J Bernardo1, A Nowacki2, R Martin3, J M Fanaroff3, A M Hibbs3. 1. 1] Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA [2] Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. 1] Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA [2] Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. 1] Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA [2] Division of Neonatology, Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although common among Neonatal Intensive Care Units, multiples births are randomized inconsistently within trials, which can impact enrollment, analytical approach and trial outcomes. It is not known what randomization approach (same arm, different arm and independent randomization) is preferred by multiples and their families. STUDY DESIGN: Surveys distributed to parents of multiples and adult multiples addressed the preferences on randomization by eliciting the most desired method and likelihood of enrolling twins for each randomization approach. RESULT: Populations included 209 parents and 321 adult multiples. Seventy-eight percent of parents and 59% of multiples prefer same arm placement of multiples over other methods (both P<0.001), which also had highest likelihood of enrollment among both the groups. CONCLUSION: Parents of multiples and adult multiples prefer placement of multiples into same treatment arm in randomized trials, making such methodology a potential way to optimize consent rates while ethically approaching human subject research.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Although common among Neonatal Intensive Care Units, multiples births are randomized inconsistently within trials, which can impact enrollment, analytical approach and trial outcomes. It is not known what randomization approach (same arm, different arm and independent randomization) is preferred by multiples and their families. STUDY DESIGN: Surveys distributed to parents of multiples and adult multiples addressed the preferences on randomization by eliciting the most desired method and likelihood of enrolling twins for each randomization approach. RESULT: Populations included 209 parents and 321 adult multiples. Seventy-eight percent of parents and 59% of multiples prefer same arm placement of multiples over other methods (both P<0.001), which also had highest likelihood of enrollment among both the groups. CONCLUSION: Parents of multiples and adult multiples prefer placement of multiples into same treatment arm in randomized trials, making such methodology a potential way to optimize consent rates while ethically approaching human subject research.
Authors: Suneet P Chauhan; James A Scardo; Edward Hayes; Alfred Z Abuhamad; Vincenzo Berghella Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-08-21 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Anna Maria Hibbs; Dennis Black; Lisa Palermo; Avital Cnaan; Xianqun Luan; William E Truog; Michele C Walsh; Roberta A Ballard Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2009-12-06 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Elizabeth J Robinson; Cicely Kerr; Andrew Stevens; Richard Lilford; David Braunholtz; Sarah Edwards Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Eric Kodish; Michelle Eder; Robert B Noll; Kathleen Ruccione; Beverly Lange; Anne Angiolillo; Rebecca Pentz; Stephen Zyzanski; Laura A Siminoff; Dennis Drotar Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-01-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Louise Marston; Janet L Peacock; Keming Yu; Peter Brocklehurst; Sandra A Calvert; Anne Greenough; Neil Marlow Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Kelly M Boone; Joseph Rausch; Grace Pelak; Rui Li; Abigail Norris Turner; Mark A Klebanoff; Sarah A Keim Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-09-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Kelly M Boone; Andria Parrott; Joseph Rausch; Keith Owen Yeates; Mark A Klebanoff; Abigail Norris Turner; Sarah A Keim Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Sarah A Keim; Barbara Gracious; Kelly M Boone; Mark A Klebanoff; Lynette K Rogers; Joseph Rausch; Daniel L Coury; Kelly W Sheppard; Jesse Husk; Dale A Rhoda Journal: J Nutr Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Ryan Lam; Diane Schilling; Brian Scottoline; Astrid Platteau; Meike Niederhausen; Kelli C Lund; Robert L Schelonka; Kelvin D MacDonald; Cindy T McEvoy Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Kelly M Boone; Mark A Klebanoff; Lynette K Rogers; Joseph Rausch; Daniel L Coury; Sarah A Keim Journal: Early Hum Dev Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 2.699
Authors: Abhik Das; Jon Tyson; Claudia Pedroza; Barbara Schmidt; Marie Gantz; Dennis Wallace; William E Truog; Rosemary D Higgins Journal: Semin Perinatol Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 3.300
Authors: Jon Dorling; Oliver Hewer; Madeleine Hurd; Vasha Bari; Beth Bosiak; Ursula Bowler; Andrew King; Louise Linsell; David Murray; Omar Omar; Christopher Partlett; Catherine Rounding; John Townend; Jane Abbott; Janet Berrington; Elaine Boyle; Nicholas Embleton; Samantha Johnson; Alison Leaf; Kenny McCormick; William McGuire; Mehali Patel; Tracy Roberts; Ben Stenson; Warda Tahir; Mark Monahan; Judy Richards; Judith Rankin; Edmund Juszczak Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Kelly M Boone; Barbara Gracious; Mark A Klebanoff; Lynette K Rogers; Joseph Rausch; Daniel L Coury; Sarah A Keim Journal: Early Hum Dev Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 2.699
Authors: Chris Gale; Neena Modi; Sena Jawad; Lucy Culshaw; Jon Dorling; Ursula Bowler; Amanda Forster; Andy King; Jenny McLeish; Louise Linsell; Mark A Turner; Helen Robberts; Kayleigh Stanbury; Tjeerd van Staa; Ed Juszczak Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 2.692