Do health care institutions value research? A mixed methods study of barriers and facilitators to methodological rigor in pediatric randomized trials

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Lisa Hartling⁴  David Moher¹  Terry P Klassen⁵  Shannon D Scott³  Michele P Hamm² 

[1] Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada;Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, ECHA 4-482B, 11405-87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T5G 1C9, Canada;Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada;Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada;Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

关键词: Mixed methods;    Pediatrics;    Risk of bias;    Clinical trials as topic;   

Others  :  1126598
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-158

 received in 2012-02-10, accepted in 2012-10-15,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Pediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are susceptible to a high risk of bias. We examined the barriers and facilitators that pediatric trialists face in the design and conduct of unbiased trials.

Methods

We used a mixed methods design, with semi-structured interviews building upon the results of a quantitative survey. We surveyed Canadian (n=253) and international (n=600) pediatric trialists regarding their knowledge and awareness of bias and their perceived barriers and facilitators in conducting clinical trials. We then interviewed 13 participants from different subspecialties and geographic locations to gain a more detailed description of how their experiences and attitudes towards research interacted with trial design and conduct.

Results

The survey response rate was 23.0% (186/807). 68.1% of respondents agreed that bias is a problem in pediatric RCTs and 72.0% felt that there is sufficient evidence to support changing some aspects of how trials are conducted. Knowledge related to bias was variable, with inconsistent awareness of study design features that may introduce bias into a study. Interview participants highlighted a lack of formal training in research methods, a negative research culture, and the pragmatics of trial conduct as barriers. Facilitators included contact with knowledgeable and supportive colleagues and infrastructure for research.

