Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study

Trials

Jane M Blazeby²  Jenny Donovan¹  Simon J Cawthorn³  Nicola Mills¹  Shelley Potter² 

[1] Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK;Division of Surgery, Head and Neck, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Upper Maudlin Street, Bristol BS2 8HW, UK;Bristol Breast Care Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK

关键词: Randomised clinical trials;    Qualitative;    Methodology;    Education;    Breast reconstruction;   

Others  :  807288
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-15-80

 received in 2013-11-04, accepted in 2014-02-26,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Well-designed randomised clinical trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence to inform decision-making and should be the default option for evaluating surgical procedures. Such trials can be challenging, and surgeons’ preferences may influence whether trials are initiated and successfully conducted and their results accepted. Preferences are particularly problematic when surgeons’ views play a key role in procedure selection and patient eligibility. The bases of such preferences have rarely been explored. Our aim in this qualitative study was to investigate surgeons’ preferences regarding the feasibility of surgical RCTs and their understanding of study design issues using breast reconstruction surgery as a case study.

Methods

Semistructured qualitative interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 35 professionals practicing at 15 centres across the United Kingdom. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparative techniques. Sampling, data collection and analysis were conducted concurrently and iteratively until data saturation was achieved.

Results

Surgeons often struggle with the concept of equipoise. We found that if surgeons did not feel ‘in equipoise’, they did not accept randomisation as a method of treatment allocation. The underlying reasons for limited equipoise were limited appreciation of the methodological weaknesses of data derived from nonrandomised studies and little understanding of pragmatic trial design. Their belief in the value of RCTs for generating high-quality data to change or inform practice was not widely held.

