Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 Jul 10;17(1):94.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0368-7.

Selection bias and subject refusal in a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Rochelle Yang  1 , Barry L Carter  2   3 , Tyler H Gums  4 , Brian M Gryzlak  5 , Yinghui Xu  6 , Barcey T Levy  6   5
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Selection bias and subject refusal in a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Rochelle Yang et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Selection bias and non-participation bias are major methodological concerns which impact external validity. Cluster-randomized controlled trials are especially prone to selection bias as it is impractical to blind clusters to their allocation into intervention or control. This study assessed the impact of selection bias in a large cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Methods: The Improved Cardiovascular Risk Reduction to Enhance Rural Primary Care (ICARE) study examined the impact of a remote pharmacist-led intervention in twelve medical offices. To assess eligibility, a standardized form containing patient demographics and medical information was completed for each screened patient. Eligible patients were approached by the study coordinator for recruitment. Both the study coordinator and the patient were aware of the site's allocation prior to consent. Patients who consented or declined to participate were compared across control and intervention arms for differing characteristics. Statistical significance was determined using a two-tailed, equal variance t-test and a chi-square test with adjusted Bonferroni p-values. Results were adjusted for random cluster variation.

Results: There were 2749 completed screening forms returned to research staff with 461 subjects who had either consented or declined participation. Patients with poorly controlled diabetes were found to be significantly more likely to decline participation in intervention sites compared to those in control sites. A higher mean diastolic blood pressure was seen in patients with uncontrolled hypertension who declined in the control sites compared to those who declined in the intervention sites. However, these findings were no longer significant after adjustment for random variation among the sites. After this adjustment, females were now found to be significantly more likely to consent than males (odds ratio = 1.41; 95% confidence interval = 1.03, 1.92).

Conclusions: Though there appeared to be a higher consent rate for females than for males, the overall impact of potential selection bias and refusal to participate was minimal. Without rigorous methodology, selection bias may be a threat to external validity in cluster-randomized trials.

Trial registration: NCT01983813 . Date of registration: Oct. 28, 2013.

Keywords: Cluster randomized trial; Non participation bias; Selection bias.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Subjects screen and enrolled into the trial
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Tripepi G, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Zoccali C. Selection bias and information bias in clinical research. Nephron Clin Pract. 2010;115(2):c94–c99. doi: 10.1159/000312871. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hill AM, McPhail SM, Waldron N, Etherton-Beer C, Ingram K, Flicker L, et al. Fall rates in hospital rehabilitation units after individualized patient and staff education programs: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9987):2592–2599. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61945-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. LaBresh KA, Lazorick S, Ariza AJ, Furberg RD, Whetstone L, Hobbs C, et al. Implementation of the NHLBI integrated guidelines for cardiovascular health and risk reduction in children and adolescents: rationale and study design for young hearts, strong starts, a cluster-randomized trial targeting body mass index, blood pressure, and tobacco. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;37(1):98–105. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2013.11.011. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eldridge S, Ashby D, Bennett C, Wakelin M, Feder G. Internal and external validity of cluster-randomized trials: systematic review of recent trials. BMJ. 2008;336(7649):876–880. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39517.495764.25. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Torgerson D. Contamination in trials: is cluster randomization the answer? BMJ. 2001;322(7282):355–357. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7282.355. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources