Literature DB >> 14675304

Randomized controlled trials of socially complex nursing interventions: creating bias and unreliability?

Bruce Lindsay1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The randomized controlled trial is viewed by many researchers as the 'gold standard' research design. It is used increasingly to evaluate the effectiveness of socially complex activities such as nursing interventions. This use is seen by many commentators as problematic, while others are concerned about the quality of many published trial reports. One area of concern is that of intervention bias: the impact that a sentient intervention, such as a nursing one, may have consciously or unconsciously on study outcomes. This paper reports on an analysis of intervention definitions and possible intervention bias in 47 reports of randomized controlled trials of nursing interventions published in 2000 or 2001. AIMS: This study evaluates four characteristics of the included reports: intervention sample size, intervention definition, involvement of intervention nurses in other aspects of the trial, and the claimed generalizability of results.
METHODS: Reports of randomized controlled trials published in 2000 or 2001 were identified. Full-text versions of 47 papers were obtained and information about the four characteristics was extracted and analysed.
RESULTS: Problems relating to possible intervention bias were identified in each of the papers. Inadequate intervention definition was the commonest problem, leading to difficulties in calculating the 'intervention dose' and in replicating or generalizing from the studies. DISCUSSION: None of the included studies met the requirements of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. Four types of intervention bias were identified, and their possible implications for the reporting of trials of nursing interventions are discussed. This was a small-scale study, limited by time and resources. Its results are suggestive of a major problem of intervention bias but larger-scale investigations are necessary to quantify its extent.
CONCLUSIONS: Intervention bias is potentially a problem in randomized controlled trials. Lack of detail about interventions in published papers could be corrected by stricter adherence to guidelines such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, but this will not correct the underlying problem of inadequate study design that appears to be widespread in randomized controlled trials of nursing interventions.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14675304     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02864.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Adv Nurs        ISSN: 0309-2402            Impact factor:   3.187


  13 in total

1.  Meeting the Challenges of Intervention Research in Health Science: An Argument for a Multimethod Research Approach.

Authors:  Helle Ploug Hansen; Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 2.  Pragmatic randomised controlled trials in parenting research: the issue of intention to treat.

Authors:  Karen Whittaker; Chris Sutton; Chris Burton
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Comparing maternal child health problems and outcomes across public health nursing agencies.

Authors:  Karen A Monsen; Jayne A Fulkerson; Amy B Lytton; Lila L Taft; Linda D Schwichtenberg; Karen S Martin
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2009-06-04

Review 4.  Telephone follow-up, initiated by a hospital-based health professional, for postdischarge problems in patients discharged from hospital to home.

Authors:  P Mistiaen; E Poot
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18

5.  A virtual outpatient department provides a satisfactory patient experience following endoscopy.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Ryan; Ailín C Rogers; Ann M Hanly; Niamh McCawley; Joseph Deasy; Deborah A McNamara
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2013-12-06       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  An embedded longitudinal multi-faceted qualitative evaluation of a complex cluster randomized controlled trial aiming to reduce clinically important errors in medicines management in general practice.

Authors:  Kathrin M Cresswell; Stacey Sadler; Sarah Rodgers; Anthony Avery; Judith Cantrill; Scott A Murray; Aziz Sheikh
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Implementing and evaluating the first german young-carers project: intentions, pitfalls and the need for piloting complex interventions.

Authors:  Jörg Große Schlarmann; Sabine Metzing-Blau; Wilfried Schnepp
Journal:  Open Nurs J       Date:  2011-04-07

Review 8.  A 10 year (2000-2010) systematic review of interventions to improve quality of care in hospitals.

Authors:  Mary C Conry; Niamh Humphries; Karen Morgan; Yvonne McGowan; Anthony Montgomery; Kavita Vedhara; Efharis Panagopoulou; Hannah Mc Gee
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 9.  Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability.

Authors:  Shaun Treweek; Merrick Zwarenstein
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-06-03       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Randomized controlled trial of a nurse-led rheumatology clinic for monitoring biological therapy.

Authors:  Ingrid Larsson; Bengt Fridlund; Barbro Arvidsson; Annika Teleman; Stefan Bergman
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2013-06-17       Impact factor: 3.187

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.