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

Ethical challenges in contemporary psychiatry: an overview and an appraisal of possible strategies and research needs

Psychiatry shares most ethical issues with other branches of medicine, but also faces special challenges. The Code of Ethics of the World Psychiatric Association offers guidance, but many mental health care professionals are unaware of it and the principles it supports. Furthermore, following codes of ethics is not always sufficient to address ethical dilemmas arising from possible clashes among their principles, and from continuing changes in knowledge, culture, attitudes, and socio-economic context. In this paper, we identify topics that pose difficult ethical challenges in contemporary psychiatry; that may have a significant impact on clinical practice, education and research activities; and that may require revision of the profession's codes of ethics. These include: the relationships between human rights and mental health care, research and training; human rights and mental health legislation; digital psychiatry; early intervention in psychiatry; end-of-life decisions by people with mental health conditions; conflicts of interests in clinical practice, training and research; and the role of people with lived experience and family/informal supporters in shaping the agenda of mental health care, policy, research and training. For each topic, we highlight the ethical concerns, suggest strategies to address them, call attention to the risks that these strategies entail, and highlight the gaps to be narrowed by further research. We conclude that, in order to effectively address current ethical challenges in psychiatry, we need to rethink policies, services, training, attitudes, research methods and codes of ethics, with the concurrent input of a range of stakeholders, open minded discussions, new models of care, and an adequate organizational capacity to roll-out the implementation across routine clinical care contexts, training and research.

Systematic scoping review of cluster randomised trials conducted exclusively in low-income and middle-income countries between 2017 and 2022

OBJECTIVE

Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are used for evaluating health-related interventions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) but raise complex ethical issues. To inform the development of future ethics guidance, we aim to characterise CRTs conducted exclusively in LMICs by examining the types of clusters, settings, author affiliations and primary clinical focus and to evaluate adherence to trial registration and ethics reporting requirements over time.

DESIGN

A systematic scoping review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE between 1 January 2017 and 17 August 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included primary reports of CRTs evaluating health-related interventions, conducted exclusively in LMICs and published in English between 2017 and 2022.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted by one reviewer; a second reviewer verified accuracy by extracting data from 10% of the reports. Results were summarised overall and categorised by country's economic level or publication year.

RESULTS

Among 800 identified CRTs, 400 (50.0%) randomised geographical areas and 373 (46.6%) were conducted in Africa. 30 (3.7%) had no authors with an LMIC affiliation, and 246 (30.8%) had neither first nor last author with an LMIC affiliation. The relative frequency of first or last authors holding an LMIC affiliation increases as a country's economic level increases. Most CRTs focused on reducing maternal and neonatal disorders (106, 13.3%). 670 (83.8%) CRTs reported trial registration, 786 (98.2%) reported research ethics committee review and 757 (94.6%) reported consent statements. Among the 757 CRTs, 46 (6.1%) reported a waiver or no consent and, among these, 10 (21.7%) did not provide a rationale. Gatekeepers were identified in 403 (50.4%) CRTs. No meaningful trends were observed in adherence to trial registration or ethics reporting requirements over time.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest existing inequity in authorship practices. There is high adherence to trial registration and ethics reporting requirements, although greater attention to reporting a justification for using a waiver of consent is needed.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline

BACKGROUND

Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension.

METHODS

We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels.

DISCUSSION

Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Systematic Review of the “Pragmatism” of Pragmatic Critical Care Trials

To assess the pragmatism of published critical care randomized controlled trials self-described as pragmatic using a validated tool.

Reporting of health equity considerations in equity-relevant observational studies: Protocol for a systematic assessment

Background: The mitigation of unfair and avoidable differences in health is an increasing global priority. Observational studies including cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies tend to report social determinants of health which could inform evidence syntheses on health equity and social justice. However, the extent of reporting and analysis of equity in equity-relevant observational studies is unknown. Methods: We define studies which report outcomes for populations at risk of experiencing inequities as “equity-relevant”. Using a random sampling technique we will identify 320 equity-relevant observational studies published between 1 January 2020 to 27 April 2022 by searching the MEDLINE database. We will stratify sampling by 1) studies in high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) according to the World Bank classification, 2) studies focused on COVID and those which are not, 3) studies focused on populations at risk of experiencing inequities and those on general populations that stratify their analyses. We will use the PROGRESS framework which stands for place of residence, race or ethnicity, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital, to identify dimensions where inequities may exist. Using a previously developed data extraction form we will pilot-test on eligible studies and revise as applicable. Conclusions: The proposed methodological assessment of reporting will allow us to systematically understand the current reporting and analysis practices for health equity in observational studies. The findings of this study will help inform the development of the equity extension for the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) reporting guidelines.

A review identified challenges distinguishing primary reports of randomized trials for meta-research: A proposal for improved reporting

Meta-research is the discipline of studying research itself. A core investigative tool in meta-research is the use of systematic or scoping reviews to study the characteristics, methods and reporting of primary research studies. In the context of identifying eligible publications for methodological reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a challenge is to efficiently distinguish the primary trial report - which reports results for the primary outcome - from other types of reports, including design papers and secondary or supplementary analyses, or what we collectively refer to as non-primary reports. This may not be a straightforward task and may contribute to inefficiencies in the review process. Here, we draw on our recent methodological review of over 13,000 records to identify primary reports of pragmatic RCTs. We offer recommendations to improve the reporting of RCTs to facilitate more efficient identification of primary trial reports. We suggest that future updates to existing CONSORT guidelines include consideration of multiple trial reports and recommendations to clarify the primary or non-primary nature of each report. Our recommendations, together with improved adherence to inclusion of the trial registration number in the abstract and citation of a protocol or previously published primary report, would facilitate the conduct of methodological reviews.

Reporting of Research Ethics in Studies Focusing on Foot Health in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis - A Systematic Review

Research ethics is a fundamental part of the entire research. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are sensitive group of research participants because their long-term health problems cause significant changes in their foot health. In foot health research, data are usually collected through a clinical assessment of the foot or questionnaires. However, there is limited evidence of the reported research ethics of empirical studies on foot health in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Therefore this review aimed to analyze the reported research ethics of peer-reviewed empirical studies focusing on foot health in patients with rheumatoid arthritis as research participants. This systematic review used the Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases. A total of 1,653 records were identified, and 32 articles were included in the final analysis. Reporting research ethics in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis is fragmented, focusing predominantly on ethical approval and informed consent and lacking a broader discussion about research ethics.

Ethics issues identified by applicants and ethics experts in Horizon 2020 grant proposals

Background: We assessed the ethics review of proposals selected for funding under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) and the European Research Council (ERC) in Horizon 2020, EU’s framework programme for research and innovation, 2014-2020.

Methods: We analysed anonymized datasets for 3,054 MSCA individual fellowships (IF), 417 MSCA Innovative Training Networks (ITN), and 1,465 ERC main-listed proposals with ethics conditional clearance, over four years (2016 to 2019). The datasets included the information on ethics issues identified by applicants in their proposal and ethics issues and requirements identified by ethics experts during the ethics review.

Results: 42% of proposals received ethical clearance. For proposals with conditional ethics clearance (n=3546), most of the identified ethics issues by both applicants and ethics experts were in the ethics categories related to humans; protection of personal data; environment, health and safety; and non-EU countries. Ethics experts identified twice as many ethics issues compared to applicants across funding schemes, years, and from high- and low-research performing countries. ERC grants had the highest number of ethics requirements per proposal (median (Md)=8, interquartile range (IQR=4-14), compared to ITN (Md=6, IQR=3-13) and IF grants (Md=3, IQR=2-6). The majority of requirements had to be fulfilled after grant agreement: 99.4% for IF, 99.5% for ITN, and 26.0% for ERC. For 9% of the proposals, the requirements included the appointment of an independent ethics advisor and 1% of the proposals had to appoint an ethics advisory board.

Conclusions: Many applicants for highly competitive H2020 funding schemes lack awareness of ethics issues raised by their proposed research. There is a need for better training of researchers at all career stages about ethics issues in research, more support to researchers from research organizations to follow the funding agencies requirements, as well as further development and harmonization of the ethics appraisal process during grant assessment.

Fitting marginal models in small samples: A simulation study of marginalized multilevel models and generalized estimating equations

In correlated data settings, analysts typically choose between fitting conditional and marginal models, whose parameters come with distinct interpretations, and as such the choice between the two should be made on scientific grounds. For settings where interest lies in marginal-or population-averaged-parameters, the question of how best to estimate those parameters is a statistical one, and analysts have at their disposal two distinct modeling frameworks: generalized estimating equations (GEE) and marginalized multilevel models (MMMs). The two have been contrasted theoretically and in large sample settings, but asymptotic theory provides no guarantees in the small sample settings that are commonplace. In a comprehensive series of simulation studies, we shed light on the relative performance of GEE and MMMs in small-sample settings to help guide analysis decisions in practice. We find that both GEE and MMMs exhibit similar small-sample bias when the correct correlation structure is adopted (ie, when the random effects distribution is correctly specified or moderately misspecified)-but MMMs can be sensitive to misspecification of the correlation structure. When there are a small number of clusters, MMMs only slightly underestimate standard errors (SEs) for within-cluster associations but can severely underestimate SEs for between-cluster associations. By contrast, while GEE severely underestimates SEs, the Mancl and DeRouen correction provides approximately valid inference.

Reporting of key methodological and ethical aspects of cluster trials in hemodialysis require improvement: a systematic review

Background

The hemodialysis setting is suitable for trials that use cluster randomization, where intact groups of individuals are randomized. However, cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are complicated in their design, analysis, and reporting and can pose ethical challenges. We reviewed CRTs in the hemodialysis setting with respect to reporting of key methodological and ethical issues.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, published in English, between 2000 and 2019, and indexed in MEDLINE or Embase. Two reviewers extracted data, and study results were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Results

We identified 26 completed CRTs and five study protocols of CRTs. These studies randomized hemodialysis centers (n = 17, 55%), hemodialysis shifts (n = 12, 39%), healthcare providers (n = 1, 3%), and nephrology units (n = 1, 3%). Trials included a median of 28 clusters with a median cluster size of 20 patients. Justification for using a clustered design was provided by 15 trials (48%). Methods that accounted for clustering were used during sample size calculation in 14 (45%), during analyses in 22 (71%), and during both sample size calculation and analyses in 13 trials (42%). Among all CRTs, 26 (84%) reported receiving research ethics committee approval; patient consent was reported in 22 trials: 10 (32%) reported the method of consent for trial participation and 12 (39%) reported no details about how consent was obtained or its purpose. Four trials (13%) reported receiving waivers of consent, and the remaining 5 (16%) provided no or unclear information about the consent process.

Conclusion

There is an opportunity to improve the conduct and reporting of essential methodological and ethical issues in future CRTs in hemodialysis.

Review Registration

We conducted this systematic review using a pre-specified protocol that was not registered.

Cluster over individual randomization: are study design choices appropriately justified? Review of a random sample of trials

Background:

Novel rationales for randomizing clusters rather than individuals appear to be emerging from the push for more pragmatic trials, for example, to facilitate trial recruitment, reduce the costs of research, and improve external validity. Such rationales may be driven by a mistaken perception that choosing cluster randomization lessens the need for informed consent. We reviewed a random sample of published cluster randomized trials involving only individual-level health care interventions to determine (a) the prevalence of reporting a rationale for the choice of cluster randomization; (b) the types of explicit, or if absent, apparent rationales for the use of cluster randomization; (c) the prevalence of reporting patient informed consent for study interventions; and (d) the types of justifications provided for waivers of consent. We considered cluster randomized trials for evaluating exclusively the individual-level health care interventions to focus on clinical trials where individual randomization is only theoretically possible and where there is a general expectation of informed consent.

Methods:

A random sample of 40 cluster randomized trials were identified by implementing a validated electronic search filter in two electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE and Embase), with two reviewers independently extracting information from each trial. Inclusion criteria were the following: primary report of a cluster randomized trial, evaluating exclusively an individual-level health care intervention, published between 2007 and 2016, and conducted in Canada, the United States, European Union, Australia, or low- and middle-income country settings.

Results:

Twenty-five trials (62.5%, 95% confidence interval = 47.5%–77.5%) reported an explicit rationale for the use of cluster randomization. The most commonly reported rationales were those with logistical or administrative convenience (15 trials, 60%) and those that need to avoid contamination (13 trials, 52%); five trials (20%) were cited rationales related to the push for more pragmatic trials. Twenty-one trials (52.5%, 95% confidence interval = 37%–68%) reported written informed consent for the intervention, two (5%) reported verbal consent, and eight (20%) reported waivers of consent, while in nine trials (22.5%) consent was unclear or not mentioned. Reported justifications for waivers of consent included that study interventions were already used in clinical practice, patients were not randomized individually, and the need to facilitate the pragmatic nature of the trial. Only one trial reported an explicit and appropriate justification for waiver of consent based on minimum criteria in international research ethics guidelines, namely, infeasibility and minimal risk.

