Abstract
Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for determining the safety and efficacy of healthcare interventions. However, both laypeople and clinicians often demonstrate experiment aversion: preferring to implement either of two interventions for everyone rather than comparing them to determine which is best. We studied whether clinician and layperson views of pragmatic RCTs for Covid-19 or other interventions became more positive early in the pandemic, which increased both the urgency and public discussion of RCTs.
Methods We conducted several survey studies with laypeople (total n=2,909) and two with clinicians (n=895; n=1,254) in 2020 and 2021. Participants read vignettes in which a hypothetical decision-maker who sought to improve health could choose to implement intervention A for all, implement intervention B for all, or experimentally compare A and B and implement the superior intervention. Participants rated and ranked the appropriateness of each decision.
Results Compared to our pre-pandemic results, we found no decrease in laypeople’s aversion to non-Covid-19 experiments involving catheterization checklists and hypertension drugs. Nor were either laypeople or clinicians less averse to Covid-19 RCTs (concerning corticosteroid drugs, vaccines, intubation checklists, proning, school reopening, and mask protocols), on average. Across all vignettes and samples, levels of experiment aversion ranged from 28% to 57%, while levels of experiment appreciation (in which the RCT is rated higher than the participant’s highest-rated intervention) ranged from only 6% to 35%.
Conclusions Advancing evidence-based medicine through pragmatic RCTs will require anticipating and addressing experiment aversion among both patients and healthcare professionals.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Supported by Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH) (3P30AG034532-13S1) and funded by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the FDA.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The IRB of Geisinger waived ethical approval for this work (IRB# 2017-0449).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Participant response data, preregistrations, materials, and analysis code have been deposited in Open Science Framework and will be released upon final publication of this paper.
