Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance

Authors: Lisa M. Miles, Diana Elbourne, Andrew Farmer, Martin Gulliford, Louise Locock, Jim McCambridge, Stephen Sutton, David P. French

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is now clear systematic review evidence that measurement can affect the people being measured; much of this evidence focusses on how asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to this reactivity may introduce bias in otherwise well-conducted randomised controlled trials (RCTs), yielding incorrect estimates of intervention effects. Despite this, measurement reactivity is not currently adequately considered in risk of bias frameworks. The present research aims to produce a set of guidance statements on how best to avoid or minimise bias due to measurement reactivity in studies of interventions to improve health, with a particular focus on bias in RCTs.

Methods

The MERIT study consists of a series of systematic and rapid reviews, a Delphi study and an expert workshop to develop guidance on how to minimise bias in trials due to measurement reactivity. An existing systematic review on question-behaviour effects on health-related behaviours will be updated and three new rapid reviews will be conducted to identify (1) existing guidance on measurement reactivity; (2) systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes relating to behaviour and affective outcomes in health and non-health contexts and (3) trials that have investigated the effects of objective measurements of behaviour on concurrent or subsequent behaviour itself. A Delphi procedure will be used to combine the views of experts with a view to reaching agreement on the scope of the guidance statements. Finally, a workshop will be held in autumn 2018, with the aim of producing a set of guidance statements that will form the central part of new MRC guidance on how best to avoid bias due to measurement reactivity in studies of interventions to improve health.

Discussion

Our ambition is to produce MRC guidance on measurement reactions in trials which will be used by future trial researchers, leading to the development of trials that are less likely to be at risk of bias.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
French DP, Sutton S. Reactivity of measurement in health psychology: how much of a problem is it? What can be done about it? Br J Health Psychol. 2010;15(3):453–68.CrossRef
2.
Kraut RE, McConahay JB. How being interviewed affects voting: an experiment. Public Opin Q. 1973;37(3):398–406.CrossRef
3.
McCambridge J, Kypri K. Can simply answering research questions change behaviour? Systematic review and meta analyses of brief alcohol intervention trials. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e23748.CrossRef
4.
Rodrigues AM, O’Brien N, French DP, Glidewell L, Sniehotta FF. The question-behavior effect: genuine effect or spurious phenomenon? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials with meta-analyses. Health Psychol. 2015;34(1):61–78.CrossRef
5.
Spangenberg ER, Kareklas I, Devezer B, Sprott DE. A meta-analytic synthesis of the question-behavior effect. J Consum Psychol. 2016;26(3):441–58.CrossRef
6.
Wood C, Conner M, Miles E, Sandberg T, Taylor N, Godin G, Sheeran P. The impact of asking intention or self-prediction questions on subsequent behavior: a meta-analysis. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2016;20(3):245–68.CrossRef
7.
Wilding S, Conner M, Sandberg T, Prestwich A, Lawton R, Wood C, Miles E, Godin G, Sheeran P. The question-behaviour effect: a theoretical and methodological review and meta-analysis. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2016;27(1):196–230.CrossRef
8.
Schwartz CE, Bode R, Repucci N, Becker J, Sprangers MAG, Fayers PM. The clinical significance of adaptation to changing health: a meta-analysis of response shift. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(9):1533–50.CrossRef
9.
10.
Shrout PE, Stadler G, Lane SP, McClure MJ, Jackson GL, Clavel FD, Iida M, Gleason MEJ, Xu JH, Bolger N. Initial elevation bias in subjective reports. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(1):E15–23.CrossRef
11.
Lister AM, Rode S, Farmer A, Salkovskis PM. Does thinking about personal health risk increase anxiety? J Health Psychol. 2002;7(4):409–14.CrossRef
12.
Sutton S, Kinmonth AL, Hardeman W, Hughes D, Boase S, Prevost AT, Kellar I, Graffy J, Griffin S, Farmer A. Does electronic monitoring influence adherence to medication? Randomized controlled trial of measurement reactivity. Ann Behav Med. 2014;48(3):293–9.CrossRef
13.
French JRP. Experiments in field settings. In: Festinger L, Katz D, editors. Research methods in the behavioral sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1953.
14.
McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(3):267–77.CrossRef
15.
Darker CD, French DP. What sense do people make of a theory of planned behaviour questionnaire? A think-aloud study. J Health Psychol. 2009;14(7):861–71.CrossRef
16.
Locock L, Smith L. Personal experiences of taking part in clinical trials—a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(3):303–9.CrossRef
17.
McCambridge J, Butor-Bhavsar K, Witton J, Elbourne D. Can research assessments themselves cause bias in behaviour change trials? A systematic review of evidence from solomon 4-group studies. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25223.CrossRef
18.
McCambridge J, Kypri K, Elbourne D. In randomisation we trust? There are overlooked problems in experimenting with people in behavioural intervention trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(3):247–53.CrossRef
19.
Bravata DM, Smith-Spangler C, Sundaram V, Gienger AL, Lin N, Lewis R, Stave CD, Olkin I, Sirard JR. Using pedometers to increase physical activity and improve health—A systematic review. J Am Med Assoc. 2007;298(19):2296–304.CrossRef
20.
Krebs P, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS. A meta-analysis of computer-tailored interventions for health behavior change. Prev Med. 2010;51(3–4):214–21.CrossRef
21.
Pal K, Eastwood SV, Michie S, Farmer A, Barnard ML, Peacock R, Wood B, Edwards P, Murray E. Computer-based interventions to improve self-management in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(6):1759–66.CrossRef
22.
Webb TL, Joseph J, Yardley L, Michie S. Using the Internet to promote health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(1):e4.CrossRef
23.
Michie S, Abraham C, Whittington C, McAteer J, Gupta S. Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: a meta-regression. Health Psychol. 2009;28(6):690–701.CrossRef
24.
McCambridge J, Kypri K, Elbourne D. Research participation effects: a skeleton in the methodological cupboard. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:845–9.CrossRef
25.
Solomon RL. An extension of control group design. Psychol Bull. 1949;46(2):137–50.CrossRef
26.
Campbell DT. Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychol Bull. 1957;54(4):297–312.CrossRef
27.
Kelly SE, Moher D. Defining rapid reviews: a modified Delphi consensus approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(4):265–75.CrossRef
28.
Rodrigues AM, French DP, Sniehotta FF. Commentary. the impact of asking intention or self-prediction questions on subsequent behavior: a meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2016;7:879.CrossRef
29.
McDermott L, Wright AJ, Cornelius V, Burgess C, Forster AS, Ashworth M, Khoshaba B, Clery P, Fuller F, Miller J, et al. Enhanced invitation methods and uptake of health checks in primary care: randomised controlled trial and cohort study using electronic health records. Health Technol Asses. 2016;20(84):1–92.CrossRef
30.
O’Carroll RE, Chambers JA, Brownlee L, Libby G, Steele RJC. Anticipated regret to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening (ARTICS): a randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med. 2015;142:118–27.CrossRef
31.
Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester; Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.CrossRef
32.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Grp P. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–W264.CrossRef
33.
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Brit Med J. 2017;358:j4008.CrossRef
34.
Pill J. Delphi method – Substance, context – critique an an annotated bibliography. Socio Econ Plan Sci. 1971;5(1):57–71.CrossRef
35.
Cantrill JA, Sibbald B, Buetow S. The Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research. Int J Pharm Pract. 1996;4(2):67–74.CrossRef
36.
Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Pencharz PB, Ling SC, Moore AM, Wales PW. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(4):401–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance
Authors
Lisa M. Miles
Diana Elbourne
Andrew Farmer
Martin Gulliford
Louise Locock
Jim McCambridge
Stephen Sutton
David P. French
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-3017-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Efficacy and safety of electro-acupuncture treatment in improving the consciousness of patients with traumatic brain injury: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Mindfulness as a complementary intervention in the treatment of overweight and obesity in primary health care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Update

Statistical analysis plan for the control of blood pressure and risk attenuation-rural Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka (COBRA-BPS) trial: a cluster randomized trial for a multicomponent intervention versus usual care in hypertensive patients

Study protocol

Guiding intensive care physicians’ communication and behavior towards bereaved relatives: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial (COSMIC-EOL)

Research

Achieving optimal technology and behavioral uptake of single and combined interventions of water, sanitation hygiene and nutrition, in an efficacy trial (WASH benefits) in rural Bangladesh

Study protocol

Mobile critical care recovery program (m-CCRP) for acute respiratory failure survivors: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial