PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12171079

Control groups in psychosocial intervention research: ethical and methodological issues.

L L Street·J B Luoma
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This article summarizes a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) workshop that was convened to address the ethical and methodological issues that arise when conducting controlled psychosocial interventions research and introduces 6 thoughtful and inspiring papers presented by workshop participants. These papers, on topics ranging from informed consent to ethnic minority issues, reflect the depth and breadth of expertise represented by the multidisciplinary group of scientists and ethicists present at the meeting. More extensive follow-up, particularly from federal research applications and publications, of how investigators balance the need for strong research design with ethical considerations may help advance the science of psychosocial intervention research.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials Data Monitoring CommitteesControl GroupsEthical AnalysisHumansInformed ConsentMental DisordersPersons with Psychiatric DisordersOutcome Assessment, Health CarePlacebosPsychopharmacologyPsychotherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTherapeutic Human ExperimentationBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchMental Health TherapiesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L L Street, J B Luoma. 2002. Control groups in psychosocial intervention research: ethical and methodological issues.. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1201_1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Information-based monitoring of clinical trials.

When designing a clinical trial to compare the effect of different treatments on response, a key issue facing the statistician is to determine how large a study is necessary to detect a clinically important difference with sufficient power. This is the case whether the study will be analysed only once (single-analysis) or whether it will be monitored periodically with the possibility of early stopping (group-sequential). Standard sample size calculations are based on both the magnitude of difference that is considered clinically important as well as values for the nuisance parameters in the statistical model. For planning purposes, best guesses are made for the value of the nuisance parameters and these are used to determine the sample size. However, if these guesses are incorrect this will affect the subsequent power to detect the clinically important difference. It is argued in this paper that statistical precision is directly related to Statistical Information and that the study should continue until the requisite statistical information is obtained. This is referred to as information-based design and analysis of clinical trials. We also argue that this type of methodology is best suited with group-sequential trials which monitor the data periodically and allow for estimation of the statistical information as the study progresses.

Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees↗
PubMed2006

Standard versus adaptive monitoring procedures: A commentary.

In the standard approach to designing definitive clinical trials, the primary endpoint and test statistic to be used for the primary analysis are specified before trial initiation. The false positive error rate for the null hypothesis and statistical power to detect the targeted size of treatment effect are also specified. Standard monitoring procedures, such as the group sequential guidelines, enable interim monitoring while maintaining the integrity of this approach. In contrast, adaptive monitoring procedures seek to provide flexibility to modify these pre-specified design features during the course of the trial. However, these procedures have several undesirable properties, including lesser statistical efficiency, reduced interpretability of primary outcome results, basing design changes on unreliable interim estimates of efficacy, risks to the integrity and credibility of the trial, loss of flexibility to use emerging results from external sources to alter key design features, and overemphasis of the importance of statistical significance relative to clinical significance.

Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees↗