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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

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 2000-2017. 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.
LanguageEnglish
Pages114-128
JournalSocial Science and Medicine
Volume200
Early online date6 Feb 2018
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 6 Feb 2018

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
disability
Disabled Persons
Population
Intellectual Disability
evidence
Social Adjustment
Social Support
Caregivers
Health Status
staff
Cognitive Disabilities
Systematic Review
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Personnel
Guidelines
health
turnover
Control Groups
social support

Keywords

  • cognitive disability
  • randomised controlled trials
  • intellectual disability

Cite this

@article{6a9f6b9b415d41df970f02074825a94b,
title = "A systematic review of the methodological and practical challenges of undertaking randomised-controlled trials with cognitive disability populations",
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 2000-2017. 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.",
keywords = "cognitive disability, randomised controlled trials, intellectual disability",
author = "Peter Mulhall and Laurence Taggart and Vivien Coates and Toni McAloon and Angela Hassiotis",
note = "Compliant in UIR; evidence uploaded to 'Other files'",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.032",
language = "English",
volume = "200",
pages = "114--128",
journal = "Social Science and Medicine",
issn = "0277-9536",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review of the methodological and practical challenges of undertaking randomised-controlled trials with cognitive disability populations

AU - Mulhall, Peter

AU - Taggart, Laurence

AU - Coates, Vivien

AU - McAloon, Toni

AU - Hassiotis, Angela

N1 - Compliant in UIR; evidence uploaded to 'Other files'

PY - 2018/2/6

Y1 - 2018/2/6

N2 - 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 2000-2017. 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.

AB - 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 2000-2017. 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.

KW - cognitive disability

KW - randomised controlled trials

KW - intellectual disability

U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.032

DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.032

M3 - Article

VL - 200

SP - 114

EP - 128

JO - Social Science and Medicine

T2 - Social Science and Medicine

JF - Social Science and Medicine

SN - 0277-9536

ER -