Lay public's understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To research the lay public's understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to look at why information on this may not be not taken in or remembered, as well as the effects of providing information designed to overcome barriers. DESIGN: Investigations were informed by an update of systematic review on patients' understanding of consent information in clinical trials, and by relevant theory and evidence from experimental psychology. Nine investigations were conducted with nine participants. SETTING: Access (return to education), leisure and vocational courses at Further Education Colleges in the Midlands, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Healthy adults with a wide range of educational backgrounds and ages. INVESTIGATIONS: Participants read hypothetical scenarios and wrote brief answers to subsequent questions. Sub-samples of participants were interviewed individually to elaborate on their written answers. Participants' background assumptions concerning equipoise and randomisation were examined and ways of helping participants recognise the scientific benefits of randomisation were explored. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Judgments on allocation methods; treatment preferences; the acceptability of random allocation; whether or not individual doctors could be completely unsure about the best treatment; whether or not doctors should reveal treatment preferences under conditions of collective equipoise; and how sure experts would be about the best treatment following random allocation vs doctor/patient choice. Assessments of understanding hypothetical trial information. RESULTS: Recent literature continues to report trial participants' failure to understand or remember information about randomisation and equipoise, despite the provision of clear and readable trial information leaflets. In current best practice, written trial information describes what will happen without offering accessible explanations. As a consequence, patients may create their own incorrect interpretations and consent or refusal may be inadequately informed. In six investigations, most participants identified which methods of allocation were random, but judged the random allocation methods to be unacceptable in a trial context; the mere description of a treatment as new was insufficient to engender a preference for it over a standard treatment; around half of the participants denied that a doctor could be completely unsure about the best treatment. A majority of participants judged it unacceptable for a doctor to suggest letting chance decide when uncertain of the best treatment, and, in the absence of a justification for random allocation, participants did not recognise scientific benefits of random allocation over normal treatment allocation methods. The pattern of results across three intervention studies suggests that merely supplementing written trial information with an explanation is unlikely to be helpful. However, when people manage to focus on the trial's aim of increasing knowledge (as opposed to making treatment decisions about individuals), and process an explanation actively, they may be helped to understand the scientific reasons for random allocation. CONCLUSIONS: This research was not carried out in real healthcare settings. However, participants who could correctly identify random allocation methods, yet judged random allocation unacceptable, doubted the possibility of individual equipoise and saw no scientific benefits of random allocation over doctor/patient choice, are unlikely to draw upon contrasting views if invited to enter a real clinical trial. This suggests that many potential trial participants may have difficulty understanding and remembering trial information that conforms to current best practice in its descriptions of randomisation and equipoise. Given the extent of the disparity between the assumptions underlying trial design and the assumptions held by the lay public, the solution is unlikely to be simple. Nevertheless, the results suggest that including an accessible explanation of the scientific benefits of randomisation may be beneficial provided potential participants are also enabled to reflect on the trial's aim of advancing knowledge, and to think actively about the information presented. Further areas for consideration include: the identification of effective combinations of written and oral information; helping participants to reflect on the aim of advancing knowledge; and an evidence-based approach to leaflet construction.

Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a "trial effect".

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether there is evidence that randomized controlled trials are systematically beneficial, or harmful, for patients. In other words, is there a "trial effect"? If so, to examine whether the evidence sheds light on the likely sources of the difference in outcomes. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: We set out in some detail potential sources of a "trial effect" and potential biases. We found only 14 research articles (covering more than 21 trials) with relevant primary data. We extracted, with difficulty, quantitative data-sets from the articles, and classified these according to likely source of any apparent trial effect. The categories used were: differences in prognosis; superior treatment in the trial; and "protocol/Hawthorne effect" (benefit from improved routine care within a trial). ANALYSIS: The evidence available is limited in breadth (coming largely from cancer trials) and quality, as well as quantity. There is weak evidence to suggest that clinical trials have a positive effect on the outcome of participants. This does not appear to depend strongly on the trial demonstrating that an experimental treatment is superior. However, benefit to participants is less evident where scope for a "protocol/Hawthorne effect" was apparently limited (because there was no effective routine treatment or because the comparison group also received protocol care). A form of bias, arising if clinicians who tend to recruit to trials also tend to be better clinicians, could also explain these results. CONCLUSION: While the evidence is not conclusive, it is more likely that clinical trials have a positive rather than a negative effect on the outcome of patients. In the limited data available, the effect seems to be larger in trials where an effective treatment already exists and is included in the trial protocol. RECOMMENDATION: That carefully researched treatment protocols, and monitoring of outcomes, be used for all patients, not just those in trials.

Redesigning postnatal care: a randomised controlled trial of protocol-based midwifery-led care focused on individual women's physical and psychological health needs.

OBJECTIVES: To develop, implement and test the cost-effectiveness of redesigned postnatal care compared with current care on women's physical and psychological health. DESIGN: A cluster randomised controlled trial, with general practice as the unit of randomisation. Recruited women were followed up by postal questionnaire at 4 and 12 months postpartum and further data collected from midwife and general practice sources. SETTING: Thirty-six randomly selected general practice clusters in the West Midlands Health Region, UK. PARTICIPANTS: All women expected to be resident within recruited practices for postnatal care were eligible for inclusion. Attached midwives recruited 1087 women in the intervention and 977 in the control practice clusters. INTERVENTIONS: The systematic identification and management of women's health problems, led by midwives with general practitioner contact only when required. Symptom checklists and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) were used at various times to maximise the identification of problems, and individual care and visit plans based on needs. Evidence-based guidelines were used to manage needs. Care was delivered over a longer period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's health at 4 and 12 months, assessed by the Physical and Mental Component Scores (PCS and MCS) of the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and the EPDS. Women's views about care, reported morbidity at 12 months, health service usage during the year, 'good practice' indicators and health professionals' views about care were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: At 4 and 12 months postpartum the mean MCS and EPDS scores were significantly better in the intervention group and the proportion of women with an EPDS score of 13+ (indicative of probable depression) was significantly lower relative to controls. The physical health score (PCS) did not differ. Health service usage was significantly less in the intervention group as well as reported psychological morbidity at 12 months. Women's views about care were either more positive or did not differ. Intervention midwives were more satisfied with redesigned care than control midwives were with standard care. Intervention care was cost-effective since outcomes were better and costs did not differ substantially. CONCLUSIONS: The redesigned community postnatal care led by midwives and delivered over a longer period, resulted in an improvement in women's mental health at 4 months postpartum, which persisted at 12 months and at equivalent overall cost. It is suggested that further research should focus on: the identification of postnatal depression through screening; whether fewer adverse longer term effects might be demonstrated among the children of the women who had the intervention care relative to the controls; testing interventions to reduce physical morbidity, including studies to validate measures of physical health in postpartum women. Further research is also required to investigate appropriate postnatal care for ethnic minority groups.

Can unequal be more fair? A response to Andrew Avins.

In this paper, we respond to Andrew Avins's recent review of methods whose use he advocates in clinical trials, to make them more ethical. He recommends in particular, "unbalanced randomisation". However, we argue that, before such a recommendation can be made, it is important to establish why unequal randomisation might offer ethical advantages over equal randomisation, other things being equal. It is important to make a pragmatic distinction between trials of treatments that are already routinely available and trials of restricted treatments. We conclude that unequal randomisation could, indeed, be an ethical compromise between protecting the interests of participants and those of society.

Clinical trials. A place for randomization in the interval between the end of recruitment and availability of results.

There is a time delay between the final recruitment of patients to a randomized controlled trial and the publication of results. The practical options available to decision makers during this gap can be listed according to whether all treatments are already widely available or whether at least one has been restricted to the trial. When the treatments are already in widespread use, the options are simply either to stop randomizing or to continue. When one trial treatment is restricted, there are further options: a) withdraw the restricted treatment altogether, pending the final analysis; b) continue to offer randomization, with a view to providing further data should these be needed; or c) make the intervention widely available to patients who would have previously been eligible for the trial. In this paper, we discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of each option and discuss their attendant ethical implications. In particular, we suggest that continuing randomization is an option worthy of serious consideration. Randomizing patients acts as a "hedge" against the need for more data, given that sample size calculation is an inexact science. However, patients must be made aware of the basis on which randomization is offered.

Faecal contamination on children's hands and environmental surfaces in primary schools in Leeds.

Gastro-intestinal diseases continue to be a major health problem in primary schools in the UK. This study, which took place in 20 primary schools in the Leeds area, investigated the presence of faecal indicator bacteria on children's hands and environmental surfaces. Faecal streptococci were used as an indicator of faecal contamination. A handwashing knowledge score was developed for each child. Those children with good hygiene knowledge had less faecal contamination on their hands (relative risk: 1.4, 95% CI = 1.09-1.81, P = 0.005). Those schools with higher hand counts were more likely to have had a reported outbreak of gastroenteritis in the past. Values of the Townsend Deprivation Index, an indicator of deprivation, were compared with the hand results and those schools in high deprivation areas had higher hand counts. Of the swabs taken from surfaces in the toilet areas and classrooms, the carpets in the classrooms were the most frequently contaminated surfaces.

Effects of redesigned community postnatal care on womens' health 4 months after birth: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Much postpartum physical and psychological morbidity is not addressed by present care, which tends to focus on routine examinations. We undertook a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess community postnatal care that has been redesigned to identify and manage individual needs. METHODS: We randomly allocated 36 general practice clusters from the West Midlands health region of the UK to intervention (n=17) or control (19) care. Midwives from the practices recruited women and provided care. 1087 (53%) of 2064 women were in practices randomly assigned to the intervention group, with 977 (47%) women in practices assigned to the control group. Care was led by midwives, with no routine contact with general practitioners, and was extended to 3 months. Midwives used symptom checklists and the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS) to identify health needs and guidelines for the management of these needs. Primary outcomes at 4 months were obtained by postal questionnaire and included the women's short form 36 physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary scores and the EPDS. Secondary outcomes were women's views about care. Multilevel analysis accounted for possible cluster effects. FINDINGS: 801 (77%) of 1087 women in the intervention group and 702 (76%) of 977 controls responded at 4 months. Women's mental health measures were significantly better in the intervention group (MCS, 3.03 [95% CI 1.53-4.52]; EPDS -1.92 [-2.55 to -1.29]; EPDS 13+ odds ratio 0.57 [0.43-0.76]) than in controls, but the physical health score did not differ. INTERPRETATION: Redesign of care so that it is midwife-led, flexible, and tailored to needs, could help to improve women's mental health and reduce probable depression at 4 months' postpartum.