The Open UniversitySkip to content
 

A qualitative study exploring the acceptability of the McNulty-Zelen design for randomised controlled trials evaluating educational interventions

McNulty, Cliodna; Ricketts, Ellie J.; Rugman, Claire; Hogan, Angela; Charlett, Andre; Campbell, Rona and CIRT study group (2015). A qualitative study exploring the acceptability of the McNulty-Zelen design for randomised controlled trials evaluating educational interventions. BMC Family Practice, 16(1)

Full text available as:
[img]
Preview
PDF (Version of Record) - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (1MB) | Preview
DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-015-0356-0
Google Scholar: Look up in Google Scholar

Abstract

Background:
Traditional randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of educational interventions in general practice may produce biased results as participants know they are being evaluated. We aimed to explore the acceptability of a McNulty-Zelen Cluster Randomised Control Trial (CRT) design which conceals from educational participants that they are in a RCT. Consent is obtained from a trusted third party considered appropriate to give consent on participants’ behalf, intervention practice staff then choose whether to attend the offered education as would occur with normal continuing professional development.
Methods:
We undertook semi structured telephone interviews in England with 16 general practice (GP) staff involved in a RCT evaluating an educational intervention aimed at increasing chlamydia screening tests in general practice using the McNulty-Zelen design, 4 Primary Care (PC) Research Network officers, 5 Primary Care Trust leads in Public or sexual health, and one Research Ethics committee Chair. Interviews were undertaken by members of the original intervention evaluation McNulty-Zelen design RCT study team. These experienced qualitative interviewers used an agreed semi-structured interview schedule and were careful not to lead the participants. To further mitigate against bias, the data analysis was undertaken by a researcher (CR) not involved in the original RCT.
Results: We reached data saturation and found five main themes;
Support for the design: All found the McNulty-Zelen design acceptable because they considered that it generated more reliable evidence of the value of new educational interventions in real life GP settings.
Lack of familiarity with study design: The design was novel to all. GP staff likened the evaluation using the McNulty–Zelen design to audit of their activities with feedback, which were to them a daily experience and therefore acceptable.
Ethical considerations:Research stakeholders considered the consent procedure should be very clear and that these trial designs should go through at least a proportionate ethical review. GP staff were happy for the PCT leads to give consent on their behalf.
GP research capacity and trial participation: GP staff considered the design increased generalisability, as staff who would not normally volunteer to participate in research due to perceived time constraints and paperwork might do so.
Design ‘worth it’: All interviewees agreed that the advantages of the “more accurate” or “truer” results and information gained about uptake of workshops within Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) outweighed any disadvantages of the consent procedure.
Discussion:Our RCT was evaluating the effect of an educational intervention to increase chlamydia screening tests in general practices where there was routine monitoring of testing rates; our participants may have been less enthusiastic about the design if it had been evaluating a more controversial educational area, or if data monitoring was not routine.
Implications:The McNulty-Zelen design should be considered for the evaluation of educational interventions, but these designs should have clear consent protocols and proportionate ethical review.<
Trial registration: The trial was registered on the UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio database. UKCRN9722.

Item Type: Journal Item
ISSN: 1471-2296
Project Funding Details:
Funded Project NameProject IDFunding Body
A randomised controlled trial to determine the value of a complex intervention in general practice to increase Chlamydia screeningNot SetHealth Protection Agency Development Fund
Keywords: Education for Health Care Professionals; Clinical trials (epidemiology); Public Health Ethics; Primary Care; Ethics; Screening
Academic Unit/School: Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies (WELS)
Item ID: 46525
Depositing User: Louise Wallace
Date Deposited: 07 Jun 2016 14:24
Last Modified: 08 Dec 2018 13:43
URI: http://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/46525
Share this page:

Metrics

Altmetrics from Altmetric

Citations from Dimensions

Download history for this item

These details should be considered as only a guide to the number of downloads performed manually. Algorithmic methods have been applied in an attempt to remove automated downloads from the displayed statistics but no guarantee can be made as to the accuracy of the figures.

Actions (login may be required)

Policies | Disclaimer

© The Open University   contact the OU