Researchers' experiences of the design and conduct challenges associated with parallel-group cluster-randomised trials and views on a novel open-cohort design.


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2024
Historique:
received: 15 06 2023
accepted: 29 12 2023
medline: 23 2 2024
pubmed: 23 2 2024
entrez: 23 2 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Two accepted designs exist for parallel-group cluster-randomised trials (CRTs). Closed-cohort designs follow the same individuals over time with a single recruitment period before randomisation, but face challenges in settings with high attrition. (Repeated) cross-sectional designs recruit at one or more timepoints before and/or after randomisation, collecting data from different individuals present in the cluster at these timepoints, but are unsuitable for assessment of individual change over time. An 'open-cohort' design allows individual follow-up with recruitment before and after cluster-randomisation, but little literature exists on acceptability to inform their use in CRTs. To document the views and experiences of expert trialists to identify: a) Design and conduct challenges with established parallel-group CRT designs,b) Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers to implementation of open-cohort CRTs,c) Methods for minimising, and investigating the impact of, bias in open-cohort CRTs. Qualitative consultation via two expert workshops including triallists (n = 24) who had worked on CRTs over a range of settings. Workshop transcripts were analysed using Descriptive Thematic Analysis utilising inductive and deductive coding. Two central organising concepts were developed. Design and conduct challenges with established CRT designs confirmed that current CRT designs are unable to deal with many of the complex research and intervention circumstances found in some trial settings (e.g. care homes). Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers of open cohort designs included themes on: approaches to recruitment; data collection; analysis; minimising/investigating the impact of bias; and how open-cohort designs might address or present CRT design challenges. Open-cohort designs were felt to provide a solution for some of the challenges current CRT designs present in some settings. Open-cohort CRT designs hold promise for addressing the challenges associated with standard CRT designs. Research is needed to provide clarity around definition and guidance on application.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Two accepted designs exist for parallel-group cluster-randomised trials (CRTs). Closed-cohort designs follow the same individuals over time with a single recruitment period before randomisation, but face challenges in settings with high attrition. (Repeated) cross-sectional designs recruit at one or more timepoints before and/or after randomisation, collecting data from different individuals present in the cluster at these timepoints, but are unsuitable for assessment of individual change over time. An 'open-cohort' design allows individual follow-up with recruitment before and after cluster-randomisation, but little literature exists on acceptability to inform their use in CRTs.
AIM OBJECTIVE
To document the views and experiences of expert trialists to identify: a) Design and conduct challenges with established parallel-group CRT designs,b) Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers to implementation of open-cohort CRTs,c) Methods for minimising, and investigating the impact of, bias in open-cohort CRTs.
METHODS METHODS
Qualitative consultation via two expert workshops including triallists (n = 24) who had worked on CRTs over a range of settings. Workshop transcripts were analysed using Descriptive Thematic Analysis utilising inductive and deductive coding.
RESULTS RESULTS
Two central organising concepts were developed. Design and conduct challenges with established CRT designs confirmed that current CRT designs are unable to deal with many of the complex research and intervention circumstances found in some trial settings (e.g. care homes). Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers of open cohort designs included themes on: approaches to recruitment; data collection; analysis; minimising/investigating the impact of bias; and how open-cohort designs might address or present CRT design challenges. Open-cohort designs were felt to provide a solution for some of the challenges current CRT designs present in some settings.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Open-cohort CRT designs hold promise for addressing the challenges associated with standard CRT designs. Research is needed to provide clarity around definition and guidance on application.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38394190
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297184
pii: PONE-D-23-17325
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0297184

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Surr et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Auteurs

Claire Surr (C)

Centre for Dementia Research, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Laura Marsden (L)

Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Alys Griffiths (A)

Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Sharon Cox (S)

Department of Behavioural Science and Health, UCL, London, United Kingdom.

Jane Fossey (J)

Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.

Adam Martin (A)

Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.

A Toby Prevost (AT)

Nightingale-Saunders Clinical Trials & Epidemiology Unit, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom.

Catherine Walshe (C)

International Observatory on End of Life Care, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.

Rebecca Walwyn (R)

Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Classifications MeSH