Inadequacy of ethical conduct and reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials: Results from a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background/aims The use of the stepped wedge cluster randomized design is rapidly increasing. This design is commonly used to evaluate health policy and service delivery interventions. Stepped wedge cluster randomized trials have unique characteristics that complicate their ethical interpretation. The 2012 Ottawa Statement provides comprehensive guidance on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials, and the 2010 CONSORT extension for cluster randomized trials provides guidelines for reporting. Our aims were to assess the adequacy of the ethical conduct and reporting of stepped wedge trials to date, focusing on research ethics review and informed consent. Methods We conducted a systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials in health research published up to 2014 in English language journals. We extracted details of study intervention and data collection procedures, as well as reporting of research ethics review and informed consent. Two reviewers independently extracted data from each trial; discrepancies were resolved through discussion. We identified the presence of any research participants at the cluster level and the individual level. We assessed ethical conduct by tabulating reporting of research ethics review and informed consent against the presence of research participants. Results Of 32 identified stepped wedge trials, only 24 (75%) reported review by a research ethics committee, and only 16 (50%) reported informed consent from any research participants-yet, all trials included research participants at some level. In the subgroup of 20 trials with research participants at cluster level, only 4 (20%) reported informed consent from such participants; in 26 trials with individual-level research participants, only 15 (58%) reported their informed consent. Interventions (regardless of whether targeting cluster- or individual-level participants) were delivered at the group level in more than two-thirds of trials; nine trials (28%) had no identifiable data collected from any research participants. Overall, only three trials (9%) indicated that a waiver of consent had been granted by a research ethics committee. When considering the combined requirement of research ethics review and informed consent (or a waiver), only one in three studies were compliant. Conclusion The ethical conduct and reporting of key ethical protections in stepped wedge trials, namely, research ethics review and informed consent, are inadequate. We recommend that stepped wedge trials be classified as research and reviewed and approved by a research ethics committee. We also recommend that researchers appropriately identify research participants (which may include health professionals), seek informed consent or appeal to an ethics committee for a waiver of consent, and include explicit details of research ethics approval and informed consent in the trial report.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,752 | 0,919 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,014 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».