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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |