Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Exploring qualitative methods reported in registered trials and their yields (EQUITY): systematic review

Authors: Clare Clement, Suzanne L. Edwards, Frances Rapport, Ian T. Russell, Hayley A. Hutchings

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The value of qualitative methods within trials is widely recognised, but their full potential is not being realised. There are also issues with the visibility, recognition and reporting of qualitative methods in trials. To identify potential improvements in qualitative research within trials, we need to study trials that have included qualitative methods. We aimed to explore the frequency of reporting qualitative methods in registered trials, the types of trials using qualitative methods and where in the world these trials were conducted.

Methods

We included registries if they were searchable using keywords and held summaries of trials rather than listing reports or publications. We searched the included registries from the first available record in 1999 to the end of 2016 for the term ‘qualitative’. We included trials only if we could confirm that they used qualitative methods through documented use of qualitative data collection and analysis in the registry summary. We analysed registered trials reporting the use of qualitative methods by: year registered, the country responsible for overseeing governance of the trial and the type of trial intervention (categorised as surgical, medical device, behavioural, drug or other).

Results

We included three registries: ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry (ISRCTN) and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). A total of 615,311 trials appear in these three registries from 1999 until the end of 2016. Numbers differed across registries with the WHO ICTRP the largest (366,753 trials), ClinicalTrials.gov the second largest (233,277) and ISRCTN the smallest (15,301). Of these registered trials, we confirmed that 1492 (0.24%) reported using qualitative methods. The ISRCTN contributed the highest percentage of trials reported as using qualitative methods (3.4%); in contrast, ClinicalTrials.gov reported 0.3% and WHO ICTRP reported 0.03%. The number and percentage of trials reported to use qualitative methods increased over time from 0 (0.0%) in 1999 to 285 (0.38%) in 2016. Trials reported as using qualitative methods originated from 52 countries across the world. Most were in Western higher-income countries: 38% in the United Kingdom and 28% in the United States. Most registered trials reported as using qualitative methods evaluated behavioural (39%) or other interventions with many fewer trials evaluating drugs (5%), medical devices (5%) or surgical interventions (4%).

Conclusion

The reported use of qualitative methods in registered trials has increased over time and worldwide. They are reportedly more frequent in high-income countries and in trials of behavioural and other interventions. Trialists and other stakeholders need to recognise the benefits of using qualitative methods in surgical, device and drug trials, and trials conducted in poorer countries. Moreover, they should seriously consider using qualitative methods in these trials.
Literature
1.
go back to reference O'Cathain A, et al. What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review. BMJ Open. 2013;3(6).CrossRef O'Cathain A, et al. What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review. BMJ Open. 2013;3(6).CrossRef
2.
go back to reference O’Cathain A, et al. Maximising the impact of qualitative research in feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials: guidance for researchers. Pilot Feasib Stud. 2015;1(1):32.CrossRef O’Cathain A, et al. Maximising the impact of qualitative research in feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials: guidance for researchers. Pilot Feasib Stud. 2015;1(1):32.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ. 2009;339.CrossRef Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ. 2009;339.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Donovan JL, et al. Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: the development and implementation of the Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Trials. 2016;17(1):283.CrossRef Donovan JL, et al. Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: the development and implementation of the Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Trials. 2016;17(1):283.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Elliott D, et al. Understanding and Improving Recruitment to Randomised Controlled Trials: Qualitative Research Approaches. Eur Urol. 2017;72(5):789–98.CrossRef Elliott D, et al. Understanding and Improving Recruitment to Randomised Controlled Trials: Qualitative Research Approaches. Eur Urol. 2017;72(5):789–98.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Rapport F, et al. Qualitative research within trials: developing a standard operating procedure for a clinical trials unit. Trials. 2013;14(1):54.CrossRef Rapport F, et al. Qualitative research within trials: developing a standard operating procedure for a clinical trials unit. Trials. 2013;14(1):54.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Blencowe NS, et al. Novel ways to explore surgical interventions in randomised controlled trials: applying case study methodology in the operating theatre. Trials. 2015;16:589.CrossRef Blencowe NS, et al. Novel ways to explore surgical interventions in randomised controlled trials: applying case study methodology in the operating theatre. Trials. 2015;16:589.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Clement C, et al. Healthcare professionals' views of the use and administration of two salvage therapy drugs for acute ulcerative colitis: a nested qualitative study within the CONSTRUCT trial. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e014512.CrossRef Clement C, et al. Healthcare professionals' views of the use and administration of two salvage therapy drugs for acute ulcerative colitis: a nested qualitative study within the CONSTRUCT trial. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e014512.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.CrossRef Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Sebire SJ, et al. Process evaluation of the Bristol girls dance project. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):349.CrossRef Sebire SJ, et al. Process evaluation of the Bristol girls dance project. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):349.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1972. Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1972.
13.
go back to reference Sackett DL, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71.CrossRef Sackett DL, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Ingersoll GL. Evidence-based nursing: What it is and what it isn't. Nurs Outlook. 2000;48(4):151–2.CrossRef Ingersoll GL. Evidence-based nursing: What it is and what it isn't. Nurs Outlook. 2000;48(4):151–2.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative Research: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311(6996):42.CrossRef Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative Research: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311(6996):42.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Stephenson J, Imrie J. Why do we need randomised controlled trials to assess behavioural interventions? BMJ. 1998;316(7131):611–3.CrossRef Stephenson J, Imrie J. Why do we need randomised controlled trials to assess behavioural interventions? BMJ. 1998;316(7131):611–3.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Timmermans S, Mauck A. The Promises And Pitfalls Of Evidence-Based Medicine. Health Aff. 2005;24(1):18–28.CrossRef Timmermans S, Mauck A. The Promises And Pitfalls Of Evidence-Based Medicine. Health Aff. 2005;24(1):18–28.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Hawe P, et al. Methods for exploring implementation variation and local context within a cluster randomised community intervention trial. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(9):788–93.CrossRef Hawe P, et al. Methods for exploring implementation variation and local context within a cluster randomised community intervention trial. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(9):788–93.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.
20.
go back to reference Flemming K, Adamson J, Atkin K. Improving the effectiveness of interventions in palliative care: the potential role of qualitative research in enhancing evidence from randomized controlled trials. Palliat Med. 2008;22(2):123–31.CrossRef Flemming K, Adamson J, Atkin K. Improving the effectiveness of interventions in palliative care: the potential role of qualitative research in enhancing evidence from randomized controlled trials. Palliat Med. 2008;22(2):123–31.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Oakley A, et al. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ. 2006;332(7538):413–6.CrossRef Oakley A, et al. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ. 2006;332(7538):413–6.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference O'Cathain A, et al. Maximising the value of combining qualitative research and randomised controlled trials in health research: the QUAlitative Research in Trials (QUART) study – a mixed methods study. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(38):1–197. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18380. O'Cathain A, et al. Maximising the value of combining qualitative research and randomised controlled trials in health research: the QUAlitative Research in Trials (QUART) study – a mixed methods study. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(38):1–197. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3310/​hta18380.
