Abstract
Background
Existing evaluations of hearing dogs, a type of assistance dog, are limited to a handful of poor quality studies.
A research team worked closely the UK’s only hearing dogs charity to develop an acceptable study design. This paper reports our experiences of designing and running a trial with this charity.
Methodological Challenges
Key challenges included:
• designing a robust RCT (ideally not using a wait list control design) which fulfilled the charity’s maximum wait time commitment to receiving a hearing dog;
• triggers for outcomes data collection required on-going access to the charity’s management information systems (MIS);
• hearing dog partnerships are created following a scrupulous process of matching individuals’ needs and preferences against the pool of newly trained hearing dogs. The charity was concerned that adherence to trial arm allocation may not always be possible.
Methodological Solutions
Participants are randomised to ‘prioritised’ vs ‘usual application timeline’ (UAT) groups. Systems were introduced to prevent those in the UAT group exceeding maximum wait time.
A Study Support Officer role was created. Based at charity headquarters, the SSO has controlled access to their MIS and administers trial data collection; however, they have no access to data collected.
Findings
The positive working relationship between the researchers and charity has been maintained. The SSO role has proved very successful. Study take-up was high (77%) with recruitment targets exceeded (n=213). Protocol adherence is, to date, extremely good.
Conclusion
Charities can be keen to collaborate on rigorous evaluations of their services. Trials can be achieved in these contexts.
Existing evaluations of hearing dogs, a type of assistance dog, are limited to a handful of poor quality studies.
A research team worked closely the UK’s only hearing dogs charity to develop an acceptable study design. This paper reports our experiences of designing and running a trial with this charity.
Methodological Challenges
Key challenges included:
• designing a robust RCT (ideally not using a wait list control design) which fulfilled the charity’s maximum wait time commitment to receiving a hearing dog;
• triggers for outcomes data collection required on-going access to the charity’s management information systems (MIS);
• hearing dog partnerships are created following a scrupulous process of matching individuals’ needs and preferences against the pool of newly trained hearing dogs. The charity was concerned that adherence to trial arm allocation may not always be possible.
Methodological Solutions
Participants are randomised to ‘prioritised’ vs ‘usual application timeline’ (UAT) groups. Systems were introduced to prevent those in the UAT group exceeding maximum wait time.
A Study Support Officer role was created. Based at charity headquarters, the SSO has controlled access to their MIS and administers trial data collection; however, they have no access to data collected.
Findings
The positive working relationship between the researchers and charity has been maintained. The SSO role has proved very successful. Study take-up was high (77%) with recruitment targets exceeded (n=213). Protocol adherence is, to date, extremely good.
Conclusion
Charities can be keen to collaborate on rigorous evaluations of their services. Trials can be achieved in these contexts.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication status | Published - 5 Sept 2018 |
| Event | Randomised Controlled Trials in the Social Sciences - Thirteenth Annual Conference - York, United Kingdom Duration: 5 Sept 2018 → 7 Sept 2018 https://www.york.ac.uk/healthsciences/research/trials/rct2018/ |
Conference
| Conference | Randomised Controlled Trials in the Social Sciences - Thirteenth Annual Conference |
|---|---|
| Country/Territory | United Kingdom |
| City | York |
| Period | 5/09/18 → 7/09/18 |
| Internet address |