Cargando…

Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Well-designed randomised clinical trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence to inform decision-making and should be the default option for evaluating surgical procedures. Such trials can be challenging, and surgeons’ preferences may influence whether trials are initiated and successfully c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Potter, Shelley, Mills, Nicola, Cawthorn, Simon J, Donovan, Jenny, Blazeby, Jane M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4003809/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24628821
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-80
_version_ 1782313890612248576
author Potter, Shelley
Mills, Nicola
Cawthorn, Simon J
Donovan, Jenny
Blazeby, Jane M
author_facet Potter, Shelley
Mills, Nicola
Cawthorn, Simon J
Donovan, Jenny
Blazeby, Jane M
author_sort Potter, Shelley
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Well-designed randomised clinical trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence to inform decision-making and should be the default option for evaluating surgical procedures. Such trials can be challenging, and surgeons’ preferences may influence whether trials are initiated and successfully conducted and their results accepted. Preferences are particularly problematic when surgeons’ views play a key role in procedure selection and patient eligibility. The bases of such preferences have rarely been explored. Our aim in this qualitative study was to investigate surgeons’ preferences regarding the feasibility of surgical RCTs and their understanding of study design issues using breast reconstruction surgery as a case study. METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 35 professionals practicing at 15 centres across the United Kingdom. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparative techniques. Sampling, data collection and analysis were conducted concurrently and iteratively until data saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Surgeons often struggle with the concept of equipoise. We found that if surgeons did not feel ‘in equipoise’, they did not accept randomisation as a method of treatment allocation. The underlying reasons for limited equipoise were limited appreciation of the methodological weaknesses of data derived from nonrandomised studies and little understanding of pragmatic trial design. Their belief in the value of RCTs for generating high-quality data to change or inform practice was not widely held. CONCLUSION: There is a need to help surgeons understand evidence, equipoise and bias. Current National Institute of Health Research/Medical Research Council investment into education and infrastructure for RCTs, combined with strong leadership, may begin to address these issues or more specific interventions may be required.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4003809
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40038092014-04-30 Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study Potter, Shelley Mills, Nicola Cawthorn, Simon J Donovan, Jenny Blazeby, Jane M Trials Research BACKGROUND: Well-designed randomised clinical trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence to inform decision-making and should be the default option for evaluating surgical procedures. Such trials can be challenging, and surgeons’ preferences may influence whether trials are initiated and successfully conducted and their results accepted. Preferences are particularly problematic when surgeons’ views play a key role in procedure selection and patient eligibility. The bases of such preferences have rarely been explored. Our aim in this qualitative study was to investigate surgeons’ preferences regarding the feasibility of surgical RCTs and their understanding of study design issues using breast reconstruction surgery as a case study. METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 35 professionals practicing at 15 centres across the United Kingdom. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparative techniques. Sampling, data collection and analysis were conducted concurrently and iteratively until data saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Surgeons often struggle with the concept of equipoise. We found that if surgeons did not feel ‘in equipoise’, they did not accept randomisation as a method of treatment allocation. The underlying reasons for limited equipoise were limited appreciation of the methodological weaknesses of data derived from nonrandomised studies and little understanding of pragmatic trial design. Their belief in the value of RCTs for generating high-quality data to change or inform practice was not widely held. CONCLUSION: There is a need to help surgeons understand evidence, equipoise and bias. Current National Institute of Health Research/Medical Research Council investment into education and infrastructure for RCTs, combined with strong leadership, may begin to address these issues or more specific interventions may be required. BioMed Central 2014-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4003809/ /pubmed/24628821 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-80 Text en Copyright © 2014 Potter et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Potter, Shelley
Mills, Nicola
Cawthorn, Simon J
Donovan, Jenny
Blazeby, Jane M
Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study
title Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study
title_full Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study
title_fullStr Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study
title_full_unstemmed Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study
title_short Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study
title_sort time to be brave: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? a qualitative study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4003809/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24628821
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-80
work_keys_str_mv AT pottershelley timetobebraveiseducatingsurgeonsthekeytounlockingthepotentialofrandomisedclinicaltrialsinsurgeryaqualitativestudy
AT millsnicola timetobebraveiseducatingsurgeonsthekeytounlockingthepotentialofrandomisedclinicaltrialsinsurgeryaqualitativestudy
AT cawthornsimonj timetobebraveiseducatingsurgeonsthekeytounlockingthepotentialofrandomisedclinicaltrialsinsurgeryaqualitativestudy
AT donovanjenny timetobebraveiseducatingsurgeonsthekeytounlockingthepotentialofrandomisedclinicaltrialsinsurgeryaqualitativestudy
AT blazebyjanem timetobebraveiseducatingsurgeonsthekeytounlockingthepotentialofrandomisedclinicaltrialsinsurgeryaqualitativestudy