Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 97, Issue 1, pp 72–75 | Cite as

CRTs — Cluster Randomized Trials or “Courting Real Troubles”

Challenges of Running a CRT in Rural Gujarat, India
  • M. Kent RansonEmail author
  • Tara Sinha
  • Saul S. Morris
  • Anne J. Mills
Commentary

Abstract

This paper addresses the logistical challenges of implementing public health interventions in the setting of cluster randomized trials (CRTs), drawing on the experience of carrying out a CRT within a community-based health insurance (CBHI) scheme in rural India. Our CRT is seeking to improve the equity impact — i.e., reduce the differential in claims submission for hospitalization between poor and less poor — of this CBHI in rural areas. Five main challenges are identified and discussed: 1) assigning control clusters, 2) blinding, 3) implementing interventions simultaneously, 4) minimizing leakage, and 5) piggy-backing on a changing scheme. These challenges are not likely to be unique to low-income settings, although the fifth challenge is particularly likely when working with relatively small and resource-constrained programs. While compromises to methodological best-practice may reduce internal validity, they make the intervention more ‘real’, and potentially more applicable, to other programs and settings. Further, careful documentation of compromises allows them to be considered in the final analysis.

MeSH terms

Health insurance India nongovernmental organizations randomized controlled trials 

Résumé

Cet article traite des difficultés logistiques rencontrées dans la mise en oeuvre d’interventions de santé publique dans le cadre d’essais contrôlés randomisés par grappes. Il tire les enseignements d’une expérience menée au sein d’un système d’assurance-santé communautaire dans une région rurale de l’Inde. Il s’agit d’une intervention randomisée par grappes qui a pour but d’améliorer l’équité du système, à savoir réduire l’écart entre les demandes de remboursement des frais d’hospitalisation soumises par les populations pauvres et moins pauvres. Cinq grandes difficultés sont présentées et discutées dans l’article: 1) la mise en place des groupes de contrôle, 2) la création des conditions d’un test en aveugle, 3) la simultanéité des interventions, 4) le risque de contamination entre les groupes et 5) l’implantation sur un dispositif connaissant des modifications. Ces problèmes ne sont pas propres au contexte des pays en développement, bien que le dernier soit plus courant dans le cas de petits programmes aux ressources limitées. Les concessions faites par rapport aux canons méthodologiques sont susceptibles de réduire la validité interne de l’étude, mais elles rendent l’intervention plus réaliste et potentiellement plus applicable à d’autres contextes. En outre, une documentation précise de ces compromis nous permet de les prendre en compte à la fin de l’analyse.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Palmer N, Mueller DH, Gilson L, Mills A, Haines A. Health financing to promote access in low income settings—how much do we know. Lancet 2004;364:1365–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Donner A, Klar N. Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials. Public Health Matters 2004;94(3):416–22.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donner A. Some aspects of the design and analysis of cluster randomization trials. Applied Statistics 1998;47(Part 1):95–113.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Victora CG, Habicht JP, Bryce J. Evidence-based public health: Moving beyond randomized trials. Am J Public Health 2004;94(3):400–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, et al. CONSORT statement: Extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2004;328:702–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edwards SJL. Ethical issues in the design and conduct of cluster randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1999;318:1407–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duflo E. Scaling up and evaluation. In. ABCDE, 2003;39. Available online at: http://econwww.mit.edu (Accessed on December 9, 2005).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Torgerson, DJ. Contamination in trials: Is cluster randomisation the answer. BMJ 2001;322:355–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Varnell SP, Murray DM, Janega JB, Blitstein JL. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: A review of recent practices. Am J Public Health 2004;94(3):393–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murray DM, Varnell SP, Blitstein, JL. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: A review of recent methodological developments. Am J Public Health 2004;94(3):423–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ranson MK, Sinha T, Chatterjee M, Acharya A, Bhavsar A, Morris, SS. Making health insurance work for the poor: Learning from the Self-Employed Women’s Association’s communitybased health insurance scheme. Soc Sci Med 2005 (In press).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sinha T, Ranson MK, Chatterjee M, Acharya A, Mills A. Barriers faced by the poor in benefiting from community-based insurance services: Lessons learnt from SEWA Insurance, Gujarat. Health Policy and Planning 2006 (In press).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: How “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be. BMJ 2004;328:1561–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duflo E, Kremer M. Use of randomization in the evaluation of development effectiveness. In. World Bank Operations Evaluation Department (OED) Conference on Evaluation and Development Effectiveness, 2003;37. Available online at: http://econ-www.mit.edu (Accessed on December 9, 2005).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Godwin M, Ruhland L, Casson I, MacDonald S, Delva D, Birtwhistle R, et al. Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: The struggle between external and internal validity. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2003;3(28). Available online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com (Accessed on December 9, 2005).

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Kent Ranson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tara Sinha
    • 2
  • Saul S. Morris
    • 3
  • Anne J. Mills
    • 4
  1. 1.Health Policy Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)LondonUK
  2. 2.Vimo SEWA, Self-Employed Women’s AssociationUK
  3. 3.London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineUK
  4. 4.Health Economics and Financing ProgrammeLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineUK

Personalised recommendations