BACKGROUND: Because pragmatic trials are performed to determine if an intervention can improve current practice, they often have a control group receiving 'usual care'. The behaviour of caregivers and patients in this control group should be influenced by the actions of researchers as little as possible. Guidelines for describing the composition and management of a usual care control group are lacking. AIM: To explore the variety of approaches to the usual care concept in pragmatic trials, and evaluate the influence of the study design on the behaviour of caregivers and patients in a usual care control group. DESIGN OF STUDY: Review of 73 pragmatic trials in primary care with a usual care control group published between January 2005 and December 2009 in the British Medical Journal, the British Journal of General Practice, and Family Practice. Outcome measures were: description of the factors influencing caregiver and patients in a usual care control group related to an individual randomised design versus cluster randomisation. RESULTS: In total, 38 individually randomised trials and 35 cluster randomised trials were included. In most trials, caregivers had the freedom to treat control patients according to their own insight; in two studies, treatment options were restricted. Although possible influences on the behaviour of control caregivers and control patients were more often identified in individually randomised trials, these influences were also present in cluster randomised trials. The description of instructions and information provided to the control group was often insufficient, which made evaluation of the trials difficult. CONCLUSION: Researchers in primary care medicine should carefully consider the design of a usual care control group, especially with regard to minimising the risk of study-induced behavioural change. It is recommended that an adequate description of the information is provided to control caregivers and control patients. A proposal is made for an extension to the CONSORT statement that requires authors to specify details of the usual care control group.
BACKGROUND: Because pragmatic trials are performed to determine if an intervention can improve current practice, they often have a control group receiving 'usual care'. The behaviour of caregivers and patients in this control group should be influenced by the actions of researchers as little as possible. Guidelines for describing the composition and management of a usual care control group are lacking. AIM: To explore the variety of approaches to the usual care concept in pragmatic trials, and evaluate the influence of the study design on the behaviour of caregivers and patients in a usual care control group. DESIGN OF STUDY: Review of 73 pragmatic trials in primary care with a usual care control group published between January 2005 and December 2009 in the British Medical Journal, the British Journal of General Practice, and Family Practice. Outcome measures were: description of the factors influencing caregiver and patients in a usual care control group related to an individual randomised design versus cluster randomisation. RESULTS: In total, 38 individually randomised trials and 35 cluster randomised trials were included. In most trials, caregivers had the freedom to treat control patients according to their own insight; in two studies, treatment options were restricted. Although possible influences on the behaviour of control caregivers and control patients were more often identified in individually randomised trials, these influences were also present in cluster randomised trials. The description of instructions and information provided to the control group was often insufficient, which made evaluation of the trials difficult. CONCLUSION: Researchers in primary care medicine should carefully consider the design of a usual care control group, especially with regard to minimising the risk of study-induced behavioural change. It is recommended that an adequate description of the information is provided to control caregivers and control patients. A proposal is made for an extension to the CONSORT statement that requires authors to specify details of the usual care control group.
Authors: Merrick Zwarenstein; Shaun Treweek; Joel J Gagnier; Douglas G Altman; Sean Tunis; Brian Haynes; Andrew D Oxman; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-11-11
Authors: Ngaire Kerse; Kathy Peri; Elizabeth Robinson; Tim Wilkinson; Martin von Randow; Liz Kiata; John Parsons; Nancy Latham; Matthew Parsons; Jane Willingale; Paul Brown; Bruce Arroll Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-10-09
Authors: C Jane Morrell; Pauline Slade; Rachel Warner; Graham Paley; Simon Dixon; Stephen J Walters; Traolach Brugha; Michael Barkham; Gareth J Parry; Jon Nicholl Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-01-15
Authors: Anthony G Visco; Linda Brubaker; Holly E Richter; Ingrid Nygaard; Marie Fidela Paraiso; Shawn A Menefee; Joseph Schaffer; John Wei; Toby Chai; Nancy Janz; Cathie Spino; Susan Meikle Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2011-10-08 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Antonia F H Smelt; Jeanet W Blom; Frans Dekker; M Elske van den Akker; Arie Knuistingh Neven; Frans G Zitman; Michel D Ferrari; Pim Assendelft Journal: CMAJ Date: 2012-01-09 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Barbara B Biesecker; Sarah E Lillie; Laura M Amendola; Katherine E Donohue; Kelly M East; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Marian J Gilmore; Veronica Greve; Billie Liangolou; Julianne M O'Daniel; Jacqueline A Odgis; Shannon Rego; Bradley Rolf; Sarah Scollon; Sabrina A Suckiel; Jamilyn Zepp; Galen Joseph Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2020-12-05 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Karolien E M Biesheuvel-Leliefeld; Sandra M A Kersten; Henriette E van der Horst; Anneke van Schaik; Claudi L H Bockting; Judith E Bosmans; Filip Smit; Harm W J van Marwijk Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Franca G H Ruikes; Antoinette R M Meys; Gijs van de Wetering; Reinier P Akkermans; Betsie G I van Gaal; Sytse U Zuidema; Henk J Schers; Theo van Achterberg; Raymond T C M Koopmans Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2012-12-05 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Charles Weijer; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Martin P Eccles; Andrew D McRae; Angela White; Jamie C Brehaut; Monica Taljaard Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Annemarije L Kruis; Melinde R S Boland; Catharina H Schoonvelde; Willem J J Assendelft; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Apostolos Tsiachristas; Niels H Chavannes Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2013-03-23 Impact factor: 3.317