ArticleTrials2011
Social validity of randomised controlled trials in health services research and intellectual disabilities: a qualitative exploration of stakeholder views.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Psychosocial Research for Adults With Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2026Pooled it
- Non-pharmacological interventions for challenging behaviours of adults with intellectual disabilities: A meta-analysis.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2020Pooled it
- Organising healthcare services for persons with an intellectual disability.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Trial
- Enhancing stakeholder roles in autism early interventions in the United States: A stakeholder-driven research agenda.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2024Article
- Parent ratings of ability to consent for clinical trials in fragile X syndrome.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.