IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0025223.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Research Assessments Themselves Cause Bias in Behaviour Change Trials? A Systematic Review of Evidence from Solomon 4-Group Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Jim McCambridge
  • Kaanan Butor-Bhavsar
  • John Witton
  • Diana Elbourne

Abstract

Background: The possible effects of research assessments on participant behaviour have attracted research interest, especially in studies with behavioural interventions and/or outcomes. Assessments may introduce bias in randomised controlled trials by altering receptivity to intervention in experimental groups and differentially impacting on the behaviour of control groups. In a Solomon 4-group design, participants are randomly allocated to one of four arms: (1) assessed experimental group; (2) unassessed experimental group (3) assessed control group; or (4) unassessed control group. This design provides a test of the internal validity of effect sizes obtained in conventional two-group trials by controlling for the effects of baseline assessment, and assessing interactions between the intervention and baseline assessment. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate evidence from Solomon 4-group studies with behavioural outcomes that baseline research assessments themselves can introduce bias into trials. Methodology/Principal Findings: Electronic databases were searched, supplemented by citation searching. Studies were eligible if they reported appropriately analysed results in peer-reviewed journals and used Solomon 4-group designs in non-laboratory settings with behavioural outcome measures and sample sizes of 20 per group or greater. Ten studies from a range of applied areas were included. There was inconsistent evidence of main effects of assessment, sparse evidence of interactions with behavioural interventions, and a lack of convincing data in relation to the research question for this review. Conclusions/Significance: There were too few high quality completed studies to infer conclusively that biases stemming from baseline research assessments do or do not exist. There is, therefore a need for new rigorous Solomon 4-group studies that are purposively designed to evaluate the potential for research assessments to cause bias in behaviour change trials.

Suggested Citation

  • Jim McCambridge & Kaanan Butor-Bhavsar & John Witton & Diana Elbourne, 2011. "Can Research Assessments Themselves Cause Bias in Behaviour Change Trials? A Systematic Review of Evidence from Solomon 4-Group Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-9, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0025223
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025223
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025223&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0025223?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Irving Kirsch & Brett J Deacon & Tania B Huedo-Medina & Alan Scoboria & Thomas J Moore & Blair T Johnson, 2008. "Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(2), pages 1-9, February.
    2. Jim McCambridge & Kypros Kypri, 2011. "Can Simply Answering Research Questions Change Behaviour? Systematic Review and Meta Analyses of Brief Alcohol Intervention Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-9, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Janus Christian Jakobsen & Jane Lindschou Hansen & Erik Simonsen & Christian Gluud, 2011. "The Effect of Interpersonal Psychotherapy and other Psychodynamic Therapies versus ‘Treatment as Usual’ in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-9, April.
    2. Michael A Sugarman & Amy M Loree & Boris B Baltes & Emily R Grekin & Irving Kirsch, 2014. "The Efficacy of Paroxetine and Placebo in Treating Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Change on the Hamilton Rating Scales," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, August.
    3. Florian Naudet & Anne Solène Maria & Bruno Falissard, 2011. "Antidepressant Response in Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Regression Comparison of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-10, June.
    4. Ad. J. W. van de Gevel & Charles N. Noussair, 2013. "The Nexus between Artificial Intelligence and Economics," SpringerBriefs in Economics, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-642-33648-5, September.
    5. André Russowsky Brunoni & Mariana Lopes & Ted J Kaptchuk & Felipe Fregni, 2009. "Placebo Response of Non-Pharmacological and Pharmacological Trials in Major Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-10, March.
    6. Weisz, George & Knaapen, Loes, 2009. "Diagnosing and treating premenstrual syndrome in five western nations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1498-1505, April.
    7. Lijuan Guo & Zhaowei Kong & Yanjie Zhang, 2019. "Qigong-Based Therapy for Treating Adults with Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-11, March.
    8. Felicity Thomas & Lorraine Hansford & Joseph Ford & Katrina Wyatt & Rosemarie McCabe & Richard Byng, 2018. "Moral narratives and mental health: rethinking understandings of distress and healthcare support in contexts of austerity and welfare reform," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-8, December.
    9. Giuliano Masiero & Fabrizio Mazzonna & Sandro Steinbach & Olaf Verbeek, 2019. "The effect of local growth in antidepressant consumption on mental health outcomes," IdEP Economic Papers 1902, USI Università della Svizzera italiana.
    10. Giuliano Masiero & Fabrizio Mazzonna & Olaf Verbeek, 2018. "What drives the rise of antidepressant consumption? Evidence from Switzerland," IdEP Economic Papers 1801, USI Università della Svizzera italiana.
    11. Klaus Munkholm & Stephanie Winkelbeiner & Philipp Homan, 2020. "Individual response to antidepressants for depression in adults-a meta-analysis and simulation study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, August.
    12. Bütikofer, Aline & Cronin, Christopher J. & Skira, Meghan M., 2020. "Employment effects of healthcare policy: Evidence from the 2007 FDA black box warning on antidepressants," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    13. Lekeisha A. Sumner* & Waguih William IsHak & Jonathan Dang, MD & Brigitte Vanle & Naina Mahtani & Itai Danovitch, 2018. "Psychological Interventions in Inpatient Medical Settings: A Brief Review," International Journal of Healthcare and Medical Sciences, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 4(5), pages 73-83, 05-2018.
    14. William Hollingworth & Christopher G. Fawsitt & Padraig Dixon & Larisa Duffy & Ricardo Araya & Tim J. Peters & Howard Thom & Nicky J. Welton & Nicola Wiles & Glyn Lewis, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness of Sertraline in Primary Care According to Initial Severity and Duration of Depressive Symptoms: Findings from the PANDA RCT," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 427-438, September.
    15. Kenneth Lowande & Andrew Proctor, 2020. "Bureaucratic Responsiveness to LGBT Americans," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 664-681, July.
    16. Juan Antonio Zarza-Rebollo & Esther Molina & Elena López-Isac & Ana M. Pérez-Gutiérrez & Blanca Gutiérrez & Jorge A. Cervilla & Margarita Rivera, 2022. "Interaction Effect between Physical Activity and the BDNF Val66Met Polymorphism on Depression in Women from the PISMA-ep Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-13, February.
    17. Bishop, Felicity L. & Jacobson, Eric E. & Shaw, Jessica R. & Kaptchuk, Ted J., 2012. "Scientific tools, fake treatments, or triggers for psychological healing: How clinical trial participants conceptualise placebos," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(5), pages 767-774.
    18. Danielle Hen-Shoval & Aron Weller & Abraham Weizman & Gal Shoval, 2022. "Examining the Use of Antidepressants for Adolescents with Depression/Anxiety Who Regularly Use Cannabis: A Narrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-19, January.
    19. Janet M. Currie & W. Bentley MacLeod, 2018. "Understanding Doctor Decision Making: The Case of Depression," NBER Working Papers 24955, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Petkova Eva & Tarpey Thaddeus & Govindarajulu Usha, 2009. "Predicting Potential Placebo Effect in Drug Treated Subjects," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-27, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0025223. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.