24: Academic Emergency Medicine

Published on 23/06/2015 by admin

Filed under Emergency Medicine

Last modified 23/06/2015

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 1262 times

Section 24 Academic Emergency Medicine

Edited by George Jelinek

24.1 Research methodology

Initiating the research project

Assembling the research team

All but the smallest of research projects are undertaken as collaborative efforts with the co-investigators each contributing in their area of expertise. Co-investigators should meet the criteria for co-authorship of the publication reporting the study’s findings.3

Usually, the person who has developed and wishes to answer the research question takes the role of principal investigator (team leader) for the project. Among the first tasks is to assemble the research team. Ideally, the principal investigator determines the areas of expertise required for successful completion of the project (e.g. biostatistics) and invites appropriately skilled personnel to join the team.1 It is advisable to keep the numbers within the team to a minimum. In most cases, three or four people are adequate to provide a range of expertise without the team becoming cumbersome. It is recommended that nursing staff be invited to join the team, if this is appropriate. This may foster research interest among these staff, improve departmental morale and may greatly assist data collection and patient enrolment.

All co-investigators are expected to contribute time and effort to the project, although the extent of this contribution will vary. The temptation to include very senior staff or department heads simply to bolster the profile of the project should be avoided if possible. It is recommended that personality and track record for ‘pulling one’s weight’ be considered when assembling the team. There is little more frustrating than having poor contributors impede the progress of a study. Assigning specific responsibilities, in writing, to each member of the team is a useful tactic in preventing this potential problem. However, care should be taken to ensure that the timelines for assignment completion are reasonable.

The importance of good communication within the research team cannot be overemphasized. This is usually the responsibility of the principal investigator and may involve regular meetings or reports. At the risk of flooding each co-investigator with excessive or trivial communications (e.g. e-mail), selected important communications should be forwarded as they appear, for instance notification of ethics committee approval and updates on enrolment.

Development of the study protocol

The protocol is the blue print or recipe of a research study. It is a document drawn up prior to commencement of data collection that is a complete description of study to be undertaken.4 Every member of the study team should be in possession of an up-to-date copy. Furthermore, an outside researcher should be able to pick up the protocol and successfully undertake the study without additional instruction.

Protocol structure

The protocol should be structured largely in the style of a journal article’s Introduction and Methods sections.4 Hence, the general structure is as follows:

Methods

This general plan should be followed in the preparation of any study protocol. However, the final protocol will vary from study to study.

Study design

Study design, in its broadest sense, is the method used to obtain data to prove or disprove the study hypothesis. Many factors influence the decision to use a particular study design and each design has important advantages and disadvantages. For a more extensive discussion on study design the reader is referred elsewhere.1,5

Observational studies

In general, research studies examine the relationship between an exposure or risk factor (e.g. smoking, obesity, vaccination) and an outcome of interest (e.g. lung cancer, cardiac disease, protection from infection).

In observational (non-experimental) studies, the principal challenge is to find a naturally occurring experiment, i.e. a comparison of two or more populations that enables the investigator to address a hypothesis about the outcome of interest.

Experimental studies

In an experimental study, the researcher is more than a mere observer, and actively manipulates the exposure of study subjects to an exposure of interest (risk) and measures the effects (outcomes) of this manipulation.

The preferred form of experimental study is currently the randomized, controlled trial, in which the intervention is randomly assigned at the level of the individual study subject. Although this is the most scientifically rigorous design, other study designs must often be used for a number of reasons including:

For ethical reasons, we cannot easily use experimental studies to study factors that are thought to increase the risk of disease in humans. For example, you could not do a study where you ask half of the group to smoke for 10 years and half of the group to remain non-smokers.

Key features of clinical trials

Concepts of methodology

Sampling study subjects

There are several important principles in sampling study subjects:

Sampling methodology

Data-collection instruments

Surveys

Surveys are one of the most commonly used means of obtaining research data. While seemingly simple in concept, the execution of a well-designed, questionnaire-based survey can be difficult.

Designing a survey

From a practical point of view, the following points are suggested:

After the survey

If possible, incorporate commonly asked questions into your questionnaire. One good source of such questions is standard surveys (such as Australian Bureau of Statistics). There are many other sources of pre-validated questions (for instance measures on quality of life, functional ability and disease-specific symptoms). The scientific literature, accessible through MEDLINE and other databases is a good start. This is particularly important if you want to compare the sample with other surveys or, in general, if you want to be able to compare the sample’s responses to previously completed work.

Also, previously used questionnaires for similar topics are very helpful and often can be used directly. The advantage to doing this is that these questionnaires’ reliability and validity are established.

The wording of a question can affect its interpretation. Attitude questions with slightly different wordings can elicit differing responses, so several questions on the same topic may be helpful to be certain that the ‘true attitude’ of the respondent is obtained. This technique can enhance internal validity and consistency.

Pre-testing of a questionnaire is most important. Consider the following points:

It is always worth checking with your colleagues to determine whether the questionnaire will answer the study question. Also, test the questionnaire on a cross-section of potential respondents of differing reading levels and background. There can be a few surprises, and several revisions may be required before the final questionnaire is determined.

Bias and confounding

Systematic error (bias)

Bias in the way a study is designed or carried out can result in an incorrect conclusion about the relationship between an exposure (risk factor) and an outcome (such as a disease) of interest.5 Small degrees of systematic error may result in high degrees of inaccuracy. It is important to note that systematic error is not a function of sample size. Many types of bias can be identified:

Confounding

This is not the same as bias. A confounding factor can be described as one that is associated with the exposure under study and independently affects the risk of developing the outcome.5 Thus, it may offer an alternative explanation for an association that is found and, as such, must be taken into account when collecting and analysing the study results.

Confounding may be a very important problem in all study designs. Confounding factors themselves affect the risk of disease and if they are unequally distributed between the groups of people being compared, a wrong conclusion about an association between a risk factor and a disease may be made. A lot of the effort put into designing non-experimental studies is in addressing potential bias and confounding. For example, in an often-cited case-control study on the relationship between coffee drinking and pancreatic cancer, the association between exposure and disease was found to be confounded by smoking. Smoking is a risk factor for pancreatic cancer; it is also known that coffee drinkers are more likely to smoke than non-coffee drinkers. These two points create a situation in which the proportion of smokers will be higher in those who drink coffee than in those who do not. The uneven distribution of smokers then creates the impression that coffee drinking is associated with an increased rate of pancreatic cancer when it is smoking (related to those who drink coffee and to pancreatic cancer) that underlies the apparent association.

Common confounders

Common confounders that need to be considered in almost every study include age, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Age is associated with increased rates of many diseases. If the age distribution in the exposure groups differs (such as where the exposed group is older than the non-exposed group) then the exposed group will appear to be at increased risk for the disease. However, this relationship would be confounded by age. Age would be the factor that underlies the apparent, observed, association between the exposure and disease. Although age is a common confounder, it is the biological and perhaps social changes that occur with age that may be the true causes that increase the rate of disease.

There are several ways to control for the effect of confounding. To control for confounding during the design of the study, there are several possible alternatives:

In the analysis phase of a study, one can use:

Principles of clinical research statistics

Databases and principles of data management

The fundamental objective of any research project is to collect information (data) to analyse statistically and, eventually, produce a result or report. Data can come in many forms (laboratory results, personal details) and is the raw material from which information is generated. Therefore, how data are managed is an essential part of any research project.4

Research ethics

Participation in a clinical trial involves a sacrifice, by the participant, of some of the privileges of normal medical care for the benefit of other individuals with the same illness. The privileges forgone might include:

Participation also requires the discomfort and inconvenience associated with additional investigations and the potential incursion on privacy. Without the willingness of some individuals to make the sacrifices associated with participation in clinical trials, progress in clinical medicine would be greatly impaired. Most individuals who now expect to receive safe and effective medical care are benefiting by the sacrifices previously made by other individuals.

Some have argued in contrast, that enrolment into clinical trials ensures the absolute best care currently available, with greater involvement and scrutiny by attending healthcare teams.

If one accepts that clinical trials are morally appropriate, then the ethical challenge is to ensure a proper balance between the degree of individual sacrifice and the extent of the community benefit. However, it is a widely accepted community standard that no individual should be asked to undergo any significant degree of risk regardless of the community benefit involved, that is the balance of risks and benefits must be firmly biased towards an individual participant. According to the Physician’s Oath of the World Medical Association ‘concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society’.

Because of the trade-offs required and because of the spectrum of views about the degree of personal sacrifice that might be justified by a given community benefit, it is accepted that all clinical trials should be reviewed by an ethics committee that should have as a minimum:

Informed consent

Participants in clinical trials have a fundamental right to be fully informed about the nature of a clinical trial and to be free to choose whether or not to take part. Ethical principles also dictate that prospective participants be:

It is usual practice to provide prospective participants with a Plain Language Statement that provides a simple, easy to understand account of the purposes, risks and benefits associated with participation in the study. Ethics committees are required to review these statements and confirm that they provide a reasonable account.

In practice the procedures involved in obtaining informed consent are often problematic. Considering the dependence of sick patients on the health system, their anxiety and their desire to cooperate with their physicians, it is doubtful whether informed consent is ever freely given. When ethics committees identify situations where this scenario is likely to be a particular problem, the involvement of an independent uninvolved person to explain the study may be useful.

24.2 Writing for publication

Manuscript preparation

Original research manuscripts

Original research manuscripts are usually divided into five sections: Abstract, Introduction (or Background), Methods, Results and Discussion. In addition, some journals prefer a separate concise Conclusion, although many prefer this as the last paragraph of the Discussion. A few journals have additional section headings such as Theoretical Concept and Limitations, although this is uncommon. It is very important to check the journal’s preferred format for each section and ensure the manuscript complies. Most manuscripts also require a key word list of up to five words or phrases to assist with indexing.

Methods

Buy Membership for Emergency Medicine Category to continue reading. Learn more here