Conclusion:

Rationales for adopting cluster over individual randomization and for adopting consent waivers are emerging, related to the need to facilitate pragmatic trials. Greater attention to clear reporting of study design rationales, informed consent procedures, as well as justification for waivers is needed to ensure that such trials meet appropriate ethical standards.

Ethical issues in cluster randomized trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries: an analysis of two case studies

BACKGROUND

Cluster randomized trials are common in health research in low- and middle-income countries raising issues that challenge interpretation of standard ethical guidelines. While the Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials provides guidance for researchers and research ethics committees, it does not explicitly focus on low- and middle-income settings.

MAIN BODY

In this paper, we use the lens of the Ottawa Statement to analyze two cluster randomized trials conducted in low- and middle-income settings in order to identify gaps or ethical issues requiring further analysis and guidance. The PolyIran trial was a parallel-arm, cluster trial examining the effectiveness of a polypill for prevention of cardiovascular disease in Golestan province, Iran. The PASTAL trial was an adaptive, multistage, parallel-arm, cluster trial evaluating the effect of incentives for human immunodeficiency virus self-testing and follow-up on male partners of pregnant women in Malawi. Through an in-depth case analysis of these two studies we highlight several issues in need of further exploration. First, standards for verbal consent and waivers of consent require methods for operationalization if they are to be employed consistently. Second, the appropriate choice of a control arm remains contentious. Particularly in the case of implementation interventions, locally available care is required as the comparator to address questions of comparative effectiveness. However, locally available care might be lower than standards set out in national guidelines. Third, while the need for access to effective interventions post-trial is widely recognized, it is often not possible to guarantee this upfront. Clarity on what is required of researchers and sponsors is needed. Fourth, there is a pressing need for ethics education and capacity building regarding cluster randomized trials in these settings.

CONCLUSION

We identify four issues in cluster randomized trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries for which further ethical analysis and guidance is required.

The Frequency of Reporting Ethical Issues in Human Subject Articles Published in Iranian Medical Journals: 2009-2013

Researchers should strictly consider the participants' rights. They are required to document such protections as an ethical approval of the study proposal, the obtaining "informed consent", the authors' "conflict of interests", and the source of "financial support" in the published articles. The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency of reporting ethical issues in human subject articles published in Iranian medical journals during 2009-2013. In this cross-sectional study, we randomly reviewed 1460 human subject articles published in Iranian medical journals during 2009-2013 in two Persian and English language groups. Data collection was carried out by assessing articles, focusing on the documentation "ethics committee approval", patients' "informed consent", "financial support", "confidentiality", and "conflict of interest". Of 1460 evaluated articles, 443 (30.3%) reported "ethics committee approval", 686 (47.0%) reported "informed consent", 594 (40.7%) reported "financial support", and 341 (23.4%) reported "conflict of interest". 13% of the articles referred to patients' confidentiality in their text. There was a significant association between these ethical documentations and the year of publication. Articles published in English language journals reported "ethics committee approval", "financial support", and "conflict of interest" significantly more than Persian language journals, but the frequency of "informed consent" was similar. Ethical documentation rate in Iranian medical journals is not up to the expected standards of reputable journals which might be related to a lack of awareness and the education of the authors and the journal's editors. Precise reporting of ethical considerations in medical articles by authors are recommended. It is suggested journals and policymakers pay more attention to reporting this issue while providing standard guidelines in this regard.

Developing a framework for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials in healthcare: a mixed methods research protocol

Background

There is a widely recognized need for more pragmatic trials that evaluate interventions in real-world settings to inform decision-making by patients, providers, and health system leaders. Increasing availability of electronic health records, centralized research ethics review, and novel trial designs, combined with support and resources from governments worldwide for patient-centered research, have created an unprecedented opportunity to advance the conduct of pragmatic trials, which can ultimately improve patient health and health system outcomes. Such trials raise ethical issues that have not yet been fully addressed, with existing literature concentrating on regulations in specific jurisdictions rather than arguments grounded in ethical principles. Proposed solutions (e.g. using different regulations in “learning healthcare systems”) are speculative with no guarantee of improvement over existing oversight procedures. Most importantly, the literature does not reflect a broad vision of protecting the core liberty and welfare interests of research participants. Novel ethical guidance is required. We have assembled a team of ethicists, trialists, methodologists, social scientists, knowledge users, and community members with the goal of developing guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials.

Methods

Our project will combine empirical and conceptual work and a consensus development process. Empirical work will: (1) identify a comprehensive list of ethical issues through interviews with a small group of key informants (e.g. trialists, ethicists, chairs of research ethics committees); (2) document current practices by reviewing a random sample of pragmatic trials and surveying authors; (3) elicit views of chairs of research ethics committees through surveys in Canada, UK, USA, France, and Australia; and (4) elicit views and experiences of community members and health system leaders through focus groups and surveys. Conceptual work will consist of an ethical analysis of identified issues and the development of new ethical solutions, outlining principles, policy options, and rationales. The consensus development process will involve an independent expert panel to develop a final guidance document.

Discussion

Planned output includes manuscripts, educational materials, and tailored guidance documents to inform and support researchers, research ethics committees, journal editors, regulators, and funders in the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials.

[Reporting ethics board approval in German medical theses and journals]

Since 1975, the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association (WMA) has clearly required ethics committee approval for research into humans. Nevertheless, this Declaration is violated quite often. As many English-language publications have addressed the theme of ethics board approval in theses and other published works, it is now to be investigated in Germany for the first time.From 2013 to 2014, a total of 1,482 medical theses at four selected universities in addition to three German-language scientific journals were reviewed. In 543 theses, reference to ethics approval would have been required according to the criteria of the Declaration of Helsinki.However, ethics approval was stated in only 58.7% of cases, and even less frequently if the prevailing doctoral regulations or instructions did not refer to the necessity of obtaining ethics approval. Theses on pediatrics mentioned ethics approval most frequently (78.6%), whereas the proportion of surgical papers was the lowest (34.9%). Among the journals, Der Nervenarzt mentioned ethics approval most frequently (59.4%) and Der Chirurg least frequently (30%).Our results point to significant deficits in mentioning ethics approval in medical theses and publications. These deficits could easily be compensated for by a thorough approach of the referees of doctoral regulations and by journal reviewers and editors.

A focus group study to understand biases and confounders in a cluster randomized controlled trial on low back pain in primary care in Norway

Background

Cluster randomized controlled trials are often used in research in primary care but creates challenges regarding biases and confounders. We recently presented a study on low back pain from primary care in Norway with equal effects in the intervention and the control group. In order to understand the specific mechanisms that may produce biases in a cluster randomized trial we conducted a focus group study among the participating health care providers. The aim of this study was to understand how the participating providers themselves influenced on the study and thereby possibly on the results of the cluster randomized controlled trial.

Methods

The providers were invited to share their experiences from their participation in the COPE study, from recruitment of patients to accomplishment of either the intervention or control consultations. Six clinicians from the intervention group and four from the control group took part in the focus group interviews. The group discussions focused on feasibility of the study in primary care and particularly on identifying potential biases and confounders in the study. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed according to a systematic text condensation. The themes for the analysis emerged from the group discussions.

Results

A personal interest for back pain, logistic factors at the clinics and an assessment of the patients’ capacity to accomplish the study prior to their recruitment was reported. The providers were allowed to provide additional therapy to the intervention and it turned out that some of these could be regarded as opposed to the messages of the intervention. The providers seemed to select different items from the educational package according to personal beliefs and their perception of the patients’ acceptance.

Conclusion

The study disclosed several potential biases to the COPE study which may have impacted on the study results. Awareness of these is highly important when planning and conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial. Procedures in the recruitment of both providers and patients seem to be key factors and the providers should be aware of their role in a scientific study in order to standardize the provision of the intervention.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0759-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ethical implications of excessive cluster sizes in cluster randomised trials

The cluster randomised trial (CRT) is commonly used in healthcare research. It is the gold-standard study design for evaluating healthcare policy interventions. A key characteristic of this design is that as more participants are included, in a fixed number of clusters, the increase in achievable power will level off. CRTs with cluster sizes that exceed the point of levelling-off will have excessive numbers of participants, even if they do not achieve nominal levels of power. Excessively large cluster sizes may have ethical implications due to exposing trial participants unnecessarily to the burdens of both participating in the trial and the potential risks of harm associated with the intervention. We explore these issues through the use of two case studies. Where data are routinely collected, available at minimum cost and the intervention poses low risk, the ethical implications of excessively large cluster sizes are likely to be low (case study 1). However, to maximise the social benefit of the study, identification of excessive cluster sizes can allow for prespecified and fully powered secondary analyses. In the second case study, while there is no burden through trial participation (because the outcome data are routinely collected and non-identifiable), the intervention might be considered to pose some indirect risk to patients and risks to the healthcare workers. In this case study it is therefore important that the inclusion of excessively large cluster sizes is justifiable on other grounds (perhaps to show sustainability). In any randomised controlled trial, including evaluations of health policy interventions, it is important to minimise the burdens and risks to participants. Funders, researchers and research ethics committees should be aware of the ethical issues of excessively large cluster sizes in cluster trials.

Inadequacy of ethical conduct and reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials: Results from a systematic review

Background/aims The use of the stepped wedge cluster randomized design is rapidly increasing. This design is commonly used to evaluate health policy and service delivery interventions. Stepped wedge cluster randomized trials have unique characteristics that complicate their ethical interpretation. The 2012 Ottawa Statement provides comprehensive guidance on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials, and the 2010 CONSORT extension for cluster randomized trials provides guidelines for reporting. Our aims were to assess the adequacy of the ethical conduct and reporting of stepped wedge trials to date, focusing on research ethics review and informed consent. Methods We conducted a systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials in health research published up to 2014 in English language journals. We extracted details of study intervention and data collection procedures, as well as reporting of research ethics review and informed consent. Two reviewers independently extracted data from each trial; discrepancies were resolved through discussion. We identified the presence of any research participants at the cluster level and the individual level. We assessed ethical conduct by tabulating reporting of research ethics review and informed consent against the presence of research participants. Results Of 32 identified stepped wedge trials, only 24 (75%) reported review by a research ethics committee, and only 16 (50%) reported informed consent from any research participants-yet, all trials included research participants at some level. In the subgroup of 20 trials with research participants at cluster level, only 4 (20%) reported informed consent from such participants; in 26 trials with individual-level research participants, only 15 (58%) reported their informed consent. Interventions (regardless of whether targeting cluster- or individual-level participants) were delivered at the group level in more than two-thirds of trials; nine trials (28%) had no identifiable data collected from any research participants. Overall, only three trials (9%) indicated that a waiver of consent had been granted by a research ethics committee. When considering the combined requirement of research ethics review and informed consent (or a waiver), only one in three studies were compliant. Conclusion The ethical conduct and reporting of key ethical protections in stepped wedge trials, namely, research ethics review and informed consent, are inadequate. We recommend that stepped wedge trials be classified as research and reviewed and approved by a research ethics committee. We also recommend that researchers appropriately identify research participants (which may include health professionals), seek informed consent or appeal to an ethics committee for a waiver of consent, and include explicit details of research ethics approval and informed consent in the trial report.

PRagmatic trial Of Video Education in Nursing homes: The design and rationale for a pragmatic cluster randomized trial in the nursing home setting

Background/Aims Nursing homes are complex healthcare systems serving an increasingly sick population. Nursing homes must engage patients in advance care planning, but do so inconsistently. Video decision support tools improved advance care planning in small randomized controlled trials. Pragmatic trials are increasingly employed in health services research, although not commonly in the nursing home setting to which they are well-suited. This report presents the design and rationale for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial that evaluated the "real world" application of an Advance Care Planning Video Program in two large US nursing home healthcare systems. Methods PRagmatic trial Of Video Education in Nursing homes was conducted in 360 nursing homes (N = 119 intervention/N = 241 control) owned by two healthcare systems. Over an 18-month implementation period, intervention facilities were instructed to offer the Advance Care Planning Video Program to all patients. Control facilities employed usual advance care planning practices. Patient characteristics and outcomes were ascertained from Medicare Claims, Minimum Data Set assessments, and facility electronic medical record data. Intervention adherence was measured using a Video Status Report embedded into electronic medical record systems. The primary outcome was the number of hospitalizations/person-day alive among long-stay patients with advanced dementia or cardiopulmonary disease. The rationale for the approaches to facility randomization and recruitment, intervention implementation, population selection, data acquisition, regulatory issues, and statistical analyses are discussed. Results The large number of well-characterized candidate facilities enabled several unique design features including stratification on historical hospitalization rates, randomization prior to recruitment, and 2:1 control to intervention facilities ratio. Strong endorsement from corporate leadership made randomization prior to recruitment feasible with 100% participation of facilities randomized to the intervention arm. Critical regulatory issues included minimal risk determination, waiver of informed consent, and determination that nursing home providers were not engaged in human subjects research. Intervention training and implementation were initiated on 5 January 2016 using corporate infrastructures for new program roll-out guided by standardized training elements designed by the research team. Video Status Reports in facilities' electronic medical records permitted "real-time" adherence monitoring and corrective actions. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Virtual Research Data Center allowed for rapid outcomes ascertainment. Conclusion We must rigorously evaluate interventions to deliver more patient-focused care to an increasingly frail nursing home population. Video decision support is a practical approach to improve advance care planning. PRagmatic trial Of Video Education in Nursing homes has the potential to promote goal-directed care among millions of older Americans in nursing homes and establish a methodology for future pragmatic randomized controlled trials in this complex healthcare setting.

Cluster-randomized trials: A closer look

BACKGROUND

The cluster-randomized trial is the methodology of choice for evaluating interventions administered at the group level such as public health and healthcare quality improvement interventions. Because of unique features of this design, it can be difficult to apply standard research ethics guidelines to cluster-randomized trials. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster-Randomized Trials provides researchers and research ethics committees with comprehensive guidance on the ethical design, conduct and review of cluster-randomized trials. The Ottawa Statement supplements current national and international research ethics guidelines with guidance that is specific to cluster-randomized trials. In a recently published commentary, three examples drawn from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were used to illustrate challenges associated with the cluster-randomized trial design. The commentary argued that the Ottawa Statement fails to provide comprehensive ethical guidance. In this article, we illustrate the application of the Ottawa Statement to the three trials. We challenge the conclusions reached in the commentary by demonstrating that an ethical analysis requires complete information. We correct some misperceptions about the cluster-randomized trial design.

METHODS

We collected essential additional information by contacting the authors of trials and by referring to published trial articles. We used the Ottawa Statement to conduct an ethical analysis of each trial and to address a number of substantive concerns raised regarding the identification of study participants, informed consent and harm benefit analysis.

RESULTS

In the two cases in which we were able to obtain detailed study information, we were able to complete the ethical analysis prescribed by the Ottawa Statement.

CONCLUSION

The Ottawa Statement does provide a useful framework for the ethical design, review and conduct of cluster-randomized trials.

A cluster randomized controlled trial comparing relative effectiveness of two licensed influenza vaccines in US nursing homes: Design and rationale

BACKGROUND

Influenza, the most important viral infection affecting older adults, produces a substantial burden in health care costs, morbidity, and mortality. Influenza vaccination remains the mainstay in prevention and is associated with reduced rates of hospitalization, stroke, heart attack, and death in non-institutional older adult populations. Influenza vaccination produces considerably lower antibody response in the elderly compared to young adults. Four-fold higher vaccine antigen (high-dose) than in the standard adult vaccine (standard-dose) elicits higher serum antibody levels and antibody response in ambulatory elderly.

PURPOSE

To describe the design considerations of a large clinical trial of high-dose compared to standard-dose influenza vaccine in nursing homes and baseline characteristics of participating nursing homes and long-stay (more than 90 days) residents over 65 years of age.

METHODS

The high-dose influenza vaccine intervention trial is multifacility, cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design that compares hospitalization rates, mortality, and functional decline among long-stay nursing home residents in facilities randomized to receive high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccine and also randomized with or without free staff vaccines provided by study organizers. Enrollment focused on nursing homes with a large long-stay resident population over 65 years of age. The primary outcome is the resident-level incidence of hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of pulmonary and influenza-like illness, based upon Medicare inpatient hospitalization claims. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality based upon the vital status indicator in the Medicare Vital Status file, all-cause hospitalization directly from the nursing home Minimum Data Set discharge records, and the probability of declining at least 4 points on the 28-point Activities of Daily Living Scale.

RESULTS

Between February and September 2013, the high-dose influenza vaccine trial recruited and randomized 823 nursing homes. The analysis sample includes 53,035 long-stay nursing home residents over 65 years of age, representing 57.7% of the participating facilities' population. Residents are mainly women (72.2%), white (75.5%), with a mean age of 83 years. Common conditions include hypertension (79.2%), depression (55.1%), and diabetes mellitus (34.4%). The prevalence of circulatory and pulmonary disorders includes heart failure (20.5%), stroke (20.1%), and asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (20.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

This high-dose influenza vaccine trial uniquely offers a paradigm for future studies of clinical and programmatic interventions within the framework of efforts designed to test the impact of changes in usual treatment practices adopted by health care systems.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01815268.

Mail merge can be used to create personalized questionnaires in complex surveys

Background

Low response rates and inadequate question comprehension threaten the validity of survey results. We describe a simple procedure to implement personalized—as opposed to generically worded—questionnaires in the context of a complex web-based survey of corresponding authors of a random sample of 300 published cluster randomized trials. The purpose of the survey was to gather more detailed information about informed consent procedures used in the trial, over and above basic information provided in the trial report. We describe our approach—which allowed extensive personalization without the need for specialized computer technology—and discuss its potential application in similar settings.

Results

The mail merge feature of standard word processing software was used to generate unique, personalized questionnaires for each author by incorporating specific information from the article, including naming the randomization unit (e.g., family practice, school, worksite), and identifying specific individuals who may have been considered research participants at the cluster level (family doctors, teachers, employers) and individual level (patients, students, employees) in questions regarding informed consent procedures in the trial. The response rate was relatively high (64 %, 182/285) and did not vary significantly by author, publication, or study characteristics. The refusal rate was low (7 %).

Conclusion

While controlled studies are required to examine the specific effects of our approach on comprehension, quality of responses, and response rates, we showed how mail merge can be used as a simple but useful tool to add personalized fields to complex survey questionnaires, or to request additional information required from study authors. One potential application is in eliciting specific information about published articles from study authors when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Tiny tweaks, big changes: An alternative strategy to empower ethical culture of human research in anesthesia (A Taiwan Acta Anesthesiologica Taiwanica-Ethics Review Task Force Report)

For this guidance article, the Ethics Review Task Force (ERTF) of the Journal reviewed and discussed the ethics issues related to publication of human research in the field of anesthesia. ERTF first introduced international ethics principles and minimal requirements of reporting of ethics practices, followed by discussing the universal problems of publication ethics. ERTF then compared the accountability and methodology of several medical journals in assuring authors' ethics compliance. Using the Taiwan Institutional Review Board system as an example, ERTF expressed the importance of institutional review board registration and accreditation to assure human participant protection. ERTF presented four major human research misconducts in the field of anesthesia in recent years. ERTF finally proposed a flow-chart to guide journal peer reviewers and editors in ethics review during the editorial process in publishing. Examples of template languages applied in the Ethics statement section in the manuscript are expected to strengthen the ethics compliance of the authors and to set an ethical culture for all the stakeholders involved in human research.

Generalized Estimating Equations in Longitudinal Data Analysis: A Review and Recent Developments

Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) is a marginal model popularly applied for longitudinal/clustered data analysis in clinical trials or biomedical studies. We provide a systematic review on GEE including basic concepts as well as several recent developments due to practical challenges in real applications. The topics including the selection of “working” correlation structure, sample size and power calculation, and the issue of informative cluster size are covered because these aspects play important roles in GEE utilization and its statistical inference. A brief summary and discussion of potential research interests regarding GEE are provided in the end.

Stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials: a generic framework including parallel and multiple-level designs

Stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials (SW-CRTs) are being used with increasing frequency in health service evaluation. Conventionally, these studies are cross-sectional in design with equally spaced steps, with an equal number of clusters randomised at each step and data collected at each and every step. Here we introduce several variations on this design and consider implications for power.

One modification we consider is the incomplete cross-sectional SW-CRT, where the number of clusters varies at each step or where at some steps, for example, implementation or transition periods, data are not collected. We show that the parallel CRT with staggered but balanced randomisation can be considered a special case of the incomplete SW-CRT. As too can the parallel CRT with baseline measures. And we extend these designs to allow for multiple layers of clustering, for example, wards within a hospital. Building on results for complete designs, power and detectable difference are derived using a Wald test and obtaining the variance–covariance matrix of the treatment effect assuming a generalised linear mixed model. These variations are illustrated by several real examples.

We recommend that whilst the impact of transition periods on power is likely to be small, where they are a feature of the design they should be incorporated. We also show examples in which the power of a SW-CRT increases as the intra-cluster correlation (ICC) increases and demonstrate that the impact of the ICC is likely to be smaller in a SW-CRT compared with a parallel CRT, especially where there are multiple levels of clustering. Finally, through this unified framework, the efficiency of the SW-CRT and the parallel CRT can be compared.

Small sample performance of bias-corrected sandwich estimators for cluster-randomized trials with binary outcomes

The sandwich estimator in generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach underestimates the true variance in small samples and consequently results in inflated type I error rates in hypothesis testing. This fact limits the application of the GEE in cluster-randomized trials (CRTs) with few clusters. Under various CRT scenarios with correlated binary outcomes, we evaluate the small sample properties of the GEE Wald tests using bias-corrected sandwich estimators. Our results suggest that the GEE Wald z-test should be avoided in the analyses of CRTs with few clusters even when bias-corrected sandwich estimators are used. With t-distribution approximation, the Kauermann and Carroll (KC)-correction can keep the test size to nominal levels even when the number of clusters is as low as 10 and is robust to the moderate variation of the cluster sizes. However, in cases with large variations in cluster sizes, the Fay and Graubard (FG)-correction should be used instead. Furthermore, we derive a formula to calculate the power and minimum total number of clusters one needs using the t-test and KC-correction for the CRTs with binary outcomes. The power levels as predicted by the proposed formula agree well with the empirical powers from the simulations. The proposed methods are illustrated using real CRT data. We conclude that with appropriate control of type I error rates under small sample sizes, we recommend the use of GEE approach in CRTs with binary outcomes because of fewer assumptions and robustness to the misspecification of the covariance structure.

Implementing evidence-based recommended practices for the management of patients with mild traumatic brain injuries in Australian emergency care departments: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Mild head injuries commonly present to emergency departments. The challenges facing clinicians in emergency departments include identifying which patients have traumatic brain injury, and which patients can safely be sent home. Traumatic brain injuries may exist with subtle symptoms or signs, but can still lead to adverse outcomes. Despite the existence of several high quality clinical practice guidelines, internationally and in Australia, research shows inconsistent implementation of these recommendations. The aim of this trial is to test the effectiveness of a targeted, theory- and evidence-informed implementation intervention to increase the uptake of three key clinical recommendations regarding the emergency department management of adult patients (18 years of age or older) who present following mild head injuries (concussion), compared with passive dissemination of these recommendations. The primary objective is to establish whether the intervention is effective in increasing the percentage of patients for which appropriate post-traumatic amnesia screening is performed.

Methods/design

The design of this study is a cluster randomised trial. We aim to include 34 Australian 24-hour emergency departments, which will be randomised to an intervention or control group. Control group departments will receive a copy of the most recent Australian evidence-based clinical practice guideline on the acute management of patients with mild head injuries. The intervention group will receive an implementation intervention based on an analysis of influencing factors, which include local stakeholder meetings, identification of nursing and medical opinion leaders in each site, a train-the-trainer day and standardised education and interactive workshops delivered by the opinion leaders during a 3 month period of time. Clinical practice outcomes will be collected retrospectively from medical records by independent chart auditors over the 2 month period following intervention delivery (patient level outcomes). In consenting hospitals, eligible patients will be recruited for a follow-up telephone interview conducted by trained researchers. A cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation using mixed-methods will be conducted. Sample size calculations are based on including 30 patients on average per department. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001286831 (date registered 12 December 2012).

Chronic kidney disease: haemodialysis catheter care in practice

A new haemodialysis catheter-care procedure has been reported, including exit-site disinfection with chlorhexidine gluconate that results in a sustained reduction in bacteraemia rates, new intravenous antibiotic starts and sepsis-associated and access-associated hospitalization rates compared with standard care. These findings have potential implications for the prevention of haemodialysis catheter-associated infections.

Survey of consent practices in cluster randomized trials: improvements are needed in ethical conduct and reporting

BACKGROUND

Informed consent procedures in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are considerably more complicated than in individually randomized trials. In a CRT, the units of randomization, intervention, and observation may differ in a single trial; there can be multiple levels of participants (individual and cluster level); consent may be required separately for intervention and data collection; and there may be practical constraints to seeking informed consent, for example, due to cluster-level interventions or the sheer size of clusters.

