Variability in research ethics review of cluster randomized trials: a scenario-based survey in three countries

FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorTaljaard, Monica
dc.contributor.authorBrehaut, Jamie C
dc.contributor.authorWeijer, Charles
dc.contributor.authorBoruch, Robert
dc.contributor.authorDonner, Allan
dc.contributor.authorEccles, Martin P
dc.contributor.authorMcRae, Andrew D
dc.contributor.authorSaginur, Raphael
dc.contributor.authorZwarenstein, Merrick
dc.contributor.authorGrimshaw, Jeremy M
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-18T10:56:56Z
dc.date.available2015-12-18T10:56:56Z
dc.date.issued2014-02-05
dc.identifier.citationTrials. 2014 Feb 05;15(1):48
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-48
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10393/33844
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) present unique ethical challenges. In the absence of a uniform standard for their ethical design and conduct, problems such as variability in procedures and requirements by different research ethics committees will persist. We aimed to assess the need for ethics guidelines for CRTs among research ethics chairs internationally, investigate variability in procedures for research ethics review of CRTs within and among countries, and elicit research ethics chairs’ perspectives on specific ethical issues in CRTs, including the identification of research subjects. The proper identification of research subjects is a necessary requirement in the research ethics review process, to help ensure, on the one hand, that subjects are protected from harm and exploitation, and on the other, that reviews of CRTs are completed efficiently. Methods A web-based survey with closed- and open-ended questions was administered to research ethics chairs in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The survey presented three scenarios of CRTs involving cluster-level, professional-level, and individual-level interventions. For each scenario, a series of questions was posed with respect to the type of review required (full, expedited, or no review) and the identification of research subjects at cluster and individual levels. Results A total of 189 (35%) of 542 chairs responded. Overall, 144 (84%, 95% CI 79 to 90%) agreed or strongly agreed that there is a need for ethics guidelines for CRTs and 158 (92%, 95% CI 88 to 96%) agreed or strongly agreed that research ethics committees could be better informed about distinct ethical issues surrounding CRTs. There was considerable variability among research ethics chairs with respect to the type of review required, as well as the identification of research subjects. The cluster-cluster and professional-cluster scenarios produced the most disagreement. Conclusions Research ethics committees identified a clear need for ethics guidelines for CRTs and education about distinct ethical issues in CRTs. There is disagreement among committees, even within the same countries, with respect to key questions in the ethics review of CRTs. This disagreement reflects variability of opinion and practices pointing toward possible gaps in knowledge, and supports the need for explicit guidelines for the ethical conduct and review of CRTs.
dc.titleVariability in research ethics review of cluster randomized trials: a scenario-based survey in three countries
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.date.updated2015-12-18T10:56:56Z
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderTaljaard et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
CollectionLibre accès - Publications // Open Access - Publications

Files