scholarly journals Randomised controlled trials and health services research

BMJ ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 310 (6972) ◽  
pp. 125-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Shepperd ◽  
C. Jenkinson ◽  
P. Morgan
Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline French ◽  
Hilary Pinnock ◽  
Gordon Forbes ◽  
Imogen Skene ◽  
Stephanie J. C. Taylor

Abstract Background Process evaluations are increasingly conducted within pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of health services interventions and provide vital information to enhance understanding of RCT findings. However, issues pertaining to process evaluation in this specific context have been little discussed. We aimed to describe the frequency, characteristics, labelling, value, practical conduct issues, and accessibility of published process evaluations within pragmatic RCTs in health services research. Methods We used a 2-phase systematic search process to (1) identify an index sample of journal articles reporting primary outcome results of pragmatic RCTs published in 2015 and then (2) identify all associated publications. We used an operational definition of process evaluation based on the Medical Research Council’s process evaluation framework to identify both process evaluations reported separately and process data reported in the trial results papers. We extracted and analysed quantitative and qualitative data to answer review objectives. Results From an index sample of 31 pragmatic RCTs, we identified 17 separate process evaluation studies. These had varied characteristics and only three were labelled ‘process evaluation’. Each of the 31 trial results papers also reported process data, with a median of five different process evaluation components per trial. Reported barriers and facilitators related to real-world collection of process data, recruitment of participants to process evaluations, and health services research regulations. We synthesised a wide range of reported benefits of process evaluations to interventions, trials, and wider knowledge. Visibility was often poor, with 13/17 process evaluations not mentioned in the trial results paper and 12/16 process evaluation journal articles not appearing in the trial registry. Conclusions In our sample of reviewed pragmatic RCTs, the meaning of the label ‘process evaluation’ appears uncertain, and the scope and significance of the term warrant further research and clarification. Although there were many ways in which the process evaluations added value, they often had poor visibility. Our findings suggest approaches that could enhance the planning and utility of process evaluations in the context of pragmatic RCTs. Trial registration Not applicable for PROSPERO registration


Medical Care ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 627-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morris Weinberger ◽  
Eugene Z. Oddone ◽  
William G. Henderson ◽  
David M. Smith ◽  
James Huey ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 103985622093614
Author(s):  
Steve Kisely

There are challenges to conducting randomised controlled trials in psychotherapy. This article therefore discusses methodological advances in applying this design to the field. The application of evidence-based practice to psychotherapy means that people with psychological problems, clinicians, health services and any third-party payers can confidently choose from a range of effective treatments that are best suited to an individual’s needs.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Katherine Wiles ◽  
Debra Kay ◽  
Julie Luker ◽  
Anthea Worley ◽  
Jane Austin ◽  
...  

Abstract BackgroundTo assess the effects of consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services.MethodsWe updated a review published in 2006 and 2009 and revised the previous search strategies for key databases (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Web of Science) up to February 2020. Selection criteria included randomised controlled trials assessing consumer engagement in developing health care policy, research, or health services. The International Association for Public Participation, Spectrum of Public Participation was used to identify, describe, compare and analyse consumer engagement. Outcome measures were effects on people; effects on the policy/research/health care services; or process outcomes.ResultsWe included 23 randomised controlled trials with a moderate or high risk of bias, involving 136,265 participants. Most consumer engagement strategies adopted a consultative approach during the development phase of interventions, targeted to health services. Based on four large cluster-randomised controlled trials, there is evidence that consumer engagement in the development and delivery of health services to enhance the care of pregnant women results in a reduction in neonatal, but not maternal, mortality. From other trials, there is evidence that involving consumers in developing patient information material results in material that is more relevant, readable and understandable for patients, and can improve knowledge. Mixed effects are reported of consumer-engagement on the development and/or implementation of health professional training. There is some evidence that using consumer interviewers instead of staff in satisfaction surveys can have a small influence on the results. There is some evidence that consumers may have a role in identifying broader range of health care priorities that are complementary to those from professionals. There is some evidence that consumer engagement in monitoring and evaluating health services may impact perceptions of patient safety or quality of life.ConclusionsThere is growing evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effects of consumer engagement on the relevance and positive outcomes of health policy, research and services. Health care consumers, providers, researchers and funders should continue to employ evidence-informed consumer engagement in their jurisdictions, with embedded evaluation. Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018102595.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document