Conclusions

A lack of awareness of bias and negative attitudes towards research present significant barriers in terms of conducting methodologically rigorous pediatric RCTs. Knowledge translation efforts must focus on these issues to ensure the relevance and validity of trial results.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Hamm et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Moss RL, Henry MCW, Dimmitt RA, Rangel S, Geraghty N, Skarsgard ED: The role of prospective randomized clinical trials in pediatric surgery: state of the art? J Pediatr Surg 2001, 36:1182-1186.
• [2]Welk B, Afshar K, MacNeily AE: Randomized controlled trials in pediatric urology: room for improvement. J Urol 2006, 176:306-310.
• [3]Dulai SK, Slobogean BLT, Beauchamp RD, Mulpuri K: A quality assessment of randomized clinical trials in pediatric orthopaedics. J Pediatr Orthop 2007, 27:573-581.
• [4]Uman LS, Chambers CT, McGrath PJ, Kisely S, Matthews D, Hayton K: Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials examining psychological interventions for pediatric procedural pain: recommendations for quality improvement. J Pediatr Psychol 2010, 35:693-703.
• [5]Nor Aripin KNB, Choonara I, Sammons HM: A systematic review of paediatric randomised controlled drug trials published in 2007. Arch Dis Child 2010, 95:469-473.
• [6]Thomson D, Hartling L, Cohen E, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP: Controlled trials in children: quantity, methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of pediatric controlled trials published 1948–2006. PLoS One 2010, 5:e13106.
• [7]DeMauro SB, Giaccone A, Kirpalani H, Schmidt B: Quality of reporting of neonatal and infant trials in high-impact journals. Pediatrics 2011, 128:e639.
• [8]Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Seida JK, Klassen TP: Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 2009, 339:b4012.
• [9]Crocetti MT, Amin DD, Scherer R: Assessment of risk of bias among pediatric randomized controlled trials. Pediatrics 2010, 126:298-305.
• [10]Hamm MP, Hartling L, Milne A, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Thomson D, Curtis S, Klassen TP: A descriptive analysis of a representative sample of pediatric randomized controlled trials published in 2007. BMC Pediatr 2010, 10:96. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Chalmers I, Glasziou P: Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009, 374:86-89.
• [12]Altman DG: The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994, 308:283-284.
• [13]Als-Nielsen B, Gluud LL, Gluud C: Methodological quality and treatment effects in randomised trials: a review of six empirical studies. 12th Cochrane colloquium. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2004. Oct 2–6
• [14]Pildal J, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ, Hilden J, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC: Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 2007, 36:847-857.
• [15]Abraha I, Duca PG, Montedori A: Empirical evidence of bias: modified intention to treat analysis of randomised trials affects estimates of intervention efficacy. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2008, 102(Suppl VI):9.
• [16]Von Elm E, Rollin A, Blumle A, Senessie C, Low N, Egger M: Selective reporting of outcomes of drug trials? comparison of study protocols and published articles. 14th Cochrane colloquium. Dublin, Ireland: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2006. Oct 23–26
• [17]Dwan K, Altman DG, Amaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, Decullier E, Easterbrook PJ, Von Elm E, Gamble C, Ghersi D, Ioannidis JP, Simes J, Williamson PR: Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 2008, 3:e3081.
• [18]Bassler D, Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Briel M, Cook DJ, Devereaux PJ, Heels-Ansdell D, Kirpalani H, Meade MO, Montori VM, Rozenberg A, Schunemann HJ, Guyatt GH: Systematic reviewers neglect bias that results from trials stopped early for benefit. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60:869-873.
• [19]Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NK, Burns KE, Eggert CH, Briel M, Lacchetti C, Leung TW, Darling E, Bryant DM, Bucher HC, Schunemann HJ, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Erwin PJ, Sood A, Sood R, Lo B, Thompson CA, Zhou Q, Mills E, Guyatt GH: Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA 2005, 294:2203-2209.
• [20]Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP: Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003, 298:454-465.
• [21]Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003, 326:1167-1170.
• [22]Sismondo S: Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials 2008, 29:109-113.
• [23]Caldwell PHY, Butow PN, Craig JC: Pediatricians’ attitudes toward randomized controlled trials involving children. J Pediatr 2002, 141:798-803.
• [24]Cohen E, Shaul RZ: Beyond the therapeutic orphan: children and clinical trials. Pediatr Health 2008, 2:151-159.
• [25]Rheims S, Cucherat M, Arzimanoglou A, Ryvlin P: Greater response to placebo in children than in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis in drug-resistant partial epilepsy. PLoS Med 2008, 5:e166.
• [26]Tishler CL, Reiss NS: Pediatric drug-trial recruitment: enticement without coercion. Pediatrics 2011, 127:949-954.
• [27]Ballard HO, Shook LA, Desai NS, Anand KJ: Neonatal research and the validity of informed consent obtained in the perinatal period. J Perinatol 2004, 24:409-415.
• [28]Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL: Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications; 2011.
• [29]Higgins JPT, Green S: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org webcite
• [30]Funk SG, Champagne MT, Wiese RA, Tornquist EM: BARRIERS: the barriers to research utilization scale. Appl Nurs Res 1991, 4:39-45.
• [31]Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR: Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? a framework for improvement. JAMA 1999, 282:1458-1465.
• [32]Kajermo KN, Boström AM, Thompson DS, Hutchinson AM, Estabrooks CA, Wallin L: The BARRIERS scale – the barriers to research utilization scale: a systematic review. Implement Sci 2010, 5:32. BioMed Central Full Text
• [33]Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L: How many interviews are enough? an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006, 18:59-82.
• [34]Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005, 15:1277-1288.
• [35]Morse J, Niehaus L: Mixed methods design: principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press; 2009.
• [36]Caldwell PHY, Murphy SB, Butow PN, Craig JC: Clinical trials in children. Lancet 2004, 364:803-811.
• [37]Unguru Y: The successful integration of research and care: how pediatric oncology became the subspecialty in which research defines the standard of care. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2011, 56:1019-1025.
• [38]Marshall JC, Cook DJ, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group: Investigator-led clinical research consortia: the Canadian critical care trials group. Crit Care Med 2009, 37(1 Suppl):S165-S172.
• [39]Klassen TP, Acworth J, Bialy L, Black K, Chamberlain JM, Cheng N, Dalziel S, Fernandes RM, Fitzpatrick E, Johnson DW, Kuppermann N, Macias CG, Newton M, Osmond MH, Plint A, Valerio P, Waisman Y, PERN: Pediatric emergency research networks: a global initiative in pediatric emergency medicine. Pediatr Emerg Care 2010, 26:541-543.
• [40]Hartling L, Wittmeier KDM, van der Lee JH, Klassen TP, Craig JC, Offringa M, StaR Child Health group: StaR child health: developing evidence-based guidance for the design, conduct, and reporting of pediatric trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011, 90:727-731.
• [41]Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan M, Nazarteh I: Effects of a financial incentive on health researchers’ response to an online survey: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2010, 12:e13.
• [42]VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL: Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians. Eval Health Prof 2007, 30:303-321.