23.
go back to reference Glenton C, Lewin S, Scheel IB. Still too little qualitative research to shed light on results from reviews of effectiveness trials: A case study of a Cochrane review on the use of lay health workers. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):53.CrossRef Glenton C, Lewin S, Scheel IB. Still too little qualitative research to shed light on results from reviews of effectiveness trials: A case study of a Cochrane review on the use of lay health workers. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):53.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference National Research Council Panel on Race, E. and L. Health in Later. The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health. In: Anderson NB, Bulatao RA, Cohen B, editors. Critical Perspectives on Racial and Ethnic Differences in Health in Late Life. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) National Academy of Sciences; 2004. National Research Council Panel on Race, E. and L. Health in Later. The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health. In: Anderson NB, Bulatao RA, Cohen B, editors. Critical Perspectives on Racial and Ethnic Differences in Health in Late Life. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) National Academy of Sciences; 2004.
25.
go back to reference Cook JA. The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2009;10(1):9.CrossRef Cook JA. The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2009;10(1):9.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference US Food and Drug Administration. Food and Drug Administration Moderization Act of 1997. p. 1997. US Food and Drug Administration. Food and Drug Administration Moderization Act of 1997. p. 1997.
28.
go back to reference Organisation, W.H., Ministerial Summit on Health Research. 2004. Organisation, W.H., Ministerial Summit on Health Research. 2004.
29.
go back to reference Smith PG, Ross DA, Morrow RH. Field Trials of Health Interventions: A Toolbox. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. Smith PG, Ross DA, Morrow RH. Field Trials of Health Interventions: A Toolbox. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
30.
go back to reference Health, N.I.f, ClinicalTrials.gov Background. 2018. Health, N.I.f, ClinicalTrials.gov Background. 2018.
31.
go back to reference Silverman D. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London: SAGE Publications; 2013. Silverman D. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London: SAGE Publications; 2013.
32.
go back to reference Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, vol. 2017. London: SAGE Publications. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, vol. 2017. London: SAGE Publications.
34.
go back to reference World Health Organisation, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). 2018. World Health Organisation, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). 2018.
36.
go back to reference McCall B. UK implements national programme for surgical trials. Lancet. 2013;382(9898):1083–4.CrossRef McCall B. UK implements national programme for surgical trials. Lancet. 2013;382(9898):1083–4.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(3):141–5.CrossRef Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(3):141–5.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Potter S, et al. Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study. Trials. 2014;15(1):80.CrossRef Potter S, et al. Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study. Trials. 2014;15(1):80.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Paramasivan S, et al. Enabling recruitment success in bariatric surgical trials: pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study. Int J Obes (2005). 2017;41(11):1654–61.CrossRef Paramasivan S, et al. Enabling recruitment success in bariatric surgical trials: pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study. Int J Obes (2005). 2017;41(11):1654–61.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Neugebauer EAM, et al. Specific barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials on medical devices. Trials. 2017;18(1):427.CrossRef Neugebauer EAM, et al. Specific barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials on medical devices. Trials. 2017;18(1):427.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Gargon E, Williamson PR, Young B. Improving core outcome set development: qualitative interviews with developers provided pointers to inform guidance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:140–52.CrossRef Gargon E, Williamson PR, Young B. Improving core outcome set development: qualitative interviews with developers provided pointers to inform guidance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:140–52.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Ritchie J, et al. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: SAGE Publications; 2013. Ritchie J, et al. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: SAGE Publications; 2013.
44.
go back to reference Drabble SJ, et al. Describing qualitative research undertaken with randomised controlled trials in grant proposals: a documentary analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):24.CrossRef Drabble SJ, et al. Describing qualitative research undertaken with randomised controlled trials in grant proposals: a documentary analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):24.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference O’Cathain A, et al. Getting added value from using qualitative research with randomized controlled trials: a qualitative interview study. Trials. 2014;15(1):215.CrossRef O’Cathain A, et al. Getting added value from using qualitative research with randomized controlled trials: a qualitative interview study. Trials. 2014;15(1):215.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Jansen YJFM, et al. Coping with methodological dilemmas; about establishing the effectiveness of interventions in routine medical practice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):160.CrossRef Jansen YJFM, et al. Coping with methodological dilemmas; about establishing the effectiveness of interventions in routine medical practice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):160.CrossRef
48.
go back to reference Vischer N, et al. "You can save time if…"—A qualitative study on internal factors slowing down clinical trials in Sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173796.CrossRef Vischer N, et al. "You can save time if…"—A qualitative study on internal factors slowing down clinical trials in Sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173796.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Exploring qualitative methods reported in registered trials and their yields (EQUITY): systematic review
Authors
Clare Clement
Suzanne L. Edwards
Frances Rapport
Ian T. Russell
Hayley A. Hutchings
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2983-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue