The ethics of cluster randomized trials: Response to a proposal for revision of the Ottawa Statement.

Clicks: 317
ID: 16661
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #24 of 75 articles by views in journal of clinical epidemiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Cluster randomized trials are commonly used to evaluate public health, knowledge translation and health services interventions. Cluster trials raise novel ethical issues, however, and the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials (2012) provides researchers and research ethics committees with needed guidance. In this journal, van der Graaf and colleagues reflect on the Ottawa Statement and propose three revisions. First, they argue that patients who are merely indirectly affected by study interventions ought nonetheless to be considered research participants. We disagree. So long as the practice change is evidence based and the physician continues to make individualized judgments regarding patient care, patient liberty and welfare interests are not substantially affected. Second, while they agree that health providers who are targeted are research participants, they argue that such providers ought to be treated differently and should not be allowed to withdraw from a study too easily. In our view, this position fails to weigh adequately the potential for coercion and harms faced by employees in research. Third, they argue that the potential for bias may require blinding participants to allocation and study interventions in the consent process of a cluster trial. We agree on this point and support this approach in a limited set of cases.
Reference Key
weijer2019thejournal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Weijer, Charles;Taljaard, Monica;
Journal journal of clinical epidemiology
Year 2019
DOI
S0895-4356(19)30056-3
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.