PURPOSE

We aimed to document consent practices at individual and cluster levels, assess the adequacy of reporting consent in trial publications, and assess associations with two trial characteristics that may influence consent requirements in CRTs: presence or absence of study interventions and presence or absence of data collection procedures at individual and cluster levels.

METHODS

We reviewed a random sample of 300 CRTs published during 2000-2008. We sent survey questionnaires to 285 unique authors of these trials to gather detailed information about consent procedures used in each trial.

RESULTS

In all, 182 authors (64%) responded. Overall, 93% (95% confidence interval (CI): 88.8%-96.6%) indicated that participant consent had been sought for some aspects of the study. Consent was less frequently sought for a study intervention (70% of respondents) than for data collection (88%). More than half of the respondents (52%) indicated that consent had been sought at both cluster and individual levels. There was strong evidence for under-reporting of consent in trial publications: only 63% of all trial publications reported that informed consent had been sought for some aspect of the study. The odds ratios (ORs) summarizing the association of the two trial characteristics with cluster-level participant consent were weak (OR = 1.17, p = 0.70 for presence of cluster-level study intervention and OR = 1.54, p = 0.29 for data collection); on the other hand, the ORs summarizing the associations with individual-level consent were strong (OR = 6.2, p < 0.0001 for presence of individual-level intervention and OR = 14.7, p < 0.0001 for data collection).

LIMITATIONS

In all, 36% of authors did not respond to the survey; to the extent that consent practices in their trials were different than in respondents' trials, our results may be biased.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for improvements in research practices in CRTs as well as their reporting. There may be a lack of clarity about consent requirements at the cluster level in particular. With the publication of the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, researchers and research ethics committees now have access to comprehensive ethics guidelines specific to CRTs.

A systematic review of cluster randomised trials in residential facilities for older people suggests how to improve quality

BACKGROUND

Previous reviews of cluster randomised trials have been critical of the quality of the trials reviewed, but none has explored determinants of the quality of these trials in a specific field over an extended period of time. Recent work suggests that correct conduct and reporting of these trials may require more than published guidelines. In this review, our aim was to assess the quality of cluster randomised trials conducted in residential facilities for older people, and to determine whether (1) statistician involvement in the trial and (2) strength of journal endorsement of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement influence quality.

METHODS

We systematically identified trials randomising residential facilities for older people, or parts thereof, without language restrictions, up to the end of 2010, using National Library of Medicine (Medline) via PubMed and hand-searching. We based quality assessment criteria largely on the extended CONSORT statement for cluster randomised trials. We assessed statistician involvement based on statistician co-authorship, and strength of journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement from journal websites.

RESULTS

73 trials met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 20 (27%) reported accounting for clustering in sample size calculations and 54 (74%) in the analyses. In 29 trials (40%), methods used to identify/recruit participants were judged by us to have potentially caused bias or reporting was unclear to reach a conclusion. Some elements of quality improved over time but this appeared not to be related to the publication of the extended CONSORT statement for these trials. Trials with statistician/epidemiologist co-authors were more likely to account for clustering in sample size calculations (unadjusted odds ratio 5.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 26.0) and analyses (unadjusted OR 3.2, 1.2 to 8.5). Journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement was not associated with trial quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite international attempts to improve methods in cluster randomised trials, important quality limitations remain amongst these trials in residential facilities. Statistician involvement on trial teams may be more effective in promoting quality than further journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement. Funding bodies and journals should promote statistician involvement and co-authorship in addition to adherence to CONSORT guidelines.

Challenges in the research ethics review of cluster randomized trials: international survey of investigators

BACKGROUND

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) complicate the interpretation of standard research ethics guidelines for several reasons. For one, the units of allocation, intervention, and observation often may differ within a single trial. In the absence of tailored and internationally accepted ethics guidelines for CRTs, researchers and research ethics committees have no common standard by which to judge ethically appropriate practices in CRTs. Moreover, lack of familiarity with and consideration of the unique features of the CRT design by research ethics committees may cause difficulties in the research ethics review process, and amplify problems such as variability in the requirements and decisions reached by different research ethics committees.

PURPOSE

We aimed to characterize research ethics review of CRTs, examine investigator experiences with the ethics review process, and assess the need for ethics guidelines for CRTs.

METHODS

An electronic search strategy implemented in MEDLINE was used to identify and randomly sample 300 CRTs published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. A web-based survey with closed- and open-ended questions was administered to corresponding authors in a series of six contacts.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 64%. Among 182 of 285 eligible respondents, 91% indicated that they had sought research ethics approval for the identified CRT, although only 70% respondents reported research ethics approval in the published article. Nearly one-third (31%) indicated that they have had to meet with ethics committees to explain aspects of their trials, nearly half (46%) experienced variability in the ethics review process in multijurisdictional trials, and 38% experienced negative impacts of the ethics review process on their trials, including delays in trial initiation (28%), increased costs (10%), compromised ability to recruit participants (16%), and compromised methodological quality (9%). Most respondents (74%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 67%-80%) agreed or strongly agreed that there is a need to develop ethics guidelines for CRTs, and (70%; 95% CI: 63%-77%) that ethics committees could be better informed about distinct ethical issues surrounding CRTs.

LIMITATIONS

Thirty-six percent of authors did not respond to the survey. Due to the absence of comparable results from a representative sample of authors of individually randomized trials, it is unclear to what extent the reported challenges result from the CRT design.

CONCLUSIONS

CRT investigators are experiencing challenges in the research ethics review of their trials, including excessive delays, variability in process and outcome, and imposed requirements that can have negative consequences for study conduct. Investigators identified a clear need for ethics guidelines for CRTs and education of research ethics committees about distinct ethical issues in CRTs.

Do Brazilian scientific journals promote the adherence of Chagas disease researchers to internacional ethical principals?

The ethical aspects of the Brazilian publications about human Chagas disease (CD) developed between 1996 and 2010 and the policy adopted by Brazilian medical journals were analyzed. Articles were selected on the SciELO Brazil data basis, and the evaluation of ethical aspects was based on the normative contents about ethics in research involving human experimentation according to the Brazilian resolution of the National Health Council no. 196/1996. The editorial policies of the section "Instructions to authors" were analyzed. In the period of 1996-2012, 58.9% of articles involving human Chagas disease did not refer to the fulfillment of the ethical aspects concerning research with human beings. In 80% of the journals, the requirements and confirmation of the information about ethical aspects in the studies of human CD were not observed. Although a failure in this type of service is still observed, awareness has been raised in federal agencies, educational institutions/research and publishing groups to standardize the procedures and ethical requirements for the Brazilian journals, reinforcing the fulfillment of the ethical parameters, according to the resolution of NHC no. 196/1996.

