TY - JOUR
T1 - Developing a framework for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials in healthcare
T2 - A mixed methods research protocol 16 Studies in Human Society 1605 Policy and Administration
AU - Taljaard, Monica
AU - Weijer, Charles
AU - Grimshaw, Jeremy M.
AU - Ali, Adnan
AU - Brehaut, Jamie C.
AU - Campbell, Marion K.
AU - Carroll, Kelly
AU - Edwards, Sarah
AU - Eldridge, Sandra
AU - Forrest, Christopher B.
AU - Giraudeau, Bruno
AU - Goldstein, Cory E.
AU - Graham, Ian D.
AU - Hemming, Karla
AU - Hey, Spencer Phillips
AU - Horn, Austin R.
AU - Jairath, Vipul
AU - Klassen, Terry P.
AU - London, Alex John
AU - Marlin, Susan
AU - Marshall, John C.
AU - McIntyre, Lauralyn
AU - McKenzie, Joanne E.
AU - Nicholls, Stuart G.
AU - Alison Paprica, P.
AU - Zwarenstein, Merrick
AU - Fergusson, Dean A.
PY - 2018/9/27
Y1 - 2018/9/27
N2 - Background: There is a widely recognized need for more pragmatic trials that evaluate interventions in real-world settings to inform decision-making by patients, providers, and health system leaders. Increasing availability of electronic health records, centralized research ethics review, and novel trial designs, combined with support and resources from governments worldwide for patient-centered research, have created an unprecedented opportunity to advance the conduct of pragmatic trials, which can ultimately improve patient health and health system outcomes. Such trials raise ethical issues that have not yet been fully addressed, with existing literature concentrating on regulations in specific jurisdictions rather than arguments grounded in ethical principles. Proposed solutions (e.g. using different regulations in "learning healthcare systems") are speculative with no guarantee of improvement over existing oversight procedures. Most importantly, the literature does not reflect a broad vision of protecting the core liberty and welfare interests of research participants. Novel ethical guidance is required. We have assembled a team of ethicists, trialists, methodologists, social scientists, knowledge users, and community members with the goal of developing guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials. Methods: Our project will combine empirical and conceptual work and a consensus development process. Empirical work will: (1) identify a comprehensive list of ethical issues through interviews with a small group of key informants (e.g. trialists, ethicists, chairs of research ethics committees); (2) document current practices by reviewing a random sample of pragmatic trials and surveying authors; (3) elicit views of chairs of research ethics committees through surveys in Canada, UK, USA, France, and Australia; and (4) elicit views and experiences of community members and health system leaders through focus groups and surveys. Conceptual work will consist of an ethical analysis of identified issues and the development of new ethical solutions, outlining principles, policy options, and rationales. The consensus development process will involve an independent expert panel to develop a final guidance document. Discussion: Planned output includes manuscripts, educational materials, and tailored guidance documents to inform and support researchers, research ethics committees, journal editors, regulators, and funders in the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials.
AB - Background: There is a widely recognized need for more pragmatic trials that evaluate interventions in real-world settings to inform decision-making by patients, providers, and health system leaders. Increasing availability of electronic health records, centralized research ethics review, and novel trial designs, combined with support and resources from governments worldwide for patient-centered research, have created an unprecedented opportunity to advance the conduct of pragmatic trials, which can ultimately improve patient health and health system outcomes. Such trials raise ethical issues that have not yet been fully addressed, with existing literature concentrating on regulations in specific jurisdictions rather than arguments grounded in ethical principles. Proposed solutions (e.g. using different regulations in "learning healthcare systems") are speculative with no guarantee of improvement over existing oversight procedures. Most importantly, the literature does not reflect a broad vision of protecting the core liberty and welfare interests of research participants. Novel ethical guidance is required. We have assembled a team of ethicists, trialists, methodologists, social scientists, knowledge users, and community members with the goal of developing guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials. Methods: Our project will combine empirical and conceptual work and a consensus development process. Empirical work will: (1) identify a comprehensive list of ethical issues through interviews with a small group of key informants (e.g. trialists, ethicists, chairs of research ethics committees); (2) document current practices by reviewing a random sample of pragmatic trials and surveying authors; (3) elicit views of chairs of research ethics committees through surveys in Canada, UK, USA, France, and Australia; and (4) elicit views and experiences of community members and health system leaders through focus groups and surveys. Conceptual work will consist of an ethical analysis of identified issues and the development of new ethical solutions, outlining principles, policy options, and rationales. The consensus development process will involve an independent expert panel to develop a final guidance document. Discussion: Planned output includes manuscripts, educational materials, and tailored guidance documents to inform and support researchers, research ethics committees, journal editors, regulators, and funders in the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials.
KW - Clinical trials
KW - Comparative effectiveness research
KW - Ethics guidelines
KW - Informed consent
KW - Large simple trials
KW - Mixed methods
KW - Patient-centered research
KW - Pragmatic randomized controlled trials
KW - Research ethics
KW - Usual care interventions
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054084685&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s13063-018-2895-x
DO - 10.1186/s13063-018-2895-x
M3 - Article
C2 - 30261933
AN - SCOPUS:85054084685
VL - 19
JO - Trials
JF - Trials
SN - 1745-6215
IS - 1
M1 - 525
ER -