Conclusion

There is a need to help surgeons understand evidence, equipoise and bias. Current National Institute of Health Research/Medical Research Council investment into education and infrastructure for RCTs, combined with strong leadership, may begin to address these issues or more specific interventions may be required.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Potter et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D: Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? BMJ 1999, 318:318-322.
• [2]McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, Nicholl J, Balliol C, Aronson JK, Barkun JS, Blazeby JM, Boutron IC, Campbell WB, Clavien PA, Cook JA, Ergina PL, Feldman LS, Flum DR, Maddern GJ, Nicholl J, Reeves BC, Seiler CM, Strasberg SM, Meakins JL, Ashby D, Black N, Bunker J, Burton M, Campbell M, Chalkidou K, et al.: No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009, 374:1105-1112.
• [3]Buchwald H: Surgical procedures and devices should be evaluated in the same way as medical therapy. Control Clin Trials 1997, 18:478-487.
• [4]Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien PA, Reeves BC, Seiler CM, Altman DG, Aronson JK, Barkun JS, Campbell WB, Cook JA, Feldman LS, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Maddern GJ, Marshall JC, McCulloch P, Nicholl J, Strasberg SM, Meakins JL, Ashby D, Black N, Bunker J, Burton M, Campbell M, Chalkidou K, Chalmers I, de Leval M, Balliol Collaboration, et al.: Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 2009, 374:1097-1104.
• [5]McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D: Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002, 324:1448-1451.
• [6]Solomon MJ, McLeod RS: Surgery and the randomised clinical trial: past, present and future. Med J Aust 1998, 169:380-383.
• [7]Cook JA: The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials 2009, 10:9. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Stirrat GM, Farrow SC, Farndon J, Dwyer N: The challenge of evaluating surgical procedures. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1992, 74:80-84.
• [9]Ziebland S, Featherstone K, Snowdon C, Barker K, Frost H, Fairbank J: Does it matter if clinicians recruiting for a trial don’t understand what the trial is really about? Qualitative study of surgeons’ experiences of participation in a pragmatic multi-centre RCT. Trials 2007, 8:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, Moore D, Wilson S, Damery S: Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2012, 2:e000496.
• [11]Cordeiro PG: Breast reconstruction after surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2008, 359:1590-1601.
• [12]Thiruchelvam PTR, McNeill F, Jallali N, Harris P, Hogben K: Post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. BMJ 2013, 347:f5903. A published erratum appears in BMJ 2013, 347:f6810
• [13]Gerber B, Krause A, Reimer T, Müller H, Friese K: Breast reconstruction with latissimus dorsi flap: improved aesthetic results after transection of its humeral insertion. Plast Reconstr Surg 1876–1881, 1999:103.
• [14]Bassiouny MM, Maamoun SI, El-Shazly S, Youssef OZ: TRAM flap for immediate post mastectomy reconstruction: comparison between pedicled and free transfer. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 2005, 17:231-238.
• [15]Benediktsson K, Perbeck LG: Fluid retention in Bioplasty Misti Gold II breast prostheses with development of capsular contracture. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2000, 34:65-70.
• [16]Di Benedetto G, Aquinati A, Santoli M, Bertani A: Which is the best position for the remote injection dome using the adjustable expander/prosthesis in breast reconstruction? A comparative study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004, 113:1629-1633.
• [17]Daltrey I, Thomson H, Hussien M, Krishna K, Rayter Z, Winters ZE: Randomized clinical trial of the effect of quilting latissimus dorsi flap donor site on seroma formation. Br J Surg 2006, 93:825-830.
• [18]Forouhi P, Dixon JM, Leonard RC, Chetty U: Prospective randomized study of surgical morbidity following primary systemic therapy for breast cancer. Br J Surg 1995, 82:79-82.
• [19]Meretoja TJ, von Smitten KA, Kuokkanen HO, Suominen SH, Jahkola TA: Complications of skin-sparing mastectomy followed by immediate breast reconstruction: a prospective randomized study comparing high-frequency radiosurgery with conventional diathermy. Ann Plast Surg 2008, 60:24-28.
• [20]Moran SL, Nava G, Behnam AB, Serletti JM: An outcome analysis comparing the thoracodorsal and internal mammary vessels as recipient sites for microvascular breast reconstruction: a prospective study of 100 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 1876–1882, 2003:111.
• [21]McCarthy CM, Lee CN, Halvorson EG, Riedel E, Pusic AL, Mehrara BJ, Disa JJ: The use of acellular dermal matrices in two-stage expander/implant reconstruction: a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012, 130(5 Suppl 2):57S-66S.
• [22]Taghizadeh R, Shoaib T, Hart AM, Weiler-Mithoff EM: Triamcinolone reduces seroma re-accumulation in the extended latissimus dorsi donor site. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008, 61:636-642.
• [23]Thuesen B, Siim E, Christensen L, Schrøder M: Capsular contracture after breast reconstruction with the tissue expansion technique: a comparison of smooth and textured silicone breast prostheses. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 1995, 29:9-13.
• [24]Brandberg Y, Malm M, Blomqvist L: A prospective and randomized study, “SVEA”, comparing effects of three methods for delayed breast reconstruction on quality of life, patient-defined problem areas of life, and cosmetic result. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000, 105:66-76.
• [25]Dean C, Chetty U, Forrest APM: Effects of immediate breast reconstruction on psychosocial morbidity after mastectomy. Lancet 1983, 321:459-462.
• [26]Potter S, Harcourt D, Cawthorn S, Warr R, Mills N, Havercroft D, Blazeby J: Assessment of cosmesis after breast reconstruction surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 2011, 18:813-823.
• [27]Potter S, Brigic A, Whiting PF, Cawthorn SJ, Avery KN, Donovan JL, Blazeby JM: Reporting clinical outcomes of breast reconstruction: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011, 103:31-46.
• [28]Girotto JA, Schreiber J, Nahabedian MY: Breast reconstruction in the elderly: preserving excellent quality of life. Ann Plast Surg 2003, 50:572-578.
• [29]Cocquyt VF, Blondeel PN, Depypere HT, Van De Sijpe KA, Daems KK, Monstrey SJ, Van Belle SJ: Better cosmetic results and comparable quality of life after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate autologous breast reconstruction compared to breast conservative treatment. Br J Plast Surg 2003, 56:462-470.
• [30]Tønseth KA, Hokland BM, Tindholdt TT, Åbyholm FE, Stavem K: Quality of life, patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome after breast reconstruction using DIEP flap or expandable breast implant. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008, 61:1188-1194.
• [31]Mullan MH, Wilkins EG, Goldfarb S, Lowery JC, Smith DM, Wickman M, Sandelin K: Prospective analysis of psychosocial outcomes after breast reconstruction: cross-cultural comparisons of 1-year postoperative results. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2007, 60:503-508.
• [32]Atisha A, Alderman AK, Lowery JC, Kuhn LE, Davis J, Wilkins EG: Prospective analysis of long-term psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: two-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Ann Surg 2008, 247:1019-1028.
• [33]Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Kim HM, Lowery JC: Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002, 109:2265-2274.
• [34]Fogarty BJ, Brown AP, Miller R, Khan K: TRAM flap versus nonautologous breast reconstruction: what do patients really think? Plast Reconstr Surg 2004, 113:1146-1152.
• [35]Harcourt DM, Rumsey NJ, Ambler NR, Cawthorn SJ, Reid CD, Maddox PR, Kenealy JM, Rainsbury RM, Umpleby HC: The psychological effect of mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction: a prospective, multicenter study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003, 111:1060-1068.
• [36]Atisha DM, Alderman AK, Kuhn LE, Wilkins EG: The impact of obesity on patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1893–1899, 2008:121.
• [37]Pope C, Mays N: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995, 311:42-45.
• [38]Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, Peters T, Frankel S, Neal D, Hamdy F: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. BMJ 2002, 325:766-770.
• [39]Teddlie C, Yu F: Mixed methods sampling: a typology with examples. J Mixed Methods Res 2007, 1:77-100.
• [40]Mays N, Pope C: Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ 1995, 311:109-112.
• [41]Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W: An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008, 337:a288.
• [42]Mays N, Pope C: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000, 320:50-52.
• [43]Kennedy TJ, Lingard LA: Making sense of grounded theory in medical education. Med Educ 2006, 40:101-108.
• [44]Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W: Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008, 337:a1035.
• [45]Glaser B, Strauss AL: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Adeline; 1967.
• [46]Lingard L, Albert M, Levinson W: Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. BMJ 2008, 337:a567.
• [47]McGhee G, Marland GR, Atkinson J: Grounded theory research: literature reviewing and reflexivity. J Adv Nurs 2007, 60:334-342.
• [48]Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000, 320:114-116.
• [49]Barbour RS: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ 2001, 322:1115-1117.
• [50]Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007, 19:349-357.
• [51]Long AF, Godfrey M: An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2004, 7:181-196.
• [52]Meyrick J: What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality. J Health Psychol 2006, 11:799-808.
• [53]Potter S, Mills N, Cawthorn S, Wilson S, Blazeby J: Exploring inequalities in access to care and the provision of choice to women seeking breast reconstruction surgery: a qualitative study. Br J Cancer 2013, 109:1181-1191.
• [54]McCulloch P: How to improve surgical research. BMJ 2011, 343:d4121.
• [55]Horton R: Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 1996, 347:984-985.
• [56]Bakali E, Pitchforth E, Tincello DG, Kenyon S, Slack M, Toozs-Hobson P, Mayne C, Jones DR, Taylor D: Clinicians’ views on the feasibility of surgical randomized trials in urogynecology: results of a questionnaire survey. Neurourol Urodyn 2011, 30:69-74.
• [57]Abraham NS, Hewett P, Young JM, Solomon MJ: Non-entry of eligible patients into the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study. ANZ J Surg 2006, 76:825-829.
• [58]King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M, Sibbald B, Lai R: Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants’ and professionals’ preferences in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 2005, 9:1-186. iii–iv
• [59]Bower P, King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Sibbald B: Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: conceptual framework and implications for research. Soc Sci Med 2005, 61:685-695.
• [60]Bowling A, Rowe G: “You decide doctor”. What do patient preference arms in clinical trials really mean? J Epidemiol Community Health 2005, 59:914-915.
• [61]Mills N, Donovan JL, Wade J, Hamdy FC, Neal DE, Lane JA: Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:1127-1136.
• [62]Rowe G, Lambert N, Bowling A, Ebrahim S, Wakeling I, Thomson R: Assessing patients’ preferences for treatments for angina using a modified repertory grid method. Soc Sci Med 2005, 60:2585-2595.
• [63]Richards H, Emslie C: The ‘doctor’ or the ‘girl from the University’? Considering the influence of professional roles on qualitative interviewing. Fam Pract 2000, 17:71-75.
• [64]Heneghan C: The saga of Poly Implant Prosthèse breast implants. BMJ 2012, 344:e306.
• [65]Meakins JL: Innovation in surgery: the rules of evidence. Am J Surg 2002, 183:399-405.
• [66]Angelos P: The ethical challenges of surgical innovation for patient care. Lancet 2010, 376:1046-1047.
• [67]Biffl WL, Spain DA, Reitsma AM, Minter RM, Upperman J, Wilson M, Adams R, Goldman EB, Angelos P, Krummel T, Greenfield LJ, Society of University Surgeons Surgical Innovations Project Team: Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: a position statement of the Society of University Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 2008, 206:1204-1209.
• [68]Reitsma AM, Moreno JD: Ethical regulations for innovative surgery: the last frontier? J Am Coll Surg 2002, 194:792-801.
• [69]Marron JM, Siegler M: Ethical issues in innovative colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2005, 48:1109-1113.
• [70]Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Boutron IC, Campbell WB, Clavien PA, Cook JA, Ergina PL, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, McCulloch P, Nicholl J, Reeves BC, Seiler CM, Meakins JL, Ashby D, Black N, Bunker J, Burton M, Campbell M, Chalkidou K, Chalmers I, de Leval M, Deeks J, Grant A, et al.: Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 2009, 374:1089-1096.
• [71]Kesselheim AS, Avorn J: New and unproved medical devices. BMJ 2013, 347:f7413.
• [72]Russell I: Evaluating new surgical procedures. BMJ 1995, 311:1243-1244.
• [73]Young JM, Solomon MJ: Improving the evidence-base in surgery: evaluating surgical effectiveness. ANZ J Surg 2003, 73:507-510.
• [74]Solomon MJ, McLeod RS: Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations? Surgery 1995, 118:459-467.
• [75]Farrokhyar F, Karanicolas PJ, Thoma A, Simunovic M, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Anvari M, Adili A, Guyatt G: Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg 2010, 251:409-416.
• [76]Paramasivan S, Huddart R, Hall E, Lewis R, Birtle A, Donovan JL: Key issues in recruitment to randomised controlled trials with very different interventions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment to the SPARE trial (CRUK/07/011). Trials 2011, 12:78. BioMed Central Full Text
• [77]Royal College of Surgeons of England: From Theory to Theatre: Overcoming Barriers to Innovation in Surgery. London: Royal College of Surgeons of England; 2011. Available at http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/news/docs/theory_to_theatre_2011_web.pdf/view webcite (accessed 7 March 2014)
• [78]Royal College of Surgeons of England: Surgical Research Report 2012. London: Royal College of Surgeons of England; 2012. Available at http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/publications/docs/surgical-research-report-2012 webcite (accessed 7 March 2014)
• [79]Kolias AG, Jones TL, Cowie CJ, Coulter IC, Afshari FT, Tarnaris A, Nelson RJ, Gray WP, Hutchinson PJ, Brennan PM, UK Neurosurgical Research Network; British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative: A report from the inaugural meeting of the British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative held in the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 19 October 2012. Br J Neurosurg 2013, 27:307-310.
• [80]Kolias AG, Cowie CJ, Tarnaris A, Hutchinson PJ, Brennan PM, British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative: Ensuring a bright future for clinical research in surgery with trainee led research networks. BMJ 2013, 347:f5225.
• [81]Bhangu A, Richardson C, Torrance A, Pinkney T, Battersby C, Beral D, Cornish J, Dent H, Hall N, Palser T, Panagiotopoulou I, Strong S, Velineni R, Panagiotopoulou I, Chatzizacharias N, Rana M, Rollins K, Ejtehadi F, Jha B, Tan Y, Fanous N, Markides G, Tan A, Marshal C, Akhtar S, Mullassery D, Ismail A, Hitchins C, Sharif S, National Surgical Research Collaborative, et al.: Multicentre observational study of performance variation in provision and outcome of emergency appendicectomy. Br J Surg 2013, 100:1240-1252.
• [82]Pinkney TD, Calvert M, Bartlett DC, Gheorghe A, Redman V, Dowswell G, Hawkins W, Mak T, Youssef H, Richardson C, Hornby S, Magill L, Haslop R, Wilson S, Morton D, Harrison G, Ryan R, Bradbury J, Gill M, Berkman L, Leaper D, Dunn J, Hill J, Obichere A, Ghods-Ghorbani M, Roberts T, Bhangu A, Futaba K, Harrison G, Hepburn E, et al.: Impact of wound edge protection devices on surgical site infection after laparotomy: multicentre randomised controlled trial (ROSSINI Trial). BMJ 2013, 347:f4305.