1 / 15

Randomised C ontrolled Trials: a workshop

Randomised C ontrolled Trials: a workshop. Ngaire Kerse Professor and General Practitioner and asker of questions. . Key issues - randomised trials. There must be uncertainty The question m ust be answerable and feasible Outcome reasonably common Examples of randomised trials in GP

ulric
Télécharger la présentation

Randomised C ontrolled Trials: a workshop

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Randomised Controlled Trials: a workshop NgaireKerse Professor and General Practitioner and asker of questions.

  2. Key issues - randomised trials • There must be uncertainty • The question must be answerable and feasible • Outcome reasonably common • Examples of randomised trials in GP • Green Script, Health promotion • Is it ethical to continue non-randomised studies that are evaluating interventions where there is uncertainty about effectiveness?

  3. The beginning • Uncontrolled trials • 18th century • Oranges and lemons, sailors and scurvy • Smallpox, Queen Caroline, Newgate Prison and ‘charity children’ • Controlled trials • Agricultural trials (1920’s) • Archie Cochrane - Salonica (1941) Vit C vs yeast for oedema • Streptomycin for TB (1946)

  4. Who’s afraid of the randomised trial and why? • Unethical • Explanatory (efficacy) vspragmatic trials (effectiveness) • Reluctance to pay – do it anyway

  5. Stepping into the unknown • Common sense interventions still need to be tested • Kerse caused Falls JAGS 2004. • Social work interventions • 1930s Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study • 1971 Blenker, 164 older persons

  6. Why randomise? • To decide whether an observed event is attributable to the meaningless play of chance or to causation (Silverman, 1980) • Reduces bias • researchers unable to consciously/unconsciously load the intervention group with ‘good’ GPs, good communicators, high SES patient groups • Evenly distribute known/unknown factors associated with certain outcomes

  7. Where to randomise? • Patient vs GP • Individual GP vs Practice? • Practice vsPHO? • DHB vs Local Government area?

  8. Analysis of findings • Analysis should occur at the level of randomisation • Are traditional analysis techniques appropriate? • Randomisation by cluster accompanied by an analysis appropriate to randomisation by individual is and exercise in self-deception (Cornfield, 1978) • Adjust for the design effect, increase sample size

  9. Where to randomise? Inflation Factor 2.5 Individual 2.0 1.5 Cluster 1.0 0 0.2 0.3 Total contamination

  10. Measuring - more than numbers? • Use of validated instruments - SIP, EPNDS, SF36 • Use of specific questions • open-ended, likert scales, categorical • Self-report vs observed practice • Observed practice - patient outcomes, simulated patient

  11. Intervention Group • Lo intensity intervention • Manual, risk assessment and suggestions. • Control Group • usual care Falls and injury Prevention pilot – FIPPS Randomly selected: 8 rest-homes, 4 private hospitals, 2 large complexes All residents 560 mean age 85 years Randomisation • Process Evaluation • focus groups with staff • Outcome Evaluation • >2,000 falls

  12. Promoting Independence in Residential Care • Social Group • 2 visits 41 Rest-homes in Christchurch and Auckland Falls, function, QOL, 682, mean age 87 years. Randomisation (no stratification) • Activity Group • PIRC, goal set, functional assessment, PIP to caregiver • falls surveillance Outcome evaluation No Impr QOL Function (on average, signif subgroup) No increase in falls

  13. Thinking differently • RCT design does not preclude ‘evaluation’ • process and impact • ‘Qualitative’ methods can be incorporated into trials • trial development - getting the intervention right • making sure the intervention is working • measuring the outcomes of the intervention

  14. The big question….. • Is it ethical to continue non-randomised studies in the general practice setting that are testing/evaluating interventions where there is a genuine uncertainty about the effectiveness?

  15. PICOT BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010; 10: 11. Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Time-frame • Everyone in the trial gets the same research process except for the intervention • Is the research process greater than the intervention

More Related