Reducing bias in trials due to reactions to measurement: experts produced recommendations informed by evidence

David P French; Lisa M. Miles; Diana R. Elbourne; Andrew J.  Farmer; Martin C. Gulliford; Louise Locock; Stephen Sutton; Jim McCambridge; MERIT Collaborative group

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.028

Reducing bias in trials due to reactions to measurement: experts produced recommendations informed by evidence  

David P French^* (Corresponding Author), Lisa M. Miles, Diana R. Elbourne, Andrew J. Farmer, Martin C. Gulliford, Louise Locock, Stephen Sutton, Jim McCambridge, MERIT Collaborative group

^*Corresponding author for this work

Health Services Research Unit (HSRU)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective:
This study (MEasurement Reactions In Trials) aimed to produce recommendations on how best to minimise bias from measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health.
Study design and setting:
The MERIT study consisted of: (a) an updated systematic review that examined whether measuring participants had effects on participants’ health-related behaviours, relative to no-measurement controls, and three rapid reviews to identify: (i) existing guidance on measurement reactivity; (ii) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on
behavioural or affective outcomes; and (iii) studies that have investigated the effects of objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour; (b) an Delphi study to identify the scope of the recommendations; and (c) an expert workshop in October 2018 to discuss potential recommendations in groups.
Results:
Fourteen recommendations were produced by the expert group to: (a) identify whether bias is likely to be a problem for a trial; (b) decide whether to collect data about whether bias is likely to be a problem; (c) design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias.
Conclusions:
These recommendations raise awareness of how and where taking measurements can produce bias in trials, and are thus helpful for trial design.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	130-139
Number of pages	10
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	139
Early online date	3 Jul 2021
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.028
Publication status	Published - 30 Nov 2021

Keywords

Bias
measurement reactions
Reactivity
Recommendations
Research Design
trials

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.028Licence: CC BY

French_etal_JCE_Reducing_Bias_In_VoR
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Final published version, 781 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{56a6a876df114887a5594cbfb369e748,

title = "Reducing bias in trials due to reactions to measurement: experts produced recommendations informed by evidence  ",

abstract = "Objective:This study (MEasurement Reactions In Trials) aimed to produce recommendations on how best to minimise bias from measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health.Study design and setting:The MERIT study consisted of: (a) an updated systematic review that examined whether measuring participants had effects on participants{\textquoteright} health-related behaviours, relative to no-measurement controls, and three rapid reviews to identify: (i) existing guidance on measurement reactivity; (ii) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement onbehavioural or affective outcomes; and (iii) studies that have investigated the effects of objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour; (b) an Delphi study to identify the scope of the recommendations; and (c) an expert workshop in October 2018 to discuss potential recommendations in groups.Results:Fourteen recommendations were produced by the expert group to: (a) identify whether bias is likely to be a problem for a trial; (b) decide whether to collect data about whether bias is likely to be a problem; (c) design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias.Conclusions:These recommendations raise awareness of how and where taking measurements can produce bias in trials, and are thus helpful for trial design.",

keywords = "Bias, measurement reactions, Reactivity, Recommendations, Research Design, trials",

author = "French, {David P} and Miles, {Lisa M.} and Elbourne, {Diana R.} and Farmer, {Andrew J.} and Gulliford, {Martin C.} and Louise Locock and Stephen Sutton and Jim McCambridge and {MERIT Collaborative group}",

note = "ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the expert input provided into the scope of these recommendations from participants in an international Delphi procedure. The following people took part in the Delphi procedure and participants had a range of views. Participation in the Delphi procedure does not necessarily mean agreement with the recommendations FUNDING The MERIT study was funded by the MRC/NIHR Methodology Research Programme (reference MC_PC_17229); funders have had no role in the design of the study or the writing of this manuscript. The work of RD and AL (members of MERIT Collaborative Group) is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13) and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13). ",

year = "2021",

month = nov,

day = "30",

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.028",

language = "English",

volume = "139",

pages = "130--139",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reducing bias in trials due to reactions to measurement

T2 - experts produced recommendations informed by evidence  

AU - French, David P

AU - Miles, Lisa M.

AU - Elbourne, Diana R.

AU - Farmer, Andrew J.

AU - Gulliford, Martin C.

AU - Locock, Louise

AU - Sutton, Stephen

AU - McCambridge, Jim

AU - MERIT Collaborative group

N1 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the expert input provided into the scope of these recommendations from participants in an international Delphi procedure. The following people took part in the Delphi procedure and participants had a range of views. Participation in the Delphi procedure does not necessarily mean agreement with the recommendations FUNDING The MERIT study was funded by the MRC/NIHR Methodology Research Programme (reference MC_PC_17229); funders have had no role in the design of the study or the writing of this manuscript. The work of RD and AL (members of MERIT Collaborative Group) is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13) and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13).

PY - 2021/11/30

Y1 - 2021/11/30

N2 - Objective:This study (MEasurement Reactions In Trials) aimed to produce recommendations on how best to minimise bias from measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health.Study design and setting:The MERIT study consisted of: (a) an updated systematic review that examined whether measuring participants had effects on participants’ health-related behaviours, relative to no-measurement controls, and three rapid reviews to identify: (i) existing guidance on measurement reactivity; (ii) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement onbehavioural or affective outcomes; and (iii) studies that have investigated the effects of objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour; (b) an Delphi study to identify the scope of the recommendations; and (c) an expert workshop in October 2018 to discuss potential recommendations in groups.Results:Fourteen recommendations were produced by the expert group to: (a) identify whether bias is likely to be a problem for a trial; (b) decide whether to collect data about whether bias is likely to be a problem; (c) design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias.Conclusions:These recommendations raise awareness of how and where taking measurements can produce bias in trials, and are thus helpful for trial design.

AB - Objective:This study (MEasurement Reactions In Trials) aimed to produce recommendations on how best to minimise bias from measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health.Study design and setting:The MERIT study consisted of: (a) an updated systematic review that examined whether measuring participants had effects on participants’ health-related behaviours, relative to no-measurement controls, and three rapid reviews to identify: (i) existing guidance on measurement reactivity; (ii) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement onbehavioural or affective outcomes; and (iii) studies that have investigated the effects of objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour; (b) an Delphi study to identify the scope of the recommendations; and (c) an expert workshop in October 2018 to discuss potential recommendations in groups.Results:Fourteen recommendations were produced by the expert group to: (a) identify whether bias is likely to be a problem for a trial; (b) decide whether to collect data about whether bias is likely to be a problem; (c) design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias.Conclusions:These recommendations raise awareness of how and where taking measurements can produce bias in trials, and are thus helpful for trial design.

KW - Bias

KW - measurement reactions

KW - Reactivity

KW - Recommendations

KW - Research Design

KW - trials

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.028

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.028

M3 - Article

VL - 139

SP - 130

EP - 139

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -

Reducing bias in trials due to reactions to measurement: experts produced recommendations informed by evidence

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this

Reducing bias in trials due to reactions to measurement: experts produced recommendations informed by evidence  