The ethics of the Flexibility In duty hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees (FIRST) trial have been vehemently debated. Views on the ethics of the FIRST trial range from it being completely unethical to wholly unproblematic. The FIRST trial illustrates the complex ethical challenges posed by cluster randomised trials (CRTs) of policy interventions involving healthcare professionals. In what follows, we have three objectives. First, we critically review the FIRST trial controversy, finding that commentators have failed to sufficiently identify and address many of the relevant ethical issues. The 2012 Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials provides researchers and research ethics committees with specific guidance for the ethical design and conduct of CRTs. Second, we aim to demonstrate how the Ottawa Statement provides much-needed clarity to the ethical issues in the FIRST trial, including: research participant identification; consent requirements; gatekeeper roles; benefit-harm analysis and identification of vulnerable participants. We nonetheless also find that the FIRST trial raises ethical issues not adequately addressed by the Ottawa Statement. Hence, third and finally, we raise important questions requiring further ethical analysis and guidance, including: Does clinical equipoise apply to policy interventions with little or no evidence-base? Do healthcare providers have an obligation to participate in research? Does the power-differential in certain healthcare settings render healthcare providers vulnerable to duress and coercion to participant in research? If so, what safeguards might be implemented to protect providers, while allowing important research to proceed?
- research ethics
- clinical trials
- health personnel
- policy guidelines/inst. review boards/review cttes.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors ARH was responsible for the writing, research, design, analysis and revisions of the many drafts of this article and therefore accepts responsibility as the guarantor for the work. CW contributed to the planning and design of the article, important intellectual content and substantive written edits and oral feedback on drafts. The remaining coauthors made significant contributions to the analysis and intellectual content of the article through both written and oral comments on the numerous drafts. All authors approved the final draft of the article and thus accept responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the work.
Funding This work is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research through the Project Grant competition (competitive, peer reviewed), award number PJT-153045. JG holds a Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. CW holds a Canada Research Chair in Bioethics.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was published Online First. The funding statement has been updated.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Informed consent in cluster randomised trials: a guide for the perplexed
- Ethical issues raised by cluster randomised trials conducted in low-resource settings: identifying gaps in the Ottawa Statement through an analysis of the PURE Malawi trial
- The Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomised trials: précis for researchers and research ethics committees
- Ottawa Statement does not impede randomised evaluation of government health programmes
- Impact of the 2011 ACGME resident duty hour reform on hospital patient experience and processes-of-care
- Research ethics for emerging trial designs: does equipoise need to adapt?
- Informed consent in pragmatic trials: results from a survey of trials published 2014–2019
- Association of residency work hour reform with long term quality and costs of care of US physicians: observational study
- National improvements in resident physician-reported patient safety after limiting first-year resident physicians’ extended duration work shifts: a pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies
- Ethical implications of excessive cluster sizes in cluster randomised trials