Literature DB >> 14672595

Lay conceptions of the ethical and scientific justifications for random allocation in clinical trials.

Elizabeth J Robinson1, Cicely Kerr, Andrew Stevens, Richard Lilford, David Braunholtz, Sarah Edwards.   

Abstract

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) play a central role in modern medical advance, and they require participants who understand and accept the procedures involved. Published evidence suggests that RCT participants often fail to understand that treatments are allocated at random and that clinicians are in equipoise about which treatment is best. We examine background assumptions that members of the public might draw upon if invited to take part in a RCT. Four studies (N=82; 67; 67; 128), in the UK, identified whether members of the public (i). accept that an individual clinician might be genuinely unsure which of two treatments was better; (ii). judge that when there is uncertainty it is acceptable to suggest deciding at random; (iii). recognise scientific benefits of random allocation to treatment conditions in a trial. Around half the participants were loathe to accept that a clinician could be completely uncertain, and this was no different whether the context was one of individual treatment or research. Most participants found it unacceptable to suggest allocating treatment at random, though there was weak evidence that a research context may reduce the unacceptability. Participants did not judge that more certain knowledge would be gained about which treatment was best when treatments were allocated at random rather than by patient/doctor choice: scientific benefits of randomisation were apparently not recognised. Judgements were no different in non-medical contexts. Results suggest a large mismatch between the assumptions underlying the trial design, and the assumptions that lay participants can bring to bear when they try to make sense of descriptive information about randomisation and equipoise. Previous attempts to improve understanding by improving the clarity or salience of trial information, or of making explicit the research context, while helpful, may need to be supplemented with accessible explanations for random allocation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14672595     DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00255-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  24 in total

Review 1.  What is the role of the research ethics committee? Paternalism, inducements, and harm in research ethics.

Authors:  E Garrard; A Dawson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Randomized Controlled Trials 1: Design.

Authors:  Bryan M Curtis; Brendan J Barrett; Patrick S Parfrey
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

3.  Multiples and parents of multiples prefer same arm randomization of siblings in neonatal trials.

Authors:  J Bernardo; A Nowacki; R Martin; J M Fanaroff; A M Hibbs
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2014-10-23       Impact factor: 2.521

4.  Potential barriers to randomized clinical trials in infants with brachial plexus birth palsy.

Authors:  Andrew Figoni; Andrea Bauer; Michelle James
Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop B       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.041

5.  Attitudes towards clinical research among cancer trial participants and non-participants: an interview study using a Grounded Theory approach.

Authors:  S M Madsen; S Holm; P Riis
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Patient advocacy and patient centredness in participant recruitment to randomized-controlled trials: implications for informed consent.

Authors:  Zelda Tomlin; Isabel deSalis; Merran Toerien; Jenny L Donovan
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Both Sides of the Coin: Randomization from the Perspectives of Physician-Investigators and Patient-Subjects.

Authors:  Tsiao Yi Yap; Kathleen A Kassimatis; Eric Kodish
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2010

8.  Participating in a trial in a critical situation: a qualitative study in pregnancy.

Authors:  S Kenyon; M Dixon-Woods; C J Jackson; K Windridge; E Pitchforth
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2006-04

9.  Can response-adaptive randomization increase participation in acute stroke trials?

Authors:  Jason S Tehranisa; William J Meurer
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 7.914

10.  Patients' perceptions of research in emergency settings: a study of survivors of sudden cardiac death.

Authors:  Neal W Dickert; Nancy E Kass
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-11-10       Impact factor: 4.634

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.