Consent processes in cluster-randomised trials in residential facilities for older adults: a systematic review of reporting practices and proposed guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of reported consent processes of cluster-randomised trials conducted in residential facilities for older people and to explore whether the focus on improving the general conduct and reporting of cluster-randomised trials influenced the quality of conduct and reporting of ethical processes in these trials.

DESIGN

Systematic review of cluster-randomised trials reports, published up to the end of 2010.

DATA SOURCES

National Library of Medicine (Medline) via PubMed, hand-searches of BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, BMC Health Services Research, Age and Ageing and Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, reference search in Web of Knowledge and consultation with experts.

ELIGIBILITY FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Published cluster-randomised trials where the unit of randomisation is a part or the whole of a residential facility for older people, without language or year of publication restrictions.

RESULTS

We included 73 trials. Authors reported ethical approval in 59, obtaining individual consent in 51, and using proxies for this consent in 37, but the process to assess residents' capacity to consent was clearly reported in only eight. We rated only six trials high for the quality of consent processes. We considered that individual informed consent could have been waived legitimately in 14  of 22 trials not reporting obtaining consent. The proportions reporting ethical approval and quality of consent processes were higher in recent trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Recently published international recommendations regarding ethical conduct in cluster-randomised trials are much needed. In relation to consent processes when cognitively impaired individuals are included in these trials, we provide a six-point checklist and recommend the minimum information to be reported. Those who lack capacity in trials with complex designs should be afforded the same care in relation to consent as competent adults in trials with simpler designs.

How transparent is behavioral intervention research on pathological gambling and other gambling-related disorders? A systematic literature review

AIMS

To review the transparency of reports of behavioral interventions for pathological gambling and other gambling-related disorders.

METHODS

We used the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) Statement to develop the 59-question adapted TREND questionnaire (ATQ). Each ATQ question corresponds to a transparency guideline and asks how clearly a study reports its objectives, research design, analytical methods and conclusions. A subset of 23 ATQ questions is considered particularly important. We searched PubMed, PsychINFO and Web of Science to identify experimental evaluations published between 2000 and 2011 aiming to reduce problem gambling behaviors or decrease problems caused by gambling. Twenty-six English-language reports met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed by three abstractors using the ATQ.

RESULTS

The average report adhered to 38.4 (65.1%) of the 59 ATQ transparency guidelines. Each of the 59 ATQ questions received positive responses from an average of 16.9 (63.8%) of the reports. The subset of 23 particularly relevant questions received an average of 15.3 (66.5%) positive responses. Thirty-two of 59 (54%) ATQ questions were answered positively by 75% or more of the study reports, while 12 (20.3%) received positive responses by 25% or fewer. Publication year did not affect these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Gambling intervention reports need to improve their transparency by adhering to currently neglected and particularly relevant guidelines. Among them are recommendations for comparing study participants who are lost to follow-up and those who are retained, comparing study participants with the target population, describing methods used to minimize potential bias due to group assignment, and reporting adverse events or unintended effects.

What is the role and authority of gatekeepers in 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, we set out six areas of inquiry that must be addressed if the CRT is to be set on a firm ethical foundation. This paper addresses the sixth of the questions posed, namely, what is the role and authority of gatekeepers in CRTs in health research? ‘Gatekeepers’ are individuals or bodies that represent the interests of cluster members, clusters, or organizations. The need for gatekeepers arose in response to the difficulties in obtaining informed consent because of cluster randomization, cluster-level interventions, and cluster size. In this paper, we call for a more restrictive understanding of the role and authority of gatekeepers.

Previous papers in this series have provided solutions to the challenges posed by informed consent in CRTs without the need to invoke gatekeepers. We considered that consent to randomization is not required when cluster members are approached for consent at the earliest opportunity and before any study interventions or data-collection procedures have started. Further, when cluster-level interventions or cluster size means that obtaining informed consent is not possible, a waiver of consent may be appropriate. In this paper, we suggest that the role of gatekeepers in protecting individual interests in CRTs should be limited. Generally, gatekeepers do not have the authority to provide proxy consent for cluster members. When a municipality or other community has a legitimate political authority that is empowered to make such decisions, cluster permission may be appropriate; however, gatekeepers may usefully protect cluster interests in other ways. Cluster consultation may ensure that the CRT addresses local health needs, and is conducted in accord with local values and customs. Gatekeepers may also play an important role in protecting the interests of organizations, such as hospitals, nursing homes, general practices, and schools. In these settings, permission to access the organization relies on resource implications and adherence to institutional policies.

Participant informed consent in cluster randomized trials: review

BACKGROUND

The Nuremberg code defines the general ethical framework of medical research with participant consent as its cornerstone. In cluster randomized trials (CRT), obtaining participant informed consent raises logistic and methodologic concerns. First, with randomization of large clusters such as geographical areas, obtaining individual informed consent may be impossible. Second, participants in randomized clusters cannot avoid certain interventions, which implies that participant informed consent refers only to data collection, not administration of an intervention. Third, complete participant information may be a source of selection bias, which then raises methodological concerns. We assessed whether participant informed consent was required in such trials, which type of consent was required, and whether the trial was at risk of selection bias because of the very nature of participant information.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We systematically reviewed all reports of CRT published in MEDLINE in 2008 and surveyed corresponding authors regarding the nature of the informed consent and the process of participant inclusion. We identified 173 reports and obtained an answer from 113 authors (65.3%). In total, 23.7% of the reports lacked information on ethics committee approval or participant consent, 53.1% of authors declared that participant consent was for data collection only and 58.5% that the group allocation was not specified for participants. The process of recruitment (chronology of participant recruitment with regard to cluster randomization) was rarely reported, and we estimated that only 56.6% of the trials were free of potential selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

For CRTs, the reporting of ethics committee approval and participant informed consent is less than optimal. Reports should describe whether participants consented for administration of an intervention and/or data collection. Finally, the process of participant recruitment should be fully described (namely, whether participants were informed of the allocation group before being recruited) for a better appraisal of the risk of selection bias.

The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials

The Ottawa Ethics of Cluster Trials Consensus Group sets out 15 recommendations for the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials.

Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials.

DESIGN

Methodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting.

DATA SOURCES

A validated Medline search strategy. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8.

RESULTS

There were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals.

CONCLUSION

The quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology.