28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research.

          C Pope, N Mays (1995)
          Qualitative research methods have a long history in the social sciences and deserve to be an essential component in health and health services research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches to research tend to be portrayed as antithetical; the aim of this series of papers is to show the value of a range of qualitative techniques and how they can complement quantitative research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Rigour and qualitative research.

            N Mays, C Pope (1995)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology With Examples

              C Teddlie, F Yu (2007)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central
                1745-6215
                2014
                14 March 2014
                : 15
                : 80
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
                [2 ]Division of Surgery, Head and Neck, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Upper Maudlin Street, Bristol BS2 8HW, UK
                [3 ]Bristol Breast Care Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK
                Article
                1745-6215-15-80
                10.1186/1745-6215-15-80
                4003809
                24628821
                f5b4d57f-e4f8-414c-9090-4814597e9def
                Copyright © 2014 Potter et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                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.

                History
                : 4 November 2013
                : 26 February 2014
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                breast reconstruction,education,methodology,qualitative,randomised clinical trials
                Medicine
                breast reconstruction, education, methodology, qualitative, randomised clinical trials

                Comments

                Comment on this article