Cargando…

Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance

BACKGROUND: There is now clear systematic review evidence that measurement can affect the people being measured; much of this evidence focusses on how asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to this reactivity...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Miles, Lisa M., Elbourne, Diana, Farmer, Andrew, Gulliford, Martin, Locock, Louise, McCambridge, Jim, Sutton, Stephen, French, David P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6258480/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30477551
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-3017-5
_version_ 1783374501890752512
author Miles, Lisa M.
Elbourne, Diana
Farmer, Andrew
Gulliford, Martin
Locock, Louise
McCambridge, Jim
Sutton, Stephen
French, David P.
author_facet Miles, Lisa M.
Elbourne, Diana
Farmer, Andrew
Gulliford, Martin
Locock, Louise
McCambridge, Jim
Sutton, Stephen
French, David P.
author_sort Miles, Lisa M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is now clear systematic review evidence that measurement can affect the people being measured; much of this evidence focusses on how asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to this reactivity may introduce bias in otherwise well-conducted randomised controlled trials (RCTs), yielding incorrect estimates of intervention effects. Despite this, measurement reactivity is not currently adequately considered in risk of bias frameworks. The present research aims to produce a set of guidance statements on how best to avoid or minimise bias due to measurement reactivity in studies of interventions to improve health, with a particular focus on bias in RCTs. METHODS: The MERIT study consists of a series of systematic and rapid reviews, a Delphi study and an expert workshop to develop guidance on how to minimise bias in trials due to measurement reactivity. An existing systematic review on question-behaviour effects on health-related behaviours will be updated and three new rapid reviews will be conducted to identify (1) existing guidance on measurement reactivity; (2) systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes relating to behaviour and affective outcomes in health and non-health contexts and (3) trials that have investigated the effects of objective measurements of behaviour on concurrent or subsequent behaviour itself. A Delphi procedure will be used to combine the views of experts with a view to reaching agreement on the scope of the guidance statements. Finally, a workshop will be held in autumn 2018, with the aim of producing a set of guidance statements that will form the central part of new MRC guidance on how best to avoid bias due to measurement reactivity in studies of interventions to improve health. DISCUSSION: Our ambition is to produce MRC guidance on measurement reactions in trials which will be used by future trial researchers, leading to the development of trials that are less likely to be at risk of bias. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-3017-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6258480
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62584802018-11-30 Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance Miles, Lisa M. Elbourne, Diana Farmer, Andrew Gulliford, Martin Locock, Louise McCambridge, Jim Sutton, Stephen French, David P. Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: There is now clear systematic review evidence that measurement can affect the people being measured; much of this evidence focusses on how asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to this reactivity may introduce bias in otherwise well-conducted randomised controlled trials (RCTs), yielding incorrect estimates of intervention effects. Despite this, measurement reactivity is not currently adequately considered in risk of bias frameworks. The present research aims to produce a set of guidance statements on how best to avoid or minimise bias due to measurement reactivity in studies of interventions to improve health, with a particular focus on bias in RCTs. METHODS: The MERIT study consists of a series of systematic and rapid reviews, a Delphi study and an expert workshop to develop guidance on how to minimise bias in trials due to measurement reactivity. An existing systematic review on question-behaviour effects on health-related behaviours will be updated and three new rapid reviews will be conducted to identify (1) existing guidance on measurement reactivity; (2) systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes relating to behaviour and affective outcomes in health and non-health contexts and (3) trials that have investigated the effects of objective measurements of behaviour on concurrent or subsequent behaviour itself. A Delphi procedure will be used to combine the views of experts with a view to reaching agreement on the scope of the guidance statements. Finally, a workshop will be held in autumn 2018, with the aim of producing a set of guidance statements that will form the central part of new MRC guidance on how best to avoid bias due to measurement reactivity in studies of interventions to improve health. DISCUSSION: Our ambition is to produce MRC guidance on measurement reactions in trials which will be used by future trial researchers, leading to the development of trials that are less likely to be at risk of bias. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-3017-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6258480/ /pubmed/30477551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-3017-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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 Study Protocol
Miles, Lisa M.
Elbourne, Diana
Farmer, Andrew
Gulliford, Martin
Locock, Louise
McCambridge, Jim
Sutton, Stephen
French, David P.
Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance
title Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance
title_full Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance
title_fullStr Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance
title_full_unstemmed Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance
title_short Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance
title_sort bias due to measurement reactions in trials to improve health (merit): protocol for research to develop mrc guidance
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6258480/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30477551
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-3017-5
work_keys_str_mv AT mileslisam biasduetomeasurementreactionsintrialstoimprovehealthmeritprotocolforresearchtodevelopmrcguidance
AT elbournediana biasduetomeasurementreactionsintrialstoimprovehealthmeritprotocolforresearchtodevelopmrcguidance
AT farmerandrew biasduetomeasurementreactionsintrialstoimprovehealthmeritprotocolforresearchtodevelopmrcguidance
AT gullifordmartin biasduetomeasurementreactionsintrialstoimprovehealthmeritprotocolforresearchtodevelopmrcguidance
AT lococklouise biasduetomeasurementreactionsintrialstoimprovehealthmeritprotocolforresearchtodevelopmrcguidance
AT mccambridgejim biasduetomeasurementreactionsintrialstoimprovehealthmeritprotocolforresearchtodevelopmrcguidance
AT suttonstephen biasduetomeasurementreactionsintrialstoimprovehealthmeritprotocolforresearchtodevelopmrcguidance
AT frenchdavidp biasduetomeasurementreactionsintrialstoimprovehealthmeritprotocolforresearchtodevelopmrcguidance