Dataset Information

Can research assessments themselves cause bias in behaviour change trials? A systematic review of evidence from solomon 4-group studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The possible effects of research assessments on participant behaviour have attracted research interest, especially in studies with behavioural interventions and/or outcomes. Assessments may introduce bias in randomised controlled trials by altering receptivity to intervention in experimental groups and differentially impacting on the behaviour of control groups. In a Solomon 4-group design, participants are randomly allocated to one of four arms: (1) assessed experimental group; (2) unassessed experimental group (3) assessed control group; or (4) unassessed control group. This design provides a test of the internal validity of effect sizes obtained in conventional two-group trials by controlling for the effects of baseline assessment, and assessing interactions between the intervention and baseline assessment. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate evidence from Solomon 4-group studies with behavioural outcomes that baseline research assessments themselves can introduce bias into trials.

Methodology/principal findings

Electronic databases were searched, supplemented by citation searching. Studies were eligible if they reported appropriately analysed results in peer-reviewed journals and used Solomon 4-group designs in non-laboratory settings with behavioural outcome measures and sample sizes of 20 per group or greater. Ten studies from a range of applied areas were included. There was inconsistent evidence of main effects of assessment, sparse evidence of interactions with behavioural interventions, and a lack of convincing data in relation to the research question for this review.

Conclusions/significance

There were too few high quality completed studies to infer conclusively that biases stemming from baseline research assessments do or do not exist. There is, therefore a need for new rigorous Solomon 4-group studies that are purposively designed to evaluate the potential for research assessments to cause bias in behaviour change trials.

SUBMITTER: McCambridge J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3198466 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can research assessments themselves cause bias in behaviour change trials? A systematic review of evidence from solomon 4-group studies.

McCambridge Jim J Butor-Bhavsar Kaanan K Witton John J Elbourne Diana D

PloS one 20111019 10

<h4>Background</h4>The possible effects of research assessments on participant behaviour have attracted research interest, especially in studies with behavioural interventions and/or outcomes. Assessments may introduce bias in randomised controlled trials by altering receptivity to intervention in experimental groups and differentially impacting on the behaviour of control groups. In a Solomon 4-group design, participants are randomly allocated to one of four arms: (1) assessed experimental grou ...[more]

PMID: 22039407

Similar Datasets

Project description:The sequence of events in a behaviour change trial involves interactions between research participants and the trial process. Taking part in such a study has the potential to influence the behaviour of the participant, and if it does, this can engender bias in trial outcomes. Since participants' experience has received scant attention, the aim of this study is thus to generate hypotheses about which aspects of the conduct of behaviour change trials might matter most to participants, and thus have potential to alter subsequent behaviours and bias trial outcomesTwenty participants were opportunistically screened for a health compromising behaviour (unhealthy diet, lack of exercise, smoking or alcohol consumption) and recruited if eligible. Semi structured face to face interviews were conducted, after going through the usual processes involved in trial recruitment, baseline assessment and randomisation. Participants were given information on the contents of an intervention or control condition in a behaviour change trial, which was not actually implemented. Three months later they returned to reflect on these experiences and whether they had any effect on their behaviour during the intervening period. Data from the latter interview were analysed thematically using a modified grounded theory approach.The early processes of trial participation raised awareness of unhealthy behaviours, although most reported having had only fleeting intentions to change their behaviour as a result of taking part in this study, in the absence of interventions. However, careful examination of the accounts revealed evidence of subtle research participation effects, which varied according to the health behaviour, and its perceived social acceptability. Participants' relationships with the research study were viewed as somewhat important in stimulating thinking about whether and how to make lifestyle changes.These participants described no dramatic impacts attributable to taking part in this study. This study demonstrates the likely value of well conducted qualitative studies of subtle research participation effects, which may be particularly important to explore for alcohol. Separating unintended influences in trial participation from the effects of behaviour change interventions being evaluated therein is necessary for valid estimates of intervention effects.

Project description:On the climate-health issue, studies have already attempted to understand the influence of climate change on the transmission of malaria. Extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, or heat waves can alter the course and distribution of malaria. This study aims to understand the impact of future climate change on malaria transmission using, for the first time in Senegal, the ICTP's community-based vector-borne disease model, TRIeste (VECTRI). This biological model is a dynamic mathematical model for the study of malaria transmission that considers the impact of climate and population variability. A new approach for VECTRI input parameters was also used. A bias correction technique, the cumulative distribution function transform (CDF-t) method, was applied to climate simulations to remove systematic biases in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) global climate models (GCMs) that could alter impact predictions. Beforehand, we use reference data for validation such as CPC global unified gauge-based analysis of daily precipitation (CPC for Climate Prediction Center), ERA5-land reanalysis, Climate Hazards InfraRed Precipitation with Station data (CHIRPS), and African Rainfall Climatology 2.0 (ARC2). The results were analyzed for two CMIP5 scenarios for the different time periods: assessment: 1983-2005; near future: 2006-2028; medium term: 2030-2052; and far future: 2077-2099). The validation results show that the models reproduce the annual cycle well. Except for the IPSL-CM5B model, which gives a peak in August, all the other models (ACCESS1-3, CanESM2, CSIRO, CMCC-CM, CMCC-CMS, CNRM-CM5, GFDL-CM3, GFDL-ESM2G, GFDL-ESM2M, inmcm4, and IPSL-CM5B) agree with the validation data on a maximum peak in September with a period of strong transmission in August-October. With spatial variation, the CMIP5 model simulations show more of a difference in the number of malaria cases between the south and the north. Malaria transmission is much higher in the south than in the north. However, the results predicted by the models on the occurrence of malaria by 2100 show differences between the RCP8.5 scenario, considered a high emission scenario, and the RCP4.5 scenario, considered an intermediate mitigation scenario. The CanESM2, CMCC-CM, CMCC-CMS, inmcm4, and IPSL-CM5B models predict decreases with the RCP4.5 scenario. However, ACCESS1-3, CSIRO, NRCM-CM5, GFDL-CM3, GFDL-ESM2G, and GFDL-ESM2M predict increases in malaria under all scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The projected decrease in malaria in the future with these models is much more visible in the RCP8.5 scenario. The results of this study are of paramount importance in the climate-health field. These results will assist in decision-making and will allow for the establishment of preventive surveillance systems for local climate-sensitive diseases, including malaria, in the targeted regions of Senegal.

Dataset Information

Can research assessments themselves cause bias in behaviour change trials? A systematic review of evidence from solomon 4-group studies.

Background

Methodology/principal findings

Conclusions/significance

Publications

Can research assessments themselves cause bias in behaviour change trials? A systematic review of evidence from solomon 4-group studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets