ArticleBMJ open2024
Aversion to pragmatic randomised controlled trials: three survey experiments with clinicians and laypeople in the USA.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPragmatic randomised controlled trials (pRCTs) are essential for determining the real-world safety and effectiveness of healthcare interventions. However, both laypeople and clinicians often demonstrate experiment aversion: preferring to implement either of two interventions for everyone rather than comparing them to determine which is best. We studied whether clinician and layperson views of pRCTs for COVID-19, as well as non-COVID-19, interventions became more positive during the pandemic, which increased both the urgency and public discussion of pRCTs.
designRandomised survey experiments.
settingGeisinger, a network of hospitals and clinics in central and northeastern Pennsylvania, USA; Amazon Mechanical Turk, a research participant platform used to recruit online participants residing across the USA. Data were collected between August 2020 and February 2021.
participants2149 clinicians (the types of people who conduct or make decisions about conducting pRCTs) and 2909 laypeople (the types of people who are included in pRCTs as patients). The clinician sample was primarily female (81%), comprised doctors (15%), physician assistants (9%), registered nurses (54%) and other medical professionals, including other nurses, genetic counsellors and medical students (23%), and the majority of clinicians (62%) had more than 10 years of experience. The layperson sample ranges in age from 18 to 88 years old (mean=38, SD=13) and the majority were white (75%) and female (56%). OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants read vignettes in which a hypothetical decision-maker who sought to improve health could choose to implement intervention A for all, implement intervention B for all, or experimentally compare A and B and implement the superior intervention. Participants rated and ranked the appropriateness of each decision. Experiment aversion was defined as the degree to which a participant rated the experiment below their lowest-rated intervention.
resultsIn a survey of laypeople administered during the pandemic, we found significant aversion to experiments involving catheterisation checklists and hypertension drugs unrelated to the treatment of COVID-19 (Cohen's
conclusionsAdvancing evidence-based medicine through pRCTs will require anticipating and addressing experiment aversion among patients and healthcare professionals. STUDY REGISTRATION: http://osf.io/6p5c7/.
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.