Inadequacy of ethical conduct and reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials: Results from a systematic review

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Research ethics stepped wedge cluster randomized trial research participant informed consent waiver of consent

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Martin

Taljaard

Girling

. A systematic review finds major deficiencies in sample size methodology and reporting for stepped wedge cluster randomised trials. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e010166.

Hussey

Hughes

JP.

Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials 2007; 28: 182–191.

Hemming

Lilford

Girling

AJ.

Stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials: a generic framework including parallel and multiple level designs. Stat Med 2015; 34: 181–196.

Hemming

Taljaard

Sample size calculations for stepped wedge and cluster randomised trials: a unified approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 69: 137–146.

Copas

Lewis

Thompson

. Designing a stepped wedge trial: three main designs, carry-over effects and randomisation approaches. Trials 2015; 16: 352.

Davey

Hargreaves

Thompson

. Analysis and reporting of stepped wedge randomised controlled trials: synthesis and critical appraisal of published studies, 2010 to 2014. Trials 2015; 16: 358.

Baio

Copas

Ambler

. Sample size calculation for a stepped wedge trial. Trials 2015; 16: 354.

De Hoop

Van der Tweel

van der Graaf

. The need to balance merits and limitations from different disciplines when considering the stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015; 15: 93.

Doussau

Grady

Deciphering assumptions about stepped wedge designs: the case of Ebola vaccine research. J Med Ethics 2016; 42: 797–804.

10.

Mdege

Man

Taylor Nee Brown

. Systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials shows that design is particularly used to evaluate interventions during routine implementation. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 936–948.

11.

Beard

Lewis

Copas

. Stepped wedge randomised controlled trials: systematic review of studies published between 2010 and 2014. Trials 2015; 16: 353.

12.

Weijer

Grimshaw

Taljaard

. Ethical issues posed by cluster randomized trials in health research. Trials 2011; 12: 100.

13.

Prost

Binik

Abubakar

. Logistic, ethical, and political dimensions of stepped wedge trials: critical review and case studies. Trials 2015; 16: 351.

14.

Weijer

Grimshaw

Eccles

. The Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001346.

15.

Taljaard

Weijer

Grimshaw

. The Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomised trials: précis for researchers and research ethics committees. BMJ 2013; 346: f2838.

16.

McRae

Weijer

Binik

. Who is the research subject in cluster randomized trials in health research? Trials 2011; 12: 183.

17.

McRae

Weijer

Binik

. When is informed consent required in cluster randomized trials in health research? Trials 2011; 12: 202.

18.

Gallo

Weijer

White

. What is the role and authority of gatekeepers in cluster randomized trials in health research? Trials 2012; 13: 116.

19.

Campbell

Elbourne

Altman

. CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2004; 328: 702–708.

20.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Protection of research participants, http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/protection-of-research-participants.html (accessed 27 July 2016).

21.

United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World economic situation and prospects 2015 (World economic and social survey). United Nations: conference on trade and development, https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/least-developed-country-category/ldcs-at-a-glance.html

22.

Eldridge

Kerry

Torgerson

DJ.

Bias in identifying and recruiting participants in cluster randomised trials: what can be done?

BMJ 2009; 339: b4006.

23.

Levine

RJ.

Ethics and regulation of clinical research. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988, p. 3.

24.

Taljaard

McRae

Weijer

. Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomized trials: review of a representative sample of published trials. BMJ 2011; 342: d2496.

25.

Hemming

Girling

Haines

. Protocol: consort extension to stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial, http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Consort-SW-Protocol-V1.pdf (2014, accessed 27 July 2016).