The Library

Does it matter if clinicians recruiting for a trial don't understand what the trial is really about? Qualitative study of surgeons' experiences of participation in a pragmatic multi-centre RCT

Tools

Ziebland, Sue, Featherstone, Katie, Snowdon, Claire, Barker, Karen, Frost, Helen and Fairbank, Jeremy. (2007) Does it matter if clinicians recruiting for a trial don't understand what the trial is really about? Qualitative study of surgeons' experiences of participation in a pragmatic multi-centre RCT. Trials, Vol.8 (No.4). ISSN 1745-6215

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Frost_Clinicians_Recruiting.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (261Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-4

Abstract

Background Qualitative methods are increasingly used to study the process of clinical trials and patients understanding of the rationale for trials, randomisation and reasons for taking part or refusing. Patients' understandings are inevitably influenced by the recruiting clinician's understanding of the trial, yet relatively little qualitative work has explored clinicians' perceptions and understandings of trials. This study interviewed surgeons shortly after the multi-centre, pragmatic RCT in which they had participated had been completed. Methods We used in-depth interviews with surgeons who participated in the Spine Stabilisation Trial (a pragmatic RCT) to explore their understanding of the trial purpose and how this understanding had influenced their recruitment procedures and interpretation of the results. A purposive sample of eleven participating surgeons was chosen from 8 of the 15 UK trial centres. Results Although the surgeons thought that the trial was addressing an important question there was little agreement about what this question was: although it was a trial of 'equivalent' treatments, some thought that it was a trial of surgery, others a trial of rehabilitation and others that it was exploring what to do with patients in whom all other treatment options had been unsuccessful. The surgeons we interviewed were not aware of the rationale for the pragmatic inclusion criteria and nearly all were completely baffled about the meaning of 'equipoise'. Misunderstandings about the entry criteria were an important source of confusion about the results and led to reluctance to apply the results to their own practice. Conclusion The study suggests several lessons for the conduct of future multi-centre trials. Recruiting surgeons (and other clinicians) may not be familiar with the rationale for pragmatic designs and may need to be regularly reminded about the purpose during the study. Reassurance may be necessary that a pragmatic design is not considered a design fault. We conclude that it does matter if clinicians do not understand the rationale for the trial if, as we have shown here, their perception of the trial aims and methods adversely affects who they recruit; if their views affect what the patients are told; and if they mistakenly view the results as unscientific, unreliable and ultimately irrelevant to their practice.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Clinical trials -- Great Britain, Medical research personnel, Human experimentation in medicine -- Evaluation
Journal or Publication Title:	Trials
Publisher:	BioMed Central Ltd.
ISSN:	1745-6215
Date:	27 January 2007
Volume:	Vol.8
Number:	No.4
Identification Number:	10.1186/1745-6215-8-4
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Funder:	Medical Research Council (Great Britain) (MRC)
References:	1. Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, Peters T, Frankel S, Neal D, Hamdy F: Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ 2002, 5;325(7367):766-70. 2. Pollock AV: The rise and fall of the random controlled trial in surgery. Theor Surg 1989, 4:163-170. 3. Howes N, Chagla L, Thorpe M, McCulloch P: Br J Surg 1997, 84(9):1220-3. 4. Ko CY, Sack J, Chang JT, Fink A: Reporting randomized, controlled trials: where quality of reporting may be improved. Dis Colon Rectum 2002, 45(4):443-7. 5. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS: Surgery and the randomised controlled trial: past, present and future. Med J Aust 1998, 169(7):380-3. 6. Horton R: Surgical research or comic opera: questions but few answers. Lancet 1996, 347:984-985. 7. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS: Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations? Surgery 1995, 118(3):459-67. 8. Curry JI, Reeves B, Stringer MD: Randomized controlled trials in pediatric surgery: could we do better? J Pediatr Surg 2003, 38(4):556-9. 9. Anyanwu AC, Treasure T: Surgical research revisited: clinical trials in the cardiothoracic surgical literature. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004, 25(3):299-303. 10. Stirrat GM : Ethics and evidence based surgery. J Med Ethics 2004, 30(2):160-5. Review 11. Buchwald H: Surgical procedures and devices should be evaluated in the same way as medical therapy. Control Clin Trials 1997, 18(6):478-87. 12. Ehrlich PF, Newman KD, Haase GM, Lobe TE, Wiener ES, Holcomb GW: Lessons learned from a failed multi-institutional randomized controlled study. J Pediatr Surg 2002, 37(3):431-6. 13. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D: Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002, 324(7351):1448-51. 14. Reitsma AM, Moreno JD: thical regulations for innovative surgery: the last frontier? J Am Coll Surg 2002, 194(6):792-801. 15. Margo CE: When is surgery research? Towards an operational definition of human research. J Med Ethics 2001, 27:40-43. 16. McLeod RS, Wright JG, Solomon MJ, Hu X, Walters BC, Lossing A: Randomized controlled trials in surgery: Issues and problems. Surgery 1996, 119(5):483-6. 17. Maddern GJ: Surgery and evidence-based medicine. Med J Aust 1998, 5;169(7):348-9. 18. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D: Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002, 324(7351):1448-51. 19. Fallowfield L, Ratcliffe D, Souhami R: Clinicians' attitudes to clinical trials of cancer therapy. Eur J Cancer 1997, 33(13):2221-9. 20. Martin RC 2nd, Polk HC Jr, Jaques DP: Does additional surgical training increase participation in randomized controlled trials? Am J Surg 2003, 185(3):239-43. 21. Millat B, Fingerhut A, Flamant Y, Hay JM, Fagniez PL, Farah A, Duron JJ, Courchevel JM: Survey of the impact of randomised clinical trials on surgical practice in France. Eur J Surg 1999, 165(2):87-94. 22. Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J, Yu LM, Barker K, Collins R: Spine Stabilisation Trial Group Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. BMJ 2005, 330:1233-1239. 23. Riviero-Arias O, Campbell H, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson- MacDonald J: Surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2005, 330:1239-1243. 24. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000, 320:114-6. 25. Garcia J, Elbourne DR, Snowdon C: Equipoise: a case study of the views of clinicians involved in two neonatal trials. Clin Trials 2004, 1(2):170-8. 26. Schwartz D, Lelouch J: Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials. Journal of Chronic Disease 1967, 20:637-48. 27. Snowdon C, Elbourne D, Garcia J: Making sense of randomisation; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med 1997, 45:1337-55.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/562