Dataset Information

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are "socially disadvantaged" and this can affect policy-makers' decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials.

Methods

We developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials.

Results

In total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT).

Discussion

In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations.

SUBMITTER: Petkovic J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7118943 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Cluster randomized trials have been utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of HIV prevention strategies on reducing incidence. Design of such studies must take into account possible correlation of outcomes within randomized units. Purpose To discuss power and sample size considerations for cluster randomized trials of combination HIV prevention, using an HIV prevention study in Botswana as an illustration. Methods We introduce a new agent-based model to simulate the community-level impact of a combination prevention strategy and investigate how correlation structure within a community affects the coefficient of variation - an essential parameter in designing a cluster randomized trial. Results We construct collections of sexual networks and then propagate HIV on them to simulate the disease epidemic. Increasing level of sexual mixing between intervention and standard-of-care (SOC) communities reduces the difference in cumulative incidence in the two sets of communities. Fifteen clusters per arm and 500 incidence cohort members per community provide 95% power to detect the projected difference in cumulative HIV incidence between SOC and intervention communities (3.93% and 2.34%) at the end of the third study year, using a coefficient of variation 0.25. Although available formulas for calculating sample size for cluster randomized trials can be derived by assuming an exchangeable correlation structure within clusters, we show that deviations from this assumption do not generally affect the validity of such formulas. Limitations We construct sexual networks based on data from Likoma Island, Malawi, and base disease progression on longitudinal estimates from an incidence cohort in Botswana and in Durban as well as a household survey in Mochudi, Botswana. Network data from Botswana and larger sample sizes to estimate rates of disease progression would be useful in assessing the robustness of our model results. Conclusion Epidemic modeling plays a critical role in planning and evaluating interventions for prevention. Simulation studies allow us to take into consideration available information on sexual network characteristics, such as mixing within and between communities as well as coverage levels for different prevention modalities in the combination prevention package.

Project description:BackgroundThere are many methodological challenges in the conduct and analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials, but one that has received little attention is that of post-randomisation changes to cluster composition. To illustrate this, we focus on the issue of cluster merging, considering the impact on the design, analysis and interpretation of trial outcomes.MethodsWe explored the effects of merging clusters on study power using standard methods of power calculation. We assessed the potential impacts on study findings of both homogeneous cluster merges (involving clusters randomised to the same arm of a trial) and heterogeneous merges (involving clusters randomised to different arms of a trial) by simulation. To determine the impact on bias and precision of treatment effect estimates, we applied standard methods of analysis to different populations under analysis.ResultsCluster merging produced a systematic reduction in study power. This effect depended on the number of merges and was most pronounced when variability in cluster size was at its greatest. Simulations demonstrate that the impact on analysis was minimal when cluster merges were homogeneous, with impact on study power being balanced by a change in observed intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC). We found a decrease in study power when cluster merges were heterogeneous, and the estimate of treatment effect was attenuated.ConclusionsExamples of cluster merges found in previously published reports of cluster randomised trials were typically homogeneous rather than heterogeneous. Simulations demonstrated that trial findings in such cases would be unbiased. However, simulations also showed that any heterogeneous cluster merges would introduce bias that would be hard to quantify, as well as having negative impacts on the precision of estimates obtained. Further methodological development is warranted to better determine how to analyse such trials appropriately. Interim recommendations include avoidance of cluster merges where possible, discontinuation of clusters following heterogeneous merges, allowance for potential loss of clusters and additional variability in cluster size in the original sample size calculation, and use of appropriate ICC estimates that reflect cluster size.