Ethical and policy issues in cluster randomized trials: rationale and design of a mixed methods research study.

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomized trials are an increasingly important methodological tool in health research. In cluster randomized trials, intact social units or groups of individuals, such as medical practices, schools, or entire communities--rather than individual themselves--are randomly allocated to intervention or control conditions, while outcomes are then observed on individual cluster members. The substantial methodological differences between cluster randomized trials and conventional randomized trials pose serious challenges to the current conceptual framework for research ethics. The ethical implications of randomizing groups rather than individuals are not addressed in current research ethics guidelines, nor have they even been thoroughly explored. The main objectives of this research are to: (1) identify ethical issues arising in cluster trials and learn how they are currently being addressed; (2) understand how ethics reviews of cluster trials are carried out in different countries (Canada, the USA and the UK); (3) elicit the views and experiences of trial participants and cluster representatives; (4) develop well-grounded guidelines for the ethical conduct and review of cluster trials by conducting an extensive ethical analysis and organizing a consensus process; (5) disseminate the guidelines to researchers, research ethics boards (REBs), journal editors, and research funders. METHODS: We will use a mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) approach incorporating both empirical and conceptual work. Empirical work will include a systematic review of a random sample of published trials, a survey and in-depth interviews with trialists, a survey of REBs, and in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with trial participants and gatekeepers. The empirical work will inform the concurrent ethical analysis which will lead to a guidance document laying out principles, policy options, and rationale for proposed guidelines. An Expert Panel of researchers, ethicists, health lawyers, consumer advocates, REB members, and representatives from low-middle income countries will be appointed. A consensus conference will be convened and draft guidelines will be generated by the Panel; an e-consultation phase will then be launched to invite comments from the broader community of researchers, policy-makers, and the public before a final set of guidelines is generated by the Panel and widely disseminated by the research team.

From randomized controlled trials to evidence grading schemes: current state of evidence-based practice in social sciences.

With the advance of web search and navigation technology, enormous amount of information, non-information, and misinformation may be obtained in milliseconds in response to questions about 'what works' in social sciences. Today, policy makers in non-medical public service arenas are under increasing pressure to make sound decisions based on scientific evidence. Some of these decisions are a matter of legal requirement. This paper shows how such movements are closely aligned with the evolution of organizations that develop and apply evidence standards and evidence grading schemes within the social science communities. The current state of evidence-based practice in social sciences is examined by reviewing the latest development of randomized trials and evidence grading schemes in the fields of education, criminal justice, and social welfare. Studies conducted under the auspices of the Campbell Collaboration and What Works Clearinghouse are used to illustrate ingredients of evidence grading schemes, graphic display of results of systematic reviews, and discrepancies of evidence derived from randomized trials and non-experimental trials. Furthermore, it is argued that the use of evidence on 'what works' depends on the potential users' awareness, understanding of the evidence, as well as their capacity and willingness to use it. Awareness and understanding depends on the world wide web and its augmentations, while capacity and willingness depends more on incentives to use good evidence and on political and ethical values. Implications for the future development of evidence grading organizations are discussed.

Standards of evidence: criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination.

Ever increasing demands for accountability, together with the proliferation of lists of evidence-based prevention programs and policies, led the Society for Prevention Research to charge a committee with establishing standards for identifying effective prevention programs and policies. Recognizing that interventions that are effective and ready for dissemination are a subset of effective programs and policies, and that effective programs and policies are a subset of efficacious interventions, SPR's Standards Committee developed overlapping sets of standards. We designed these Standards to assist practitioners, policy makers, and administrators to determine which interventions are efficacious, which are effective, and which are ready for dissemination. Under these Standards, an efficacious intervention will have been tested in at least two rigorous trials that (1) involved defined samples from defined populations, (2) used psychometrically sound measures and data collection procedures; (3) analyzed their data with rigorous statistical approaches; (4) showed consistent positive effects (without serious iatrogenic effects); and (5) reported at least one significant long-term follow-up. An effective intervention under these Standards will not only meet all standards for efficacious interventions, but also will have (1) manuals, appropriate training, and technical support available to allow third parties to adopt and implement the intervention; (2) been evaluated under real-world conditions in studies that included sound measurement of the level of implementation and engagement of the target audience (in both the intervention and control conditions); (3) indicated the practical importance of intervention outcome effects; and (4) clearly demonstrated to whom intervention findings can be generalized. An intervention recognized as ready for broad dissemination under these Standards will not only meet all standards for efficacious and effective interventions, but will also provide (1) evidence of the ability to "go to scale"; (2) clear cost information; and (3) monitoring and evaluation tools so that adopting agencies can monitor or evaluate how well the intervention works in their settings. Finally, the Standards Committee identified possible standards desirable for current and future areas of prevention science as the field develops. If successful, these Standards will inform efforts in the field to find prevention programs and policies that are of proven efficacy, effectiveness, or readiness for adoption and will guide prevention scientists as they seek to discover, research, and bring to the field new prevention programs and policies.