Dataset Information

Cluster randomisation or randomised consent as an appropriate methodology for trials in palliative care: a feasibility study [ISRCTN60243484].

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Although guidelines for the care of the dying patient exist the evidence base to support the guidelines is poor. Some of the factors contributing to this include failure to recruit to trials, protective healthcare professionals and subsequent attrition from trials due to the death of the patients. Recent studies report favourably on the use of cluster randomisation as an appropriate methodology for use in this patient group. METHODS/DESIGN: A feasibility study, exploring two types of randomisation as appropriate methodology for trials involving dying patients. Cluster randomisation and randomised consent will be utilised following a crossover design at two sites, one oncology ward and one Macmillan unit within the Northwest Wales NHS Trust. All patients commencing on the Integrated Care Pathway (ICP) for the Last Days of Life will be eligible for inclusion in the study. Using the hypothesis that it is not necessary to prescribe an anti-emetic medication when setting up a syringe driver for the dying patient, the study will evaluate different models of research methodology. DISCUSSION: The identification of the most appropriate methodology for use in studies concerning this patient group will inform the development of future clinical studies. Furthermore, the outcomes of this feasibility study will inform the development, of a proposal seeking funding for Wales-wide trials in palliative care. The identification of an appropriate methodology will provide a starting point for the establishment of a robust evidence base for the care of the dying patient.

SUBMITTER: Fowell A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC420454 | biostudies-literature | 2004 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cluster randomisation or randomised consent as an appropriate methodology for trials in palliative care: a feasibility study [ISRCTN60243484].

Fowell Andrew A Russell Ian I Johnstone Ros R Finlay Ilora I Russell Daphne D

BMC palliative care 20040427 1

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines for the care of the dying patient exist the evidence base to support the guidelines is poor. Some of the factors contributing to this include failure to recruit to trials, protective healthcare professionals and subsequent attrition from trials due to the death of the patients. Recent studies report favourably on the use of cluster randomisation as an appropriate methodology for use in this patient group. METHODS/DESIGN: A feasibility study, exploring two types of ...[more]

PMID: 15113420

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCluster randomised trials often randomise a small number of units, putting them at risk of poor balance of covariates across treatment arms. Covariate constrained randomisation aims to reduce this risk by removing the worst balanced allocations from consideration. This is known to provide only a small gain in power over that averaged under simple randomisation and is likely influenced by the number and prognostic effect of the covariates. We investigated the performance of covariate constrained randomisation in comparison to the worst balanced allocations, and considered the impact on the power of the prognostic effect and number of covariates adjusted for in the analysis.MethodsUsing simulation, we examined the Monte Carlo type I error rate and power of cross-sectional, two-arm parallel cluster-randomised trials with a continuous outcome and four binary cluster-level covariates, using either simple or covariate constrained randomisation. Data were analysed using a small sample corrected linear mixed-effects model, adjusted for some or all of the binary covariates. We varied the number of clusters, intra-cluster correlation, number and prognostic effect of covariates balanced in the randomisation and adjusted in the analysis, and the size of the candidate set from which the allocation was selected. For each scenario, 20,000 simulations were conducted.ResultsWhen compared to the worst balanced allocations, covariate constrained randomisation with an adjusted analysis provided gains in power of up to 20 percentage points. Even with analysis-based adjustment for those covariates balanced in the randomisation, the type I error rate was not maintained when the intracluster correlation is very small (0.001). Generally, greater power was achieved when more prognostic covariates are restricted in the randomisation and as the size of the candidate set decreases. However, adjustment for weakly prognostic covariates lead to a loss in power of up to 20 percentage points.ConclusionsWhen compared to the worst balanced allocations, covariate constrained randomisation provides moderate to substantial improvements in power. However, the prognostic effect of the covariates should be carefully considered when selecting them for inclusion in the randomisation.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of research ethics review and informed consent), to determine whether the adequacy of reporting has improved over time, and to identify characteristics of cluster randomised trials associated with reporting of ethics practices.DesignReview of a random sample of published cluster randomised trials from an electronic search in Medline.SettingCluster randomised trials in health research published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. Study sample 300 cluster randomised trials published in 150 journals.Results77 (26%, 95% confidence interval 21% to 31%) trials failed to report ethics review. The proportion reporting ethics review increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report ethics review than were trials that used routine data sources only (79% (n=151) v 55% (23); P=0.008). Trials that accounted for clustering in the design and analysis were more likely to report ethics review. The median impact factor of the journal of publication was higher for trials that reported ethics review (3.4 v 2.3; P<0.001). 93 (31%, 26% to 36%) trials failed to report consent. Reporting of consent increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with interventions targeting participants at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were trials with interventions targeting the cluster level (87% (90) v 48% (41); P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were those that used routine data sources only (78% (146) v 29% (11); P<0.001).ConclusionsReporting of research ethics protections in cluster randomised trials is inadequate. In addition to research ethics approval, authors should report whether informed consent was sought, from whom consent was sought, and what consent was for.

Project description:IntroductionInformed consent is essential to clinical research, though obtaining informed consent for participation in research for emergency conditions is challenging. Adapted consent methods include consent from a substitute-decision maker, deferral of consent and waiver of consent. A novel approach is to use advanced consent, where a potential participant provides consent in the present in the event that they become eligible for enrolment into a future study. This scoping review will map and synthesise the literature on the use of advanced consent for participation and enrolment in randomised control trials for emergency conditions.Methods and analysisGuided by Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology framework, we will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials), the grey literature sources and reference lists of relevant studies. Eligible studies will include English language articles that discuss, examine or employ the use of advanced consent for enrolment in randomised control trials, specifically related to emergency conditions or emergency treatment. Diverse types of articles will be eligible for inclusion, including peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies such as randomised control trials, observational studies, surveys, systematic reviews, as well as narrative reviews and ethics papers. Studies will be screened by two independent reviewers to determine eligibility for inclusion. Data on bibliographic information, study characteristics and methodology, and reported results, specifically author disposition, will be extracted and described using qualitative analysis.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethics review is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication. The findings of this study will help identify knowledge gaps that may guide areas for future research and may aid in the design of future clinical trials using advanced consent.

Dataset Information

Cluster randomisation or randomised consent as an appropriate methodology for trials in palliative care: a feasibility study [ISRCTN60243484].

Publications

Cluster randomisation or randomised consent as an appropriate methodology for trials in palliative care: a feasibility study [ISRCTN60243484].

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets