| Autor: |
Gregory E. Simon, Susan M. Shortreed, Lynn L. DeBar |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2021 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Trials, Vol 22, Iss 1, Pp 1-8 (2021) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
1745-6215 |
| DOI: |
10.1186/s13063-021-05517-w |
| Popis: |
Abstract Background In 1979, Marvin Zelen proposed a new design for randomized clinical trials intended to facilitate clinicians’ and patients’ participation. The defining innovation of Zelen’s proposal was random assignment of treatment prior to patient or participant consent. Following randomization, a participant would receive information and asked to consent to the assigned treatment. Methods This narrative review examined recent examples of Zelen design trials evaluating clinical and public health interventions. Results Zelen designs have often been applied to questions regarding real-world treatment or intervention effects under conditions of incomplete adherence. Examples include evaluating outreach or engagement interventions (especially for stigmatized conditions), evaluating treatments for which benefit may vary according to participant motivation, and situations when assignment to a control or usual care condition might prompt a disappointment effect. Specific practical considerations determine whether a Zelen design is scientifically appropriate or practicable. Zelen design trials usually depend on identifying participants automatically from existing records rather than by advertising, referral, or active recruitment. Assessments of baseline or prognostic characteristics usually depend on available records data rather than research-specific assessments. Because investigators must consider how exposure to treatments or interventions might bias ascertainment of outcomes, assessment of outcomes from routinely created records is often necessary. A Zelen design requires a waiver of the usual requirement for informed consent prior to random assignment of treatment. The Revised Common Rule includes specific criteria for such a waiver, and those criteria are most often met for evaluation of a low-risk and potentially beneficial intervention added to usual care. Investigators and Institutional Review Boards must also consider whether the scientific or public health benefit of a Zelen design trial outweighs the autonomy interests of potential participants. Analysis of Zelen trials compares outcomes according to original assignment, regardless of any refusal to accept or participate in the assigned treatment. Conclusions A Zelen design trial assesses the real-world consequences of a specific strategy to prompt or promote uptake of a specific treatment. While such trials are poorly suited to address explanatory or efficacy questions, they are often preferred for addressing pragmatic or policy questions. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
