↓ Skip to main content

What is the role and authority of gatekeepers in cluster randomized trials in health research?

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What is the role and authority of gatekeepers in cluster randomized trials in health research?
Published in
Trials, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-13-116
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio Gallo, Charles Weijer, Angela White, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Robert Boruch, Jamie C Brehaut, Allan Donner, Martin P Eccles, Andrew D McRae, Raphael Saginur, Merrick Zwarenstein, Monica Taljaard

Abstract

This article is part of a series of papers examining ethical issues in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) in health research. In the introductory paper in this series, we set out six areas of inquiry that must be addressed if the CRT is to be set on a firm ethical foundation. This paper addresses the sixth of the questions posed, namely, what is the role and authority of gatekeepers in CRTs in health research? 'Gatekeepers' are individuals or bodies that represent the interests of cluster members, clusters, or organizations. The need for gatekeepers arose in response to the difficulties in obtaining informed consent because of cluster randomization, cluster-level interventions, and cluster size. In this paper, we call for a more restrictive understanding of the role and authority of gatekeepers.Previous papers in this series have provided solutions to the challenges posed by informed consent in CRTs without the need to invoke gatekeepers. We considered that consent to randomization is not required when cluster members are approached for consent at the earliest opportunity and before any study interventions or data-collection procedures have started. Further, when cluster-level interventions or cluster size means that obtaining informed consent is not possible, a waiver of consent may be appropriate. In this paper, we suggest that the role of gatekeepers in protecting individual interests in CRTs should be limited. Generally, gatekeepers do not have the authority to provide proxy consent for cluster members. When a municipality or other community has a legitimate political authority that is empowered to make such decisions, cluster permission may be appropriate; however, gatekeepers may usefully protect cluster interests in other ways. Cluster consultation may ensure that the CRT addresses local health needs, and is conducted in accord with local values and customs. Gatekeepers may also play an important role in protecting the interests of organizations, such as hospitals, nursing homes, general practices, and schools. In these settings, permission to access the organization relies on resource implications and adherence to institutional policies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 119 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 17%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Other 8 7%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 30 25%