Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMcCormack, Brendan
dc.contributor.authorSundling, Vibeke
dc.contributor.authorBadian, Reza
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-29T21:38:36Z
dc.date.available2018-06-29T21:38:36Z
dc.date.issued2017-11-29
dc.identifierER5211
dc.identifier.citationMcCormack, B., Sundling, V. & Badian, R. (2017) Person-Centred Research: A novel approach to Randomized Controlled Trials, European journal for person centered healthcare, vol. 6, , ,
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v6i2.1435
dc.identifier.urihttps://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/5211
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Integrating person-centred values with randomized controlled trials methodology is a novel idea. Person-centredness is gaining steadily more prominence and attention in healthcare and health related policy and research. Randomized controlled trials are considered as the gold standard in evidence-based medicine for evaluating the effects of treatment or determining the causal effect. A wide array of study designs is available but there is a lack of designs with both strong person-centred principles and a strong position with respect to the level of evidence. In this paper we intend to introduce a novel design to fill such a gap. Aims and objectives The aim of this paper is to introduce a novel study design where essential values of person-centred care (PCC) are integrated with randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology into a novel study design that is personcentred randomized controlled trial (PC-RCT). 2 Methods In this paper we discuss the importance and role of evidence in clinical research, levels of evidence, as well as the significance of study design in evidence-based medicine. Moreover, we discuss randomized controlled trials that are considered the gold standard to achieve high quality evidence. In the paper we will explain what the concept of person-centred care is and discuss the values associated with person-centeredness. The theoretical and methodological considerations that are relevant in applying this concept will be discussed before presenting how we intend to incorporate the person-centred values into a randomized controlled trial in a novel study design that is both person-centred and randomized controlled (PC-RCT). Different aspects of this proposed novel study design will be discussed, including the theory and methods underlying this new proposed design, its novelty, different stages and practical steps involved in this proposed design. Challenges, drawbacks and possible solutions for addressing challenges of this novel design will be explored, focusing on the construct, dynamics, advantages, disadvantages and novelty of PC-RCT design. Conclusion This paper presents how person-centred values and traditional randomised controlled trial principal values are integrated into one study design where the strengths of both concepts are merged into one. The proposed novel study design has stronger person-centred characteristics and is solid in its RCT features. This design ensures that participants have much more active participation in decision-making and gain more choice in their treatment. The proposed novel study design in this paper has clearly an important role to play in filling the need for a study design that can address both the need for rendering higher levels of evidence as well as simultaneously securing greater integration of person-centred values in the same study design.
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean journal for person centered healthcare
dc.titlePerson-Centred Research: A novel approach to Randomized Controlled Trials
dc.typearticle
dcterms.accessRightsrestricted
dc.description.facultysch_nur
dc.description.referencetext1. Colditz GA. Overview of the epidemiology methods and applications: strengths and limitations of observational study designs. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition. 2010;50 Suppl 1:10-2. 2. Straus SE, Sackett DL. Using research findings in clinical practice. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1998;317(7154):339-42. 3. Kuehn BM. Leaders in evidence-based medicine examine the path ahead. Jama. 2013;310(16):1663-4. 4. Manchikanti L. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations. Pain physician. 2008;11(2):161-86. 5. Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2011;128(1):305-10. 6. Gopikrishna V. A report on case reports. Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD. 2010;13(4):265-71. 7. Carey JC. The importance of case reports in advancing scientific knowledge of rare diseases. Advances in experimental medicine and biology. 2010;686:77-86. 8. Morris BA. The importance of case reports. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne. 1989;141(9):875-6. 9. Vandenbroucke JP. In defense of case reports and case series. Annals of internal medicine. 2001;134(4):330-4. 10. Dekkers OM, Egger M, Altman DG, Vandenbroucke JP. Distinguishing case series from cohort studies. Annals of internal medicine. 2012;156(1 Pt 1):37-40. 11. Hess DR. Retrospective studies and chart reviews. Respiratory care. 2004;49(10):1171-4. 12. Song JW, Chung KC. Observational studies: cohort and case-control studies. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2010;126(6):2234-42. 13. Brookmeyer R, Liang KY, Linet M. Matched case-control designs and overmatched analyses. American journal of epidemiology. 1986;124(4):693-701. 14. Keneth J Rothman SG, Timothy L. Lash. Modern Epidemiology. Third Edition ed. USA: lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. 15. Howell BSED. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science Wiley; 2005. 2352 p. 16. Sibbald B, Roland M. Understanding controlled trials. Why are randomised controlled trials important? BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1998;316(7126):201. 17. Miller JN, Colditz GA, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II: Surgical. Statistics in medicine. 1989;8(4):455-66. 18. Wittes J. Sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials. Epidemiologic reviews. 2002;24(1):39-53. 19. Spieth PM, Kubasch AS, Penzlin AI, Illigens BM, Barlinn K, Siepmann T. Randomized controlled trials - a matter of design. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment. 2016;12:1341-9. 20. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. The New England journal of medicine. 2000;342(25):1878-86. 21. Altman DG. Randomisation. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1991;302(6791):1481-2. 22. Pocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential Treatment Assignment with Balancing for Prognostic Factors in the Controlled Clinical Trial. Biometrics. 1975;31(1):103-15. 23. Suresh K. An overview of randomization techniques: An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. Journal of human reproductive sciences. 2011;4(1):8-11. 24. Vickers AJ. How to randomize. Journal of the Society for Integrative Oncology. 2006;4(4):194-8. 25. Zill JM, Scholl I, Harter M, Dirmaier J. Evaluation of dimensions and measurement scales in patient-centeredness. Patient preference and adherence. 2013;7:345-51. 26. Morgan S, Yoder LH. A concept analysis of person-centered care. Journal of holistic nursing : official journal of the American Holistic Nurses' Association. 2012;30(1):6-15. 27. Balint E, Courtenay, M., Elder, A., Hull, S., & Julian, P. The doctor, the patient and the group: Balint revisited. London: Routledge; 1993. 28. Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Social science & medicine (1982). 2000;51(7):1087-110. 29. Szasz TS, Hollender MH. A contribution to the philosophy of medicine; the basic models of the doctor-patient relationship. AMA archives of internal medicine. 1956;97(5):585-92. 30. McCormack B. Researching nursing practice: does person-centredness matter? Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals. 2003;4(3):179-88. 31. McCormack B. A conceptual framework for person-centred practice with older people. International journal of nursing practice. 2003;9(3):202-9. 32. Tosh G, Soares-Weiser K, Adams CE. Pragmatic vs explanatory trials: the pragmascope tool to help measure differences in protocols of mental health randomized controlled trials. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience. 2011;13(2):209-15. 33. Bergman LR, Magnusson D. A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Development and psychopathology. 1997;9(2):291-319. 34. Brocklehurst P. Partially randomised patient preference trials. British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 1997;104(12):1332-5. 35. Brewin CR, Bradley C. Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1989;299(6694):313-5. 36. Lillie EO, Patay B, Diamant J, Issell B, Topol EJ, Schork NJ. The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Personalized medicine. 2011;8(2):161-73. 37. Sterba SK, Bauer DJ. Matching method with theory in person-oriented developmental psychopathology research. Development and psychopathology. 2010;22(2):239-54. 38. Bergman LR, Wngby M. The person-oriented approach: A short theoretical and practical guide2014. 39. Molenaar PCM. A Manifesto on Psychology as Idiographic Science: Bringing the Person Back Into Scientific Psychology, This Time Forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. 2004;2(4):201-18. 40. von Eye A, Bergman LR. Research strategies in developmental psychopathology: dimensional identity and the person-oriented approach. Development and psychopathology. 2003;15(3):553-80. 41. Jayadevappa RaC, Sumedha. Patient Centered Care - A Conceptual Model and Review of the State of the Art. The Open Health Services and Policy Journal. 2011; Volume 4, 2011 (The Open Health Services and Policy Journal, 2011, 4: 15-25):15-25. 42. Buetow S. A framework for doing person-centred health research. 2011. 2011;1(2):4. 43. Vist GE, Bryant D, Somerville L, Birminghem T, Oxman AD. Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2008(3):Mr000009. 44. Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in A. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2001. 45. Hemming K, Taljaard M. Sample size calculations for stepped wedge and cluster randomised trials: a unified approach. Journal of clinical epidemiology.69:137-46. 46. Sato T. Sample size calculations with compliance information. Statistics in medicine. 2000;19(19):2689-97. 47. Dell RB, Holleran S, Ramakrishnan R. Sample size determination. ILAR journal. 2002;43(4):207-13. 48. Kim J, Seo BS. How to calculate sample size and why. Clinics in orthopedic surgery. 2013;5(3):235-42. 49. Cuzick J, Edwards R, Segnan N. Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials. Statistics in medicine. 1997;16(9):1017-29. 50. Moons KG, Donders RA, Stijnen T, Harrell FE, Jr. Using the outcome for imputation of missing predictor values was preferred. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2006;59(10):1092-101. 51. Donders AR, van der Heijden GJ, Stijnen T, Moons KG. Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2006;59(10):1087-91. 52. Gottfredson NC, Bauer DJ, Baldwin SA. Modeling Change in the Presence of Non-Randomly Missing Data: Evaluating A Shared Parameter Mixture Model. Structural equation modeling : a multidisciplinary journal. 2014;21(2):196-209. 53. Guyatt G, Sackett D, Taylor DW, Chong J, Roberts R, Pugsley S. Determining optimal therapy--randomized trials in individual patients. The New England journal of medicine. 1986;314(14):889-92. 54. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Jama. 1995;273(5):408-12. 55. Rivas-Ruiz F, Perez-Vicente S, Gonzalez-Ramirez AR. Bias in clinical epidemiological study designs. Allergologia et immunopathologia. 2013;41(1):54-9. 56. Sackett DL, Wennberg JE. Choosing the best research design for each question. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1997;315(7123):1636. 57. Fries JF, Krishnan E. Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethics of new drug development. Arthritis research & therapy. 2004;6(3):R250-5. 58. Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Greenhalgh R, Edwards SJ. Trials and fast changing technologies: the case for tracker studies. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2000;320(7226):43-6. 59. Page MJ, Higgins JP, Clayton G, Sterne JA, Hrobjartsson A, Savovic J. Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies. PloS one. 2016;11(7):e0159267. 60. Ciolino JD, Martin RH, Zhao W, Hill MD, Jauch EC, Palesch YY. Measuring continuous baseline covariate imbalances in clinical trial data. Statistical methods in medical research. 2015;24(2):255-72. 61. Miller GA, Chapman JP. Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of abnormal psychology. 2001;110(1):40-8. 62. Overall JE, Woodward JA. Common Misconceptions Concerning The Analysis Of Covariance. Multivariate behavioral research. 1977;12(2):171-86.
dc.description.volume6
dc.description.ispublishedpub
dc.description.eprintid5211
rioxxterms.typearticle
refterms.dateAccepted2017-09-18
refterms.dateFCD2018-03-07
qmu.authorMcCormack, Brendan
dc.description.statuspub
dc.description.number2


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record