The implications of variation in outcome between health professionals for the design and analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Methodological work on randomized trials has largely concerned pharmacological interventions in which the effects of the attending health professional may be regarded as minor. In other clinical settings, such as surgery, talk or physical therapies, staff specific variation may make generalization problematic, undermining the value of the trial. Such variation has been the basis of some objections to controlled trial methodology and non-acceptance of trial results. The implication of this source of variation will be considered for studies in which different types of health professional deliver the intervention in each arm of the trial. Such a trial may involve individual patient or group randomization. Whichever method is used, it is argued that variation in outcome between health professionals may lead to design effects. These issues will be illustrated using data from a large trial comparing primary care service delivered by two types of medical doctor. Random effect models are most suitable for analyzing this type of trial, as they allow adjustment for patient characteristics whilst controlling for design effects. This type of model illustrates that there can be substantial variation in the performance within each category of doctor.

[1]  M. Roland,et al.  Comparison of out of hours care provided by patients' own general practitioners and commercial deputising services: a randomised controlled trial. II: the outcome of care , 1997, BMJ.

[2]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  H. Goldstein Multilevel Statistical Models , 2006 .

[4]  A Donner,et al.  A methodological review of non-therapeutic intervention trials employing cluster randomization, 1979-1989. , 1990, International journal of epidemiology.

[5]  A. Donner,et al.  Analysis of data arising from a stratified design with the cluster as unit of randomization. , 1987, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  S. Stewart-Brown,et al.  SURGEON-RELATED VARIABLES AND THE CLINICAL TRIAL , 1978, The Lancet.

[7]  G. Murray,et al.  THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF SURGERY , 1986, The Lancet.

[8]  J. Wittes,et al.  Intercept studies, clinical trials, and cluster experiments: to whom can we extrapolate? , 1994, Controlled clinical trials.

[9]  A. V. van Hemert,et al.  Cognitive behavioural therapy for medically unexplained physical symptoms: a randomised controlled trial , 1995, BMJ.

[10]  A. Donner,et al.  The design of controlled experiments in the evaluation of non-therapeutic interventions. , 1982, Journal of chronic diseases.

[11]  R K McKinley,et al.  Reliability and validity of a new measure of patient satisfaction with out of hours primary medical care in the united kingdom: development of a patient questionnaire , 1997, BMJ.

[12]  D. Mant,et al.  Randomised trial of lipid lowering dietary advice in general practice: the effects on serum lipids, lipoproteins, and antioxidants , 1995, BMJ.

[13]  Z. Feng,et al.  A comparison of statistical methods for clustered data analysis with Gaussian error. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  J. Wittes INTRODUCTION : FROM CLINICAL TRIALS TO CLINICAL PRACTICE : FOUR PAPERS FROM A PLENARY SESSION , 1994 .

[15]  J. Farndon,et al.  The challenge of evaluating surgical procedures. , 1992, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.