Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21658215›Full record

ArticleTrials2011

Social validity of randomised controlled trials in health services research and intellectual disabilities: a qualitative exploration of stakeholder views.

Dan Robotham, Michael King, Anton Canagasabey, Sophie Inchley-Mort, Angela Hassiotis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Organising healthcare services for persons with an intellectual disability.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Parent ratings of ability to consent for clinical trials in fragile X syndrome.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Dan RobothamMental Health Foundation, Sea Containers House, 20 Upper Ground, London SE1 9QB, UK. Drobotham@mhf.org.uk
Michael King
Anton Canagasabey
Sophie Inchley-Mort
Angela Hassiotis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard of evidence-based practice in medicine but they have had limited influence in the field of intellectual disabilities. Previous literature suggests that participants and professionals have limited tolerance for this type of research methodology. However, it is not known how well service users, carers and other health professionals understand and accept the need for RCTs, and why it is important for individuals with intellectual disabilities to be included in this kind of research.

methodsWe examined individual perceptions of RCTs in 51 participants (18 carers, 6 service users and 27 professionals) using semi-structured interviews. A framework approach was adopted in the analysis of data.

resultsWe found that participants had concerns about capacity and resource allocation but held positive views towards this type of research methodology. Understanding of the principles behind RCTs was poor amongst service users and a minority of carers, but mediated by previous exposure to research for professionals.

conclusionsThe social validity of RCTs in intellectual disabilities may be compromised by lack of understanding of the design and the on-going concerns about obtaining informed consent especially in incapacitated adults. However, the overall finding that the need for this form of research was seen in a positive light suggests that there is a turning point in the perceptions of stakeholders working in intellectual disabilities services. We recommend that researchers include on-going education on RCT design during trials, tailoring it to all stakeholders with emphasis on strong service user and care involvement. This could be a pivotal element in improving acceptability of, and recruitment to RCTs.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient SelectionSocial ValuesAdultCaregiversComprehensionFemaleHealth PersonnelHealth Services Needs and DemandHealth Services ResearchHumansInformed ConsentIntellectual DisabilityInterviews as TopicMale

Identifiers

PMID21658215
PMCPMC3135548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.