comparator arms, and designs for critical care comparative effectiveness research: It's complicated

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness research is meant to determine which commonly employed medical interventions are most beneficial, least harmful, and/or most costly in a real-world setting. While the objectives for comparative effectiveness research are clear, the field has failed to develop either a uniform definition of comparative effectiveness research or an appropriate set of recommendations to provide standards for the design of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials, spurring controversy in recent years. The insertion of non-representative control and/or comparator arm subjects into critical care comparative effectiveness research trials can threaten trial subjects' safety. Nonetheless, the broader scientific community does not always appreciate the importance of defining and maintaining critical care practices during a trial, especially when vulnerable, critically ill populations are studied. Consequently, critical care comparative effectiveness research trials sometimes lack properly constructed control or active comparator arms altogether and/or suffer from the inclusion of "unusual critical care" that may adversely affect groups enrolled in one or more arms. This oversight has led to critical care comparative effectiveness research trial designs that impair informed consent, confound interpretation of trial results, and increase the risk of harm for trial participants.

METHODS/EXAMPLES

We propose a novel approach to performing critical care comparative effectiveness research trials that mandates the documentation of critical care practices prior to trial initiation. We also classify the most common types of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials, as well as the most frequent errors in trial design. We present examples of these design flaws drawn from past and recently published trials as well as examples of trials that avoided those errors. Finally, we summarize strategies employed successfully in well-designed trials, in hopes of suggesting a comprehensive standard for the field.

CONCLUSION

Flawed critical care comparative effectiveness research trial designs can lead to unsound trial conclusions, compromise informed consent, and increase risks to research subjects, undermining the major goal of comparative effectiveness research: to inform current practice. Well-constructed control and comparator arms comprise indispensable elements of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials, key to improving the trials' safety and to generating trial results likely to improve patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Modeling current practices in critical care comparative effectiveness research

Objective: To determine whether contemporaneous practices are adequately represented in recent critical care comparative effectiveness research studies. Design: All critical care comparative effectiveness research trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine from April 2019 to March 2020 were identified. To examine studies published in other high impact medical journals during the same period, such trials were subsequently also identified in the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet. All cited sources were reviewed, and the medical literature was searched to find studies describing contemporary practices. Then, the designated control group or the comparable therapies studied were examined to determine if they represented contemporaneous critical care practices as described in the medical literature. Results: Twenty-five of 332 randomised clinical trials published in these three journals during this 1-year period described critical care comparative effectiveness research that met our inclusion criteria. Seventeen characterised current practices before enrolment (using surveys, observational studies and guidelines) and then incorporated current practices into one or more study arm. In the other eight, usual care arms appeared insufficient. Four of these trials randomly assigned patients to one of two fixed approaches at either end of a range of usually titrated care. However, due to randomisation, different subgroups within each arm received care that was inappropriate for their specific clinical conditions. In the other four of these trials, common practices influencing treatment choice were not reflected in the trial design, despite a prior effort to characterise usual care. Conclusion: One-third of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials published in widely read medical journals during a recent year did not include a designated control arm or comparable therapies representative of contemporary practices. Failure to incorporate contemporary practices into critical care comparative effectiveness trials appears to be a widespread design weakness.

Protecting the mental and physical well-being of frontline health care workers during COVID-19: Study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed health care workers at unprecedented risk of stress, burnout, and moral injury. This paper describes the design of an ongoing cluster randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of Stress First Aid (SFA) to Usual Care (UC) in protecting the well-being of frontline health care workers.

Methods

We plan to recruit a diverse set of hospitals and health centers (eight matched pairs of hospitals and six pairs of centers), with a goal of approximately 50 HCW per health center and 170 per hospital. Participating sites in each pair are randomly assigned to SFA or UC (i.e., whatever psychosocial support is currently being received by HCW). Each site identified a leader to provide organizational support of the study; SFA sites also identified at least one champion to be trained in the intervention. Using a “train the trainer” model, champions in turn trained their peers in selected HCW teams or units to implement SFA over an eight-week period. We surveyed HCW before and after the implementation period. The primary outcomes are posttraumatic stress disorder and general psychological distress; secondary outcomes include depression and anxiety symptoms, sleep problems, social functioning problems, burnout, moral distress, and resilience. In addition, through in-depth qualitative interviews with leaders, champions, and HCW, we assessed the implementation of SFA, including acceptability, feasibility, and uptake.

Discussion

Results from this study will provide initial evidence for the application of SFA to support HCW well-being during a pandemic.

Trial registration: (Clinicaltrials.govNCT04723576).

Designing provider-focused implementation trials with purpose and intent: introducing the PRECIS-2-PS tool

Background

First articulated by Schwartz and Lellouch (1967), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be conceptualized along a continuum from more explanatory to more pragmatic. The purpose and intent of the former is to test interventions under ideal contexts, and the purpose and intent of the latter is to test interventions in real-world contexts. The PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) is a validated tool that helps researchers make decisions about the elements of the trial to match the overall purpose and intent of the trial along the continuum. The PRECIS-2 tool has guided the design of hundreds of RCTs. However, a few aspects of the tool would benefit from greater clarity, including its application to provider-focused implementation trials rather than patient-focused intervention trials.

Main text

We describe the newly developed PRECIS-2-Provider Strategies (PRECIS-2-PS) tool, an extension of the PRECIS-2 tool, which has been adapted for trials testing provider-focused strategies. We elaborate on nine domains that can make a provider-focused trial more explanatory or more pragmatic, including eligibility, recruitment, setting, implementation resources, flexibility of provider strategies, flexibility of intervention, data collection, primary outcome, and primary analysis. We detail the complementary roles that researchers and stakeholders play in the trial design phase, with implications for generalizability of trial results to the contexts in which they are intended to be applied.

Conclusions

The PRECIS-2-PS tool is designed to help research and practice teams plan for provider-focused trials that reflect the overall intent and purpose of the trial. The tool has potential to help advance the science of provider-focused strategies across a range of trials, with the ultimate goal of facilitating the adoption, integration, and sustainability of provider-focused strategies outside the context of trials.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-020-01075-y.