Is all that glitters gold? Assessing the quality and ethics of ‘gold standard’ randomised controlled trials conducted in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander settings

Joanne Luke (Stolen Generations - Alyawarre) , Ebony Verbunt , Muriel Bamblett (Yorta Yorta, Dja Dja Wurrung) , Connie Salamone , Sarah Gafforini , Angela Zhang , David Thomas , Sandra Eades (Noongar) , Lina Gubhaju , Margeret Kelaher , Amanda Jones
{"title":"Is all that glitters gold? Assessing the quality and ethics of ‘gold standard’ randomised controlled trials conducted in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander settings","authors":"Joanne Luke (Stolen Generations - Alyawarre) ,&nbsp;Ebony Verbunt ,&nbsp;Muriel Bamblett (Yorta Yorta, Dja Dja Wurrung) ,&nbsp;Connie Salamone ,&nbsp;Sarah Gafforini ,&nbsp;Angela Zhang ,&nbsp;David Thomas ,&nbsp;Sandra Eades (Noongar) ,&nbsp;Lina Gubhaju ,&nbsp;Margeret Kelaher ,&nbsp;Amanda Jones","doi":"10.1016/j.fnhli.2023.100007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Evidence-based practice methods assign randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as the ‘gold standard’ study design for interventional research. However, privileging RCTs on the criterion of study design without consideration of their broader methodology can be problematic, particularly in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander settings. This review assessed RCTs conducted in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander settings for ‘standard quality’ and ‘ethical quality’.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The RCTs were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus and the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry between January 2000 and July 2021. Standard quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0). To assess ethical quality, this review assessed whether research incorporated ethical principles of: Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander ethics committee endorsement, organisational endorsement, governance, partnership, data sovereignty, priority setting, worldview, authorship, and involvement in design, implementation and/or evaluation.</p></div><div><h3>Main findings</h3><p>Seventy-three published RCTs were retrieved. For quality, 85% of RCTs were assessed as having a ‘high’ risk of bias, largely owing to issues with deviations from the intervention, missing outcome data and measurement biases. The RCTs varied greatly in terms of ethical quality, with most attending poorly to ethical principles of priority setting (12%), involving stakeholders in evaluation of intervention (18%) and data sovereignty (7%). The RCTs conducted with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander co-authors were ranked as having greater ethical quality.</p></div><div><h3>Principal conclusions</h3><p>This review found notable concerns with the standard and ethical quality of RCTs conducted in these settings. To improve the ethical quality of research there must be a greater focus on control and participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait stakeholders.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100532,"journal":{"name":"First Nations Health and Wellbeing - The Lowitja Journal","volume":"1 ","pages":"Article 100007"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949840623000074/pdfft?md5=6c4f5273e4a47a0a71b1e7dbcaaa345c&pid=1-s2.0-S2949840623000074-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"First Nations Health and Wellbeing - The Lowitja Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949840623000074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Evidence-based practice methods assign randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as the ‘gold standard’ study design for interventional research. However, privileging RCTs on the criterion of study design without consideration of their broader methodology can be problematic, particularly in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander settings. This review assessed RCTs conducted in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander settings for ‘standard quality’ and ‘ethical quality’.

Methods

The RCTs were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus and the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry between January 2000 and July 2021. Standard quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0). To assess ethical quality, this review assessed whether research incorporated ethical principles of: Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander ethics committee endorsement, organisational endorsement, governance, partnership, data sovereignty, priority setting, worldview, authorship, and involvement in design, implementation and/or evaluation.

Main findings

Seventy-three published RCTs were retrieved. For quality, 85% of RCTs were assessed as having a ‘high’ risk of bias, largely owing to issues with deviations from the intervention, missing outcome data and measurement biases. The RCTs varied greatly in terms of ethical quality, with most attending poorly to ethical principles of priority setting (12%), involving stakeholders in evaluation of intervention (18%) and data sovereignty (7%). The RCTs conducted with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander co-authors were ranked as having greater ethical quality.

Principal conclusions

This review found notable concerns with the standard and ethical quality of RCTs conducted in these settings. To improve the ethical quality of research there must be a greater focus on control and participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait stakeholders.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
闪闪发光的都是金子吗?评估在原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民环境中开展的 "黄金标准 "随机对照试验的质量和道德规范
目的基于证据的实践方法将随机对照试验(RCT)作为干预研究的 "黄金标准 "研究设计。然而,以研究设计为标准而不考虑其更广泛的方法论,将随机对照试验作为首选可能会产生问题,尤其是在土著居民和托雷斯海峡岛民的环境中。本综述评估了在土著居民和托雷斯海峡岛民环境中进行的研究性临床试验的 "标准质量 "和 "伦理质量"。方法从 PubMed、Scopus 和澳大利亚-新西兰临床试验注册中心检索了 2000 年 1 月至 2021 年 7 月期间的研究性临床试验。标准质量采用修订后的科克伦随机试验偏倚风险工具(RoB 2.0)进行评估。为了评估伦理质量,本综述评估了研究是否纳入了以下伦理原则:原住民和/或托雷斯海峡岛民伦理委员会认可、组织认可、治理、伙伴关系、数据主权、优先级设定、世界观、作者身份以及参与设计、实施和/或评估。就质量而言,85%的研究性试验被评估为存在 "高 "偏倚风险,这主要是由于偏离干预措施、结果数据缺失和测量偏倚等问题造成的。在伦理质量方面,研究性试验的差异很大,大多数试验在确定优先次序(12%)、让利益相关者参与干预措施评估(18%)和数据主权(7%)等伦理原则方面表现不佳。与原住民和/或托雷斯海峡岛民合著的 RCT 被评为道德质量较高的 RCT。为了提高研究的伦理质量,必须更加重视土著居民和托雷斯海峡利益相关者的控制和参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prioritising the social and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples receiving home-based aged care: An exploratory study Physiotherapy-led restorative care enabling improved frailty measures in adults after starting dialysis in Northern Territory of Australia: The ‘Frailty-to-Fit’ pilot study ‘We know what our communities need’: What the Indigenous health sector reveals about pandemic preparedness in urban Indigenous communities in Australia Antenatal care assessing and addressing alcohol consumption during pregnancy: A qualitative study of Aboriginal women’s experiences and strategies for culturally appropriate care in an Australian local health district Resisting the incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children: A scoping review to determine the cultural responsiveness of diversion programs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1