Ottawa Statement Research Articles

The Ottawa Statement implementation guidance document for cluster randomized trials in the hemodialysis setting

Research teams are increasingly interested in using cluster randomized trial (CRT) designs to generate practice-guiding evidence for in-center maintenance hemodialysis. However, CRTs raise complex ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues arising within 7 domains: justifying the CRT design, research ethics committee review, identifying research participants, obtaining informed consent, gatekeepers, assessing benefits and harms, and protecting vulnerable participants. But applying the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting is complicated by the unique features of the setting and population. Here, with the help of content experts and patient partners, we co-developed this implementation guidance document to provide research teams, research ethics committees, and other stakeholders with detailed guidance on how to apply the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, the result of a 4-year research project. Thus, our work demonstrates how the voices of patients, caregivers, and all stakeholders may be included in the development of research ethics guidance.

Version française des recommandations de la déclaration d'Ottawa sur la conception et la conduite éthique d'essais randomisés en clusters, dans le contexte législatif français

IntroductionThere is growing evidence on the ethical challenges raised by cluster randomized trials. This specificity is not reflected in the legal texts regulating research, which creates difficulties for researchers implementing these experimental designs. The Ottawa Statement (Weijer et al. 2012) aims to provide detailed guidance on the ethical design, conduct and assessment of cluster trials. More broadly aims to help research stakeholders and decision-makers to make informed ethical decisions regarding the particularity of these experimental designs. It seems that this international statement, written in English, is not sufficiently accessible to all of the French professionals involved in health research. The aim of this article is to provide these professionals with a contextualized and illustrated French translation of the "Ottawa statement". Method. The "complex design" working group of the RECaP network (Research in Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health), carried out this work. A first version was discussed by the authors in several meetings. It was completed by contextual explanations and examples of French studies currently conducted by the authors. The final version was obtained by consensus and validated by the group. Results. This work reports 15 recommendations grouped into 7 key questions: How to justify cluster design? How to submit an article to an ethics committee? How to identify research participants? How and when to obtain informed consent? Who are the gatekeepers? How to assess benefits and harm? How to protect vulnerable participants? Each of these recommendations is specific to cluster trials. The recommendations are explained and detailed through concrete examples. ConclusionWithout interfering with current French laws, this work provides a framework for the organization, conduct and ethical assessment of cluster randomized trials in France. In the present-day context, it is essential that all concerned groups can base their decisions on recommendations in line with the elementary principles of health research ethics.

Ethical issues in cluster randomized trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries: an analysis of two case studies

BackgroundCluster randomized trials are common in health research in low- and middle-income countries raising issues that challenge interpretation of standard ethical guidelines. While the Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials provides guidance for researchers and research ethics committees, it does not explicitly focus on low- and middle-income settings.Main bodyIn this paper, we use the lens of the Ottawa Statement to analyze two cluster randomized trials conducted in low- and middle-income settings in order to identify gaps or ethical issues requiring further analysis and guidance. The PolyIran trial was a parallel-arm, cluster trial examining the effectiveness of a polypill for prevention of cardiovascular disease in Golestan province, Iran. The PASTAL trial was an adaptive, multistage, parallel-arm, cluster trial evaluating the effect of incentives for human immunodeficiency virus self-testing and follow-up on male partners of pregnant women in Malawi. Through an in-depth case analysis of these two studies we highlight several issues in need of further exploration. First, standards for verbal consent and waivers of consent require methods for operationalization if they are to be employed consistently. Second, the appropriate choice of a control arm remains contentious. Particularly in the case of implementation interventions, locally available care is required as the comparator to address questions of comparative effectiveness. However, locally available care might be lower than standards set out in national guidelines. Third, while the need for access to effective interventions post-trial is widely recognized, it is often not possible to guarantee this upfront. Clarity on what is required of researchers and sponsors is needed. Fourth, there is a pressing need for ethics education and capacity building regarding cluster randomized trials in these settings.ConclusionWe identify four issues in cluster randomized trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries for which further ethical analysis and guidance is required.

Stepped-wedge trials should be classified as research for the purpose of ethical review.

All studies classified as research involving human participants require research ethics review. Most regulation and guidance on ethical oversight of research involving human participants was written for pharmacotherapy interventions. Interpretation of such guidance for cluster-randomized trials and stepped-wedge trials, which commonly evaluate complex non-therapeutic interventions such as knowledge translation, public health, or health service delivery interventions, can pose challenges to researchers and regulators. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster-Randomized Trials provides guidance on the ethical oversight and consent procedures for cluster-randomized trials, and while not explicit, this includes stepped-wedge trials. Yet, stepped-wedge trials have unique characteristics that differentiate them from standard cluster-randomized trials. In particular, they can be used to evaluate knowledge translation interventions within the context of a routine health system rollout; they may have a non-randomized design; and the decision to implement the intervention is not always made by the researcher. Many stepped-wedge trials do not undergo ethical review and do not report trial registration. This suggests that those undertaking these studies and research ethics committees perceive them as non-research activities. Through an ethical analysis of two case studies, we argue that stepped-wedge trials, like parallel arm cluster trials, are systematic investigations designed to produce generalizable knowledge. We contend that stepped-wedge trials usually include human research participants, which may be patients, health care providers, or both. Stepped-wedge trials are therefore research involving human participants for the purpose of ethical review. Nevertheless, the use of a waiver or alteration of consent may be appropriate in many stepped-wedge trials due to the infeasibility of obtaining informed consent and the low-risk nature of the interventions. To ensure that traditional ethical principles such as respect for persons are upheld, these studies must undergo research ethics review.

Ottawa Statement does not impede randomised evaluation of government health programmes

In this issue of JME, Watson et al call for research evaluation of government health programmes and identify ethical guidance, including the Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct...

The ethics of cluster randomized trials: response to a proposal for revision of the Ottawa Statement

Background and ObjectivesCluster randomized trials are commonly used to evaluate public health, knowledge translation, and health service interventions. Cluster trials raise novel ethical issues, however, and the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials (2012) provides researchers and research ethics committees with needed guidance. In this journal, van der Graaf et al. reflect on the Ottawa Statement and propose three revisions. In this paper, we respond to each of these proposed revisions. ResultsFirst, van der Graaf et al. argue that patients who are merely indirectly affected by study interventions ought nonetheless to be considered research participants. We disagree. So long as the practice change is evidence based and the physician continues to make individualized judgments regarding patient care, patient liberty and welfare interests are not substantially affected. Second, although they agree that health providers who are targeted are research participants, they argue that such providers ought to be treated differently and should not be allowed to withdraw from a study too easily. In our view, this position fails to weigh adequately the potential for coercion and harms faced by employees in research. Third, they argue that the potential for bias may require blinding participants to allocation and study interventions in the consent process of a cluster trial. We agree on this point and support this approach in a limited set of cases. ConclusionWhile we reject two of van der Graaf et al.'s proposed revisions, we agree that further guidance on informed consent and study bias is needed.

The moral and legal status of Health Care Workers in Cluster Randomized Trials: a response to Weijer and Taljaard

In 2012, Weijer et al published “The Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials”. In 2015, we reflected on this statement and argued that three recommendations in this statement need to be further refined. Weijer and Taljaard have responded to our comments in this issue of the journal. They agree with one of the proposed revisions but not with two others. In this commentary, we argue that the main reason why there is disagreement about two of our refinements is that we have different views on the moral and legal status of the health care workers as “research participants” in cluster randomized trials (CRTs). In this commentary, we clarify misunderstandings about our view expressed in 2015 and elaborate on the positions of health care workers in CRTs. We argue that there is sufficient reason to doubt whether the rights and interests of health care workers (HCWs) should be protected by means of ethics guidance documents and laws on human subjects research. Their interests are protected in the first place by professional codes of conduct which ensure that they cannot provide substandard care. Furthermore, protection of HCWs by ethics guidance on human subjects research will create an enormous burden for principle investigators and research ethics committees. Further debate is essential to determine how the interests of HCWs in CRTs can be protected best.

Ethical Issues in Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trials in Dialysis Facilities

A pragmatic cluster-randomized trial (CRT) is a research design that may be used to efficiently test promising interventions that directly inform dialysis care. While the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials provides general ethical guidance for CRTs, the dialysis setting raises additional considerations. In this article, we outline ethical issues raised by pragmatic CRTs in dialysis facilities. These issues may be divided into 7 key domains: justifying the use of cluster randomization, adopting randomly allocated individual-level interventions as a facility standard of care, conducting benefit-harm analyses, gatekeepers and their responsibilities, obtaining informed consent from research participants, patient notification, and including vulnerable participants. We describe existing guidelines relevant to each domain, illustrate how they were considered in the Time to Reduce Mortality in End-Stage Renal Disease (TiME) trial (a prototypical pragmatic hemodialysis CRT), and highlight remaining areas of uncertainty. The following is the first step in an interdisciplinary mixed-methods research project to guide the design and conduct of pragmatic CRTs in dialysis facilities. Subsequent work will expand on these concepts and when possible, argue for a preferred solution.

Ethical issues raised by cluster randomised trials conducted in low-resource settings: identifying gaps in the Ottawa Statement through an analysis of the PURE Malawi trial

The increasing use of cluster randomised trials in low-resource settings raises unique ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomised Trials is the first...

Thinking clearly about the FIRST trial: addressing ethical challenges in cluster randomised trials of policy interventions involving health providers

The ethics of the Flexibility In duty hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees (FIRST) trial have been vehemently debated. Views on the ethics of the FIRST trial range from it being...

Inadequacy of ethical conduct and reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials: Results from a systematic review.

Background/aims The use of the stepped wedge cluster randomized design is rapidly increasing. This design is commonly used to evaluate health policy and service delivery interventions. Stepped wedge cluster randomized trials have unique characteristics that complicate their ethical interpretation. The 2012 Ottawa Statement provides comprehensive guidance on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials, and the 2010 CONSORT extension for cluster randomized trials provides guidelines for reporting. Our aims were to assess the adequacy of the ethical conduct and reporting of stepped wedge trials to date, focusing on research ethics review and informed consent. Methods We conducted a systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials in health research published up to 2014 in English language journals. We extracted details of study intervention and data collection procedures, as well as reporting of research ethics review and informed consent. Two reviewers independently extracted data from each trial; discrepancies were resolved through discussion. We identified the presence of any research participants at the cluster level and the individual level. We assessed ethical conduct by tabulating reporting of research ethics review and informed consent against the presence of research participants. Results Of 32 identified stepped wedge trials, only 24 (75%) reported review by a research ethics committee, and only 16 (50%) reported informed consent from any research participants-yet, all trials included research participants at some level. In the subgroup of 20 trials with research participants at cluster level, only 4 (20%) reported informed consent from such participants; in 26 trials with individual-level research participants, only 15 (58%) reported their informed consent. Interventions (regardless of whether targeting cluster- or individual-level participants) were delivered at the group level in more than two-thirds of trials; nine trials (28%) had no identifiable data collected from any research participants. Overall, only three trials (9%) indicated that a waiver of consent had been granted by a research ethics committee. When considering the combined requirement of research ethics review and informed consent (or a waiver), only one in three studies were compliant. Conclusion The ethical conduct and reporting of key ethical protections in stepped wedge trials, namely, research ethics review and informed consent, are inadequate. We recommend that stepped wedge trials be classified as research and reviewed and approved by a research ethics committee. We also recommend that researchers appropriately identify research participants (which may include health professionals), seek informed consent or appeal to an ethics committee for a waiver of consent, and include explicit details of research ethics approval and informed consent in the trial report.

Ottawa Statement from the Sparking Solutions Summit on Population Health Intervention Research : Ottawa, Ontario, Canada April 25, 2016.

Ottawa Statement from the Sparking Solutions Summit on Population Health Intervention Research : Ottawa, Ontario, Canada April 25, 2016.

Cluster-randomized trials: A closer look.

The cluster-randomized trial is the methodology of choice for evaluating interventions administered at the group level such as public health and healthcare quality improvement interventions. Because of unique features of this design, it can be difficult to apply standard research ethics guidelines to cluster-randomized trials. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster-Randomized Trials provides researchers and research ethics committees with comprehensive guidance on the ethical design, conduct and review of cluster-randomized trials. The Ottawa Statement supplements current national and international research ethics guidelines with guidance that is specific to cluster-randomized trials. In a recently published commentary, three examples drawn from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were used to illustrate challenges associated with the cluster-randomized trial design. The commentary argued that the Ottawa Statement fails to provide comprehensive ethical guidance. In this article, we illustrate the application of the Ottawa Statement to the three trials. We challenge the conclusions reached in the commentary by demonstrating that an ethical analysis requires complete information. We correct some misperceptions about the cluster-randomized trial design. We collected essential additional information by contacting the authors of trials and by referring to published trial articles. We used the Ottawa Statement to conduct an ethical analysis of each trial and to address a number of substantive concerns raised regarding the identification of study participants, informed consent and harm benefit analysis. In the two cases in which we were able to obtain detailed study information, we were able to complete the ethical analysis prescribed by the Ottawa Statement. The Ottawa Statement does provide a useful framework for the ethical design, review and conduct of cluster-randomized trials.

Qualitative and mixed methods research in trials

Qualitative and mixed methods research in trials

The ethics of cluster-randomized trials requires further evaluation: a refinement of the Ottawa Statement

ObjectivesThe Ottawa Statement is the first guidance document for the ethical and scientific conduct of cluster-randomized trials (CRTs). However, not all recommendations are straightforward to implement. In this paper we will reflect in particular on the recommendation on identifying human research subjects and the issue to what extent the randomization process should be disclosed if there is a risk of contamination. Study Design and SettingThe Ottawa Statement was thoroughly evaluated within a multidisciplinary research team, consisting amongst others of epidemiologists and ethicists. ResultsPatients in a CRT may also be considered as research subjects if they are indirectly affected by the studied interventions in a CRT. Second, health care workers are research subjects in CRTs but have a different moral status compared with ordinary research participants. This different status has implications for withdrawal and the choice of the primary objective. Third, modified informed consent for CRTs may be obtained when researchers can demonstrate that disclosure of the randomization process would affect the validity of a CRT. ConclusionRecommendations of the Ottawa Statement on identifying the research subject and providing informed consent can and should be refined.

Ethical and regulatory issues of pragmatic cluster randomized trials in contemporary health systems.

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) randomly assign groups of individuals to examine research questions or test interventions and measure their effects on individuals. Recent emphasis on quality improvement, comparative effectiveness, and learning health systems has prompted expanded use of pragmatic CRTs in routine healthcare settings, which in turn poses practical and ethical challenges that current oversight frameworks may not adequately address. The 2012 Ottawa Statement provides a basis for considering many issues related to pragmatic CRTs but challenges remain, including some arising from the current U.S. research and healthcare regulations. In order to examine the ethical, regulatory, and practical questions facing pragmatic CRTs in healthcare settings, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory convened a workshop in Bethesda, Maryland in July of 2013. Attendees included experts in clinical trials, patient advocacy, research ethics, and research regulations from academia, industry, the NIH, and other federal agencies. Workshop participants identified substantial barriers to implementing these types of CRTs, including issues related to research design, gatekeepers and governance in health systems, consent, institutional review boards, data monitoring, privacy, and special populations. We describe these barriers and suggest means for understanding and overcoming them to facilitate pragmatic CRTs in healthcare settings.

The Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials: A short report

Owing to unique features of their design, cluster randomized trials complicate the interpretation of standard ethics guidelines. The recently published Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials provides researchers and research ethics committees with detailed guidance on the design, conduct, and review of cluster trials. The Ottawa statement sets out 15 recommendations, including guidance on the justification of study design, the need for research ethics committee review, the identification of research participants, obtaining informed consent, the role of gatekeepers in protecting cluster interests, the assessment of benefits and harms, and the protection of vulnerable participants.

Survey of consent practices in cluster randomized trials: Improvements are needed in ethical conduct and reporting

Informed consent procedures in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are considerably more complicated than in individually randomized trials. In a CRT, the units of randomization, intervention, and observation may differ in a single trial; there can be multiple levels of participants (individual and cluster level); consent may be required separately for intervention and data collection; and there may be practical constraints to seeking informed consent, for example, due to cluster-level interventions or the sheer size of clusters. We aimed to document consent practices at individual and cluster levels, assess the adequacy of reporting consent in trial publications, and assess associations with two trial characteristics that may influence consent requirements in CRTs: presence or absence of study interventions and presence or absence of data collection procedures at individual and cluster levels. We reviewed a random sample of 300 CRTs published during 2000-2008. We sent survey questionnaires to 285 unique authors of these trials to gather detailed information about consent procedures used in each trial. In all, 182 authors (64%) responded. Overall, 93% (95% confidence interval (CI): 88.8%-96.6%) indicated that participant consent had been sought for some aspects of the study. Consent was less frequently sought for a study intervention (70% of respondents) than for data collection (88%). More than half of the respondents (52%) indicated that consent had been sought at both cluster and individual levels. There was strong evidence for under-reporting of consent in trial publications: only 63% of all trial publications reported that informed consent had been sought for some aspect of the study. The odds ratios (ORs) summarizing the association of the two trial characteristics with cluster-level participant consent were weak (OR = 1.17, p = 0.70 for presence of cluster-level study intervention and OR = 1.54, p = 0.29 for data collection); on the other hand, the ORs summarizing the associations with individual-level consent were strong (OR = 6.2, p < 0.0001 for presence of individual-level intervention and OR = 14.7, p < 0.0001 for data collection). In all, 36% of authors did not respond to the survey; to the extent that consent practices in their trials were different than in respondents' trials, our results may be biased. There is a need for improvements in research practices in CRTs as well as their reporting. There may be a lack of clarity about consent requirements at the cluster level in particular. With the publication of the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, researchers and research ethics committees now have access to comprehensive ethics guidelines specific to CRTs.

The Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials: A short report

Owing to unique features of their design, cluster randomized trials complicate the interpretation of standard ethics guidelines. The recently published Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials provides researchers and research ethics committees with detailed guidance on the design, conduct and review of cluster trials. The Ottawa statement sets out 15 recommendations, including guidance on the justification of study design, the need for research ethics committee review, the identification of research participants, obtaining informed consent, the role of gatekeepers in protecting cluster interests, the assessment of benefits and harms, and the protection of vulnerable participants.

The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials

The Ottawa Ethics of Cluster Trials Consensus Group sets out 15 recommendations for the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials.