scholarly journals Ethical Issues in the Design and Conduct of Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trials in Hemodialysis Care: An Interview Study With Key Stakeholders

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 205435812096411
Author(s):  
Stuart G. Nicholls ◽  
Kelly Carroll ◽  
Charles Weijer ◽  
Cory E. Goldstein ◽  
Jamie Brehaut ◽  
...  

Background: Pragmatic cluster randomized trials (CRTs) offer an opportunity to improve health care by answering important questions about the comparative effectiveness of treatments using a trial design that can be embedded in routine care. There is a lack of empirical research that addresses ethical issues generated by pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis. Objective: To identify stakeholder perceptions of ethical issues in pragmatic CRTs conducted in hemodialysis. Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Setting: In-person or telephone interviews with an international group of stakeholders. Participants: Stakeholders (clinical investigators, methodologists, ethicists and research ethics committee members, and other knowledge users) who had been involved in the design or conduct of a pragmatic individual patient or cluster randomized trial in hemodialysis, or their role would require them to review and evaluate pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis. Methods: Interviews were conducted in-person or over the telephone and were audio-recorded with consent. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim prior to analysis. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Results: Sixteen interviews were conducted with 19 individuals. Interviewees were largely drawn from North America (84%) and were predominantly clinical investigators (42%). Six themes were identified in which pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis raise ethical issues: (1) patients treated with hemodialysis as a vulnerable population, (2) appropriate approaches to informed consent, (3) research burdens, (4) roles and responsibilities of gatekeepers, (5) inequities in access to research, and (6) advocacy for patient-centered research and outcomes. Limitations: Participants were largely from North America and did not include research staff, who may have differing perspectives. Conclusions: The six themes reflect concerns relating to individual rights, but also the need to consider population-level issues. To date, concerns regarding inequity of access to research and the need for patient-centered research have received less coverage than other, well-known, issues such as consent. Pragmatic CRTs offer a potential approach to address equity concerns and we suggest future ethical analyses and guidance for pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis embed equity considerations within them. We further note the potential for the co-creation of health data infrastructure with patients which would aid care but also facilitate patient-centered research. These present results will inform planned future guidance in relation to the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis. Trial Registration: Registration is not applicable as this is a qualitative study.

2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (5) ◽  
pp. 659-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cory E. Goldstein ◽  
Charles Weijer ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
Ahmed A. Al-Jaishi ◽  
Erika Basile ◽  
...  

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (S2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaustubh Joag ◽  
Guillermo Ambrosio ◽  
Edgar Kestler ◽  
Charles Weijer ◽  
Karla Hemming ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) are increasingly popular in health-related research in both high- and low-resource settings. There may be specific ethical issues that researchers face when designing and conducting SW-CRTs in low-resource settings. Knowledge of these issues can help to improve the ethical conduct of SW-CRTs in a global health context. Methods We performed an ethical analysis of two studies using SW-CRT designs in low-resource settings: the Que Vivan Las Madres study conducted from 2014 to 2017 in Guatemala and the Atmiyata study conducted from 2017 to 2018 in rural parts of India. For both case studies, we identified and evaluated the classification of the study as research or nonresearch and the ethical issues regarding the justification of the design, including the delayed rollout of an intervention that had a promising effect. Results In our case studies, some minor ethical issues surfaced about the registration and stakeholder pressure on the order of randomization, but both included good justification for the design and delayed rollout. Our analysis did, however, demonstrate that careful consideration of the role of randomization and registration of the trials is important. Discussion SW-CRTs can provide an opportunity for rigorous evaluation of interventions destined to be rolled out on the basis of limited evidence. Furthermore, in SW-CRTs, the underlying objective is often to provide a robust evaluation of the effectiveness for generalized dissemination, and this makes the SW-CRT no less a research study than any other form of cluster randomized trial. Conclusion The design and conduct of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials raises at least two ethical issues that need special consideration in both high- and low-resource settings: the justification for using the design, specifically the delayed rollout of the intervention to the control group, and the classification of the study as research or nonresearch. In our case studies, these issues did not seem to raise special ethical scrutiny in low-resource settings. Further ethical evaluation will hopefully result in specific ethical guidelines for the use of SW-CRTs in both high- and low-resource settings to contribute to responsible functioning of these trials and adequate protection of participants.


Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (S2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rieke van der Graaf ◽  
Phaik Yeong Cheah

AbstractThis editorial introduces articles in this Special Issue, which are based on presentations given at the 2017 meeting of the Global Forum of Bioethics in Research meeting. The main themes presented at the meeting were the use of cluster randomized trials, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials, and controlled human infection models in research conducted in low-resource settings. The editorial sets out which ethical issues may arise in the context of alternative trial designs and describes the articles in this issue that addresses some or more of the ethical issues, such as justification of the research design, risk-benefit evaluations and consent.


Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Augustine T. Choko ◽  
Gholamreza Roshandel ◽  
Donaldson F. Conserve ◽  
Elizabeth L. Corbett ◽  
Katherine Fielding ◽  
...  

Trials ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Weijer ◽  
Jeremy M Grimshaw ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
Ariella Binik ◽  
Robert Boruch ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Eva Lorenz ◽  
Sabine Gabrysch

In cluster-randomized trials, groups or clusters of individuals, rather than individuals themselves, are randomly allocated to intervention or control. In this article, we describe a new command, ccrand, that implements a covariate-constrained randomization procedure for cluster-randomized trials. It can ensure balance of one or more baseline covariates between trial arms by restriction to allocations that meet specified balance criteria. We provide a brief overview of the theoretical background, describe ccrand and its options, and illustrate it using an example.


2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhiying You ◽  
O Dale Williams ◽  
Inmaculada Aban ◽  
Edmond Kato Kabagambe ◽  
Hemant K Tiwari ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
L Miriam Dickinson ◽  
Patrick Hosokawa ◽  
Jeanette A Waxmonsky ◽  
Bethany M Kwan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document