Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31870433›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

The ethical challenges raised in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: an interview study with key stakeholders.

Stuart G Nicholls, Kelly Carroll, Merrick Zwarenstein, Jamie C Brehaut, Charles Weijer, Spencer P Hey, Cory E Goldstein, Ian D Graham, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Joanne E McKenzie and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors.

Stuart G NichollsClinical Epidemiology Program-Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), Ottawa, ON, Canada. snicholls@ohri.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0485-9069
Kelly CarrollClinical Epidemiology Program-Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Merrick ZwarensteinCentre for Studies in Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Jamie C BrehautClinical Epidemiology Program-Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Charles WeijerRotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Spencer P HeyCenter for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School and Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Cory E GoldsteinRotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Ian D GrahamClinical Epidemiology Program-Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jeremy M GrimshawClinical Epidemiology Program-Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Joanne E McKenzieSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Dean A FergussonClinical Epidemiology Program-Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Monica TaljaardClinical Epidemiology Program-Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ethics of Pragmatic Trials project

Funding

CIHR PJT-153045
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a concern that the apparent effectiveness of interventions tested in clinical trials may not be an accurate reflection of their actual effectiveness in usual practice. Pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are designed with the intent of addressing this discrepancy. While pragmatic RCTs may increase the relevance of research findings to practice they may also raise new ethical concerns (even while reducing others). To explore this question, we interviewed key stakeholders with the aim of identifying potential ethical challenges in the design and conduct of pragmatic RCTs with a view to developing future guidance on these issues.

methodsInterviews were conducted with clinical investigators, methodologists, patient partners, ethicists, and other knowledge users (e.g., regulators). Interviews covered experiences with pragmatic RCTs, ethical issues relevant to pragmatic RCTs, and perspectives on the appropriate oversight of pragmatic RCTs. Interviews were coded inductively by two coders. Interim and final analyses were presented to the broader team for comment and discussion before the analytic framework was finalized.

resultsWe conducted 45 interviews between April and September 2018. Interviewees represented a range of disciplines and jurisdictions as well as varying content expertise. Issues of importance in pragmatic RCTs were (1) identification of relevant risks from trial participation and determination of what constitutes minimal risk; (2) determining when alterations to traditional informed consent approaches are appropriate; (3) the distinction between research, quality improvement, and practice; (4) the potential for broader populations to be affected by the trial and what protections they might be owed; (5) the broader range of trial stakeholders in pragmatic RCTs, and determining their roles and responsibilities; and (6) determining what constitutes "usual care" and implications for trial reporting.

conclusionsOur findings suggest both the need to discuss familiar ethical topics in new ways and that there are new ethical issues in pragmatic RCTs that need greater attention. Addressing the highlighted issues and developing guidance will require multidisciplinary input, including patient and community members, within a broader and more comprehensive analysis that extends beyond consent and attends to the identified considerations relating to risk and stakeholder roles and responsibilities.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchResearch DesignEthicistsFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMalePragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch PersonnelResearch SubjectsStakeholder ParticipationBenefit-harm analysisComparative effectivenessInformed consentInterviewsPragmatic trialQualitativeRandomized controlled trialResearch ethicsVulnerable participants

Identifiers

PMID31870433
PMCPMC6929346

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.