ArticleTrials2019
The ethical challenges raised in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: an interview study with key stakeholders.
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.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Health professional's perception of a smoking cessation intervention among disadvantaged patients participating in a pragmatic randomized trial.BMC health services research · 2023Trial
- Empirical research related to the ethics of pragmatic clinical trials: A scoping review.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Recognition, remuneration and reimbursement of patient and public involvement partners in pragmatic randomised controlled trials. A survey of author practices.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Optimizing clinical scientific research: the cohort intervention random sampling study with historical controls.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
- Consent Approach and Patient Notification in Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trials in Critical Care.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Article
- Review
- Informed consent: Navigating the bioethical complexities of clinical research.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Article
- Stakeholder perspectives on data sharing from pragmatic clinical trials: Unanticipated challenges for meeting emerging requirements.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- "We bleed for our community:" A qualitative exploration of the implementation of a pragmatic weight gain prevention trial from the perspectives of community health center professionals.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Empowering local research ethics review of antibacterial mass administration research.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2022Review
- Ethical and epistemic issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials · 2022Article
- Justice and equity in pragmatic clinical trials: Considerations for pain research within integrated health systems.Learning health systems · 2022Article
- Review of pragmatic trials found that multiple primary outcomes are common but so too are discrepancies between protocols and final reports.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Review
- Informed consent in pragmatic trials: results from a survey of trials published 2014-2019.Journal of medical ethics · 2021Article
- Pilot and feasibility studies for pragmatic trials have unique considerations and areas of uncertainty.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review.BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- Stepwise-Hierarchical Pooled Analysis for Synergistic Interpretation of Meta-analyses Involving Randomized and Observational Studies: Methodology Development.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- A review of pragmatic trials found a high degree of diversity in design and scope, deficiencies in reporting and trial registry data, and poor indexing.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
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
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.