IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v200y2018icp114-128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systematic review of the methodological and practical challenges of undertaking randomised-controlled trials with cognitive disability populations

Author

Listed:
  • Mulhall, Peter
  • Taggart, Laurence
  • Coates, Vivien
  • McAloon, Toni
  • Hassiotis, Angela

Abstract

Approximately 10% of the world's population have a cognitive disability. Cognitive disabilities can have a profound impact on a person's social, cognitive or mental functioning, requiring high levels of costly health and social support. Therefore, it is imperative that interventions and services received are based upon a sound evidence-base. For many interventions for this population, this evidence-base does not yet exist and there is a need for more Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs). The process of conducting RCTs with disabled populations is fraught with methodological challenges. We need a better understanding of these methodological barriers if the evidence-bases are to be developed. The purpose of this study was to explore the methodological and practical barriers to conducting trials with adults with cognitive disabilities. As a case example, the literature regarding RCTs for people with intellectual disabilities (ID) was used to highlight these pertinent issues. A systematic literature review was conducted of RCTs with adults with ID, published from 2000 to 2017. A total of 53 papers met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Some of the barriers reported were specific to the RCT methodology and others specific to people with disabilities. Notable barriers included; difficulties recruiting; obtaining consent; resistance to the use of control groups; engaging with carers, staff and stakeholders; the need to adapt interventions and resources to be disability-accessible; and staff turnover. Conducting RCTs with people with cognitive disabilities can be challenging, however with reasonable adjustments, many of these barriers can be overcome. Researchers are not maximising the sharing of their experience-base. As a result, the development of evidence-bases remains slow and the health inequities of people with disabilities will continue to grow. The importance of the MRC guidelines on process evaluations, together with implications for the dissemination of ‘evidence-base’ and ‘experience-base’ are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Mulhall, Peter & Taggart, Laurence & Coates, Vivien & McAloon, Toni & Hassiotis, Angela, 2018. "A systematic review of the methodological and practical challenges of undertaking randomised-controlled trials with cognitive disability populations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 114-128.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:200:y:2018:i:c:p:114-128
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953618300327
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth F Schulz & Douglas G Altman & David Moher & for the CONSORT Group, 2010. "CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-7, March.
    2. Bonell, Chris & Fletcher, Adam & Morton, Matthew & Lorenc, Theo & Moore, Laurence, 2012. "Realist randomised controlled trials: A new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2299-2306.
    3. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter Tyrer, 2018. "The Importance of Nidotherapy and Environmental Change in the Management of People with Complex Mental Disorders," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-9, May.
    2. Roy G. Elbers & Kirsten I. de Oude & Theodore Kastanidis & Dederieke A. M. Maes-Festen & Alyt Oppewal, 2022. "The Effect of Progressive Resistance Exercise Training on Cardiovascular Risk Factors in People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Study Protocol," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-13, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Su Keng Tan & Wai Keung Leung & Alexander Tin Hong Tang & Roger A Zwahlen, 2017. "Effects of mandibular setback with or without maxillary advancement osteotomies on pharyngeal airways: An overview of systematic reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Jovana Kuzmanovic Pficer & Slobodan Dodic & Vojkan Lazic & Goran Trajkovic & Natasa Milic & Biljana Milicic, 2017. "Occlusal stabilization splint for patients with temporomandibular disorders: Meta-analysis of short and long term effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, February.
    3. Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr & Yun-Chun Wu & Moritz Scheidgen & Yu-Kang Tu, 2015. "Effect of Risk of Bias on the Effect Size of Meta-Analytic Estimates in Randomized Controlled Trials in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-9, September.
    4. Salvador Angosto & Jerónimo García-Fernández & Irena Valantine & Moisés Grimaldi-Puyana, 2020. "The Intention to Use Fitness and Physical Activity Apps: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-25, August.
    5. Libing Jiang & Shouyin Jiang & Mao Zhang & Zhongjun Zheng & Yuefeng Ma, 2014. "Albumin versus Other Fluids for Fluid Resuscitation in Patients with Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-21, December.
    6. Mahesh Shumsher Rughooputh & Rui Zeng & Ying Yao, 2015. "Protein Diet Restriction Slows Chronic Kidney Disease Progression in Non-Diabetic and in Type 1 Diabetic Patients, but Not in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Laith Hussain-Alkhateeb & Tatiana Rivera Ramírez & Axel Kroeger & Ernesto Gozzer & Silvia Runge-Ranzinger, 2021. "Early warning systems (EWSs) for chikungunya, dengue, malaria, yellow fever, and Zika outbreaks: What is the evidence? A scoping review," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-25, September.
    8. Shalin Lee Wan Fei & Khatijah L Abdullah, 2015. "Effect of turning vs. supine position under phototherapy on neonates with hyperbilirubinemia: a systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5-6), pages 672-682, March.
    9. Savita Bakhshi & Alison E. While, 2013. "Health Professionals’ Alcohol-Related Professional Practices and the Relationship between Their Personal Alcohol Attitudes and Behavior and Professional Practices: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-31, December.
    10. Finkelstein, Eric A. & Bilger, Marcel & Baid, Drishti, 2019. "Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of incentives as a tool for prevention of non-communicable diseases: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 340-350.
    11. João Carlos Belloti & Aldo Okamura & Jordana Scheeren & Flávio Faloppa & Vinícius Ynoe de Moraes, 2019. "A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    12. Kevin Rudolf & Lea A. L. Dejonghe & Ingo Froböse & Florian Lammer & Lisa-Marie Rückel & Jessica Tetz & Andrea Schaller, 2019. "Effectiveness Studies in Health Promotion: A Review of the Methodological Quality of Studies Reporting Significant Effects on Physical Activity in Working Age Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, March.
    13. Taweewat Wiangkham & Joan Duda & Sayeed Haque & Mohammad Madi & Alison Rushton, 2015. "The Effectiveness of Conservative Management for Acute Whiplash Associated Disorder (WAD) II: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-22, July.
    14. Abigail Stevely & Munyaradzi Dimairo & Susan Todd & Steven A Julious & Jonathan Nicholl & Daniel Hind & Cindy L Cooper, 2015. "An Investigation of the Shortcomings of the CONSORT 2010 Statement for the Reporting of Group Sequential Randomised Controlled Trials: A Methodological Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, November.
    15. Harrington, Nancy Grant & Scott, Allison M. & Spencer, Elizabeth A., 2020. "Working toward evidence-based guidelines for cost-of-care conversations between patients and physicians: A systematic review of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    16. Waleska Reyes-Ferrada & Luis Chirosa-Rios & Angela Rodriguez-Perea & Daniel Jerez-Mayorga & Ignacio Chirosa-Rios, 2021. "Isokinetic Trunk Strength in Acute Low Back Pain Patients Compared to Healthy Subjects: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Faith Donald & Kelley Kilpatrick & Kim Reid & Nancy Carter & Ruth Martin-Misener & Denise Bryant-Lukosius & Patricia Harbman & Sharon Kaasalainen & Deborah A. Marshall & Renee Charbonneau-Smith & Erin, 2014. "A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Nurse Practitioners and Clinical Nurse Specialists: What Is the Quality of the Evidence?," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2014, pages 1-28, September.
    18. Daisuke Kato & Yuki Kataoka & Erfen Gustiawan Suwangto & Makoto Kaneko & Hideki Wakabayashi & Daisuke Son & Ichiro Kawachi, 2020. "Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-9, May.
    19. Kartika Saraswati & Brittany J Maguire & Alistair R D McLean & Sauman Singh-Phulgenda & Roland C Ngu & Paul N Newton & Nicholas P J Day & Philippe J Guérin, 2021. "Systematic review of the scrub typhus treatment landscape: Assessing the feasibility of an individual participant-level data (IPD) platform," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-22, October.
    20. Busse, Heide & Campbell, Rona & Kipping, Ruth, 2018. "Examining the wider context of formal youth mentoring programme development, delivery and maintenance: A qualitative study with mentoring managers and experts in the United Kingdom," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 95-108.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:200:y:2018:i:c:p:114-128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.