
==== Front
BMJ Open
BMJ Open
bmjopen
bmjopen
BMJ Open
2044-6055
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39289020
10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087724
bmjopen-2024-087724
Original Research
Ethics
1693
1506
Systematic scoping review of cluster randomised trials conducted exclusively in low-income and middle-income countries between 2017 and 2022
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0229-5039
Goldstein Cory E 12cogoldstein@ohri.ca

http://orcid.org/0009-0005-4852-4860
Marouf Yacine 3y.marouf@mail.utoronto.ca

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5642-787X
Johri Mira 45Mira.johri@umontreal.ca

Shaw Julia F 12julishaw@ohri.ca

Sergeant Anand 6asergeant2026@meds.uwo.ca

Nicholls Stuart G 17snicholls@ohri.ca

Althabe Fernando 8althabef@who.int

Ferrand Rashida A 910rashida.ferrand@lshtm.ac.uk

van der Graaf Rieke 11R.vanderGraaf@umcutrecht.nl

Hemming Karla 12k.hemming@bham.ac.uk

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5855-5461
Mbuagbaw Lawrence 13mbuagblc@mcmaster.ca

Treweek Shaun 14streweek@mac.com

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5238-7097
Welch Vivian A 15vwelch@campbellcollaboration.org

https://twitter.com/charlesweijer
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5510-1074
Weijer Charles 61617cweijer@uwo.ca

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3978-8961
Taljaard Monica 12mtaljaard@ohri.ca

1 Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
2 School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
3 Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
4 Centre de recherche du CHUM, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
5 Département de gestion, d’évaluation, et de politique de santé, École de santé publique de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
6 Department of Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
7 Office for Patient Engagement in Research Activity, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
8 Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria, Buenos Aires, Argentina
9 Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
10 Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe
11 Department of Bioethics and Health Humanities, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
12 Institute of Applied Healthcare Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
13 Biostatistics Unit, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
14 Aberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
15 Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
16 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
17 Department of Philosophy, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

CW receives consulting income from Cardialen and Eli Lilly & Company. Other authors declare no competing interests.

DrCory EGoldstein; cogoldstein@ohri.ca
2024
17 9 2024
14 9 e08772418 4 2024
21 8 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Abstract

Objective

Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are used for evaluating health-related interventions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) but raise complex ethical issues. To inform the development of future ethics guidance, we aim to characterise CRTs conducted exclusively in LMICs by examining the types of clusters, settings, author affiliations and primary clinical focus and to evaluate adherence to trial registration and ethics reporting requirements over time.

Design

A systematic scoping review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.

Data sources

We searched MEDLINE between 1 January 2017 and 17 August 2022.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

We included primary reports of CRTs evaluating health-related interventions, conducted exclusively in LMICs and published in English between 2017 and 2022.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data were extracted by one reviewer; a second reviewer verified accuracy by extracting data from 10% of the reports. Results were summarised overall and categorised by country’s economic level or publication year.

Results

Among 800 identified CRTs, 400 (50.0%) randomised geographical areas and 373 (46.6%) were conducted in Africa. 30 (3.7%) had no authors with an LMIC affiliation, and 246 (30.8%) had neither first nor last author with an LMIC affiliation. The relative frequency of first or last authors holding an LMIC affiliation increases as a country’s economic level increases. Most CRTs focused on reducing maternal and neonatal disorders (106, 13.3%). 670 (83.8%) CRTs reported trial registration, 786 (98.2%) reported research ethics committee review and 757 (94.6%) reported consent statements. Among the 757 CRTs, 46 (6.1%) reported a waiver or no consent and, among these, 10 (21.7%) did not provide a rationale. Gatekeepers were identified in 403 (50.4%) CRTs. No meaningful trends were observed in adherence to trial registration or ethics reporting requirements over time.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest existing inequity in authorship practices. There is high adherence to trial registration and ethics reporting requirements, although greater attention to reporting a justification for using a waiver of consent is needed.

Systematic Review
MEDICAL ETHICS
Randomized Controlled Trial
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024 Canadian Institutes of Health Research PJT-479757
==== Body
pmcSTRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

This is the largest review of cluster randomised trials (CRTs) to date and it provides a comprehensive overview of CRTs conducted exclusively in low-income and middle-income countries.

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews to report our methods and results.

Stratifying results allowed for comparison across low-income, lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income country categories.

Our search was limited to MEDLINE and the English language and using other databases and languages may have identified additional trials but our substantive conclusions would likely not have changed.

Single data extraction was used, although there was high inter-reviewer agreement on a subset of 80 trials used to ensure accuracy and consistency of data extraction.

Introduction

Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are an important research design for evaluating interventions to address acute and chronic health and public health issues.1 As opposed to individually randomised trials that randomly allocate individuals to study interventions, CRTs randomly allocate groups of people or ‘clusters’ to study interventions. CRT designs are often used when the intervention must be delivered to a group rather than an individual (eg, vector control interventions), when evaluating the direct and indirect effects of interventions such as vaccines, and when there is substantial risk of spillover effects across study arms resulting in attenuation of intervention effects. These designs might also be particularly useful in low-income and middle-income counties (LMICs), as they offer logistical and practical advantages over individual randomisation, such as facilitating the fieldwork and intervention delivery across large geographical areas and lowering implementation costs.2

Besides the well-documented methodological issues with CRTs, such as their statistical inefficiency and increased risks of bias compared with individually randomised trials,38 these trials raise complex ethical issues.9 The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials—the most comprehensive international ethics guidance document specific to CRTs—proffers 15 recommendations to address ethical issues raised by CRTs (see online supplemental table 1 for Ottawa Statement recommendations).10

One of the recognised limitations of the Ottawa Statement is the under-representation of LMIC perspectives. The authors ‘recommend that subsequent versions include greater LMIC representation,’10 and, since its publication, various efforts have focused on greater collaboration with LMIC representatives to identify issues specific to CRTs in LMICs in need of further guidance.11114 To further assist with the identification of unique ethical and methodological issues and inform the forthcoming update of the Ottawa Statement, we conducted a systematic scoping review to describe CRTs in LMICs and create a database of trials that can serve as a rich resource for further in-depth analyses. Specific objectives are: (1) to characterise the types of clusters, settings, author affiliations and primary clinical focus of CRTs in LMICs; (2) to describe adherence to trial registration and ethics reporting requirements—specifically the Ottawa Statement recommendations on research ethics committee review, informed consent and gatekeeping; and (3) to explore variations across income strata and over time.

Methods

We report our methods and results according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).15 Our PRISMA-ScR checklist is available in online supplemental table 2.

Search strategy

Our search filter (shown in online supplemental table 3) was adapted from a search used in a previously published systematic review of CRTs evaluating public health interventions in LMICs.16 The adaptation involved removing public health terms, adding the names of LMICs (as of 16 August 2023), and, for efficiency, superimposing the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomised controlled trials.17 We implemented the search in MEDLINE to identify trials published between 1 January 2017 and 17 August 2022 (the date of the search). We limited our search to MEDLINE, which was considered suitable for capturing a large, representative sample of CRTs in LMICs. We chose 1 January 2017 as the start date because this marks about 5 years since the publication of the Ottawa Statement, providing ample opportunity for the dissemination of and adherence to ethics guidance and reporting requirements.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) published in English language, (2) primary reports of CRTs, (3) evaluated health-related interventions and (4) conducted exclusively in LMICs, classified by the World Bank as low-income, lower-middle-income or upper-middle-income countries.18 Primary reports were defined as presenting the primary outcomes of the trial. Our strategy for identifying primary reports is reported elsewhere.19 Health-related interventions were defined as health, healthcare or public health interventions or implementation strategies. Studies were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: (1) no human participants or evaluated a medical education intervention with simulated patients; (2) clusters were households, dyads or families; (3) clusters were individuals with measures on multiple body parts; (4) there was further random or non-random allocation of participants within randomised clusters; or (5) described a study within a trial. Conference abstracts, design papers, editorials, protocols or design papers, pilot and feasibility studies, secondary analyses and process evaluations were also excluded. The full list of inclusion and exclusion criteria is available in online supplemental table 4.

Study selection

All identified records were uploaded into Covidence software.20 Title and abstract screening of each record was completed independently by two of four reviewers (AS, CEG, MT and YM) with discrepancies being resolved during regular consensus meetings. Six reviewers (AS, CEG, JFS, LQ, MT and YM) proceeded with full-text screening of all potentially eligible studies, with two independent reviewers screening each record and discrepancies being resolved during regular consensus meetings.

Data extraction

A data extraction form was developed and then pilot tested by 3 reviewers (CEG, MT and YM) using 25 randomly selected eligible records. The final extraction form was uploaded into Covidence software. The form is available in online supplemental table 5. One reviewer (YM) proceeded to extract data from all records, while a second reviewer (CEG) extracted data from 80 records in batches of 10 or 15 records every 2 weeks over 12 weeks to ensure accurate and consistent data extraction. If differences could not be resolved between reviewers, a third reviewer (MT) was considered the final arbitrator.

To address objective 1 (characterise the types of clusters, settings, author affiliations and primary clinical focus of CRTs in LMICs), data were extracted on type of CRT design (eg, crossover, factorial, parallel arm, stepped wedge), type of cluster (eg, primary care clinics or settings, hospitals or specialised care settings, geographical areas) and country or countries of trial conduct. We reviewed authors’ affiliations to determine whether authors of the primary CRT report held LMIC affiliations, and whether first and last authors were affiliated with high-income country institutions, LMIC institutions or both. We recorded detailed information about the primary focus of each CRT using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation’s Global Burden of Disease 2019 Cause and Risk Summaries.21 We classified the stated primary trial objective in each CRT into one of the three Global Burden of Disease Level I categories; namely, whether the primary objective was (1) to reduce the prevalence or incidence of a disease of health problem, (2) to reduce or prevent health risks or (3) to manage impairments. Trials that could not be classified as (1), (2) or (3) were classified as ‘other’. Within each level 1 category, we selected the most relevant level 2 and level 3 subcategories from a drop-down list.

To address objective 2 (examine adherence to trial registration and ethics reporting requirements), data were extracted on whether trials were reported to be registered anywhere in the abstract or full text and, if so, in which trial registries. We extracted whether the study reported research ethics committee approval, exemption or non-submission, and justifications for receiving an exemption from or not submitting a protocol for research ethics committee review. If research ethics committee approval was obtained, we documented the location of the research ethics committee (ie, host country, sponsor county or both). We identified whether a clear statement about participant informed consent was reported. If reported, we extracted from whom consent was obtained (ie, individual-level participants or professional-level participants) or if consent was waived or otherwise not obtained. If consent was reported as waived or otherwise not obtained, any justifications or rationales provided were documented and subsequently categorised. We extracted information on whether a gatekeeper had a reported role and, if so, we documented and post hoc categorised their role in the trial by inductive analysis.

Data analysis

A descriptive analysis was used to summarise results using frequencies and percentages for all categorical variables, and medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables with skewed distributions. Results were presented overall and stratified by World Bank classifications (ie, low income, lower-middle income, upper-middle income) and publication year (2017–2018, 2019–2020, 2021–2022). For all our analyses, we used R (V.4.3.1).

Patient and public involvement

Patients and members of the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this study.

Results

Our search strategy identified 3381 records. After duplicates were removed, 3355 records underwent title and abstract screening. Inter-rater agreement on which studies met the criteria for full-text screening was high (raw percentage agreement 87.4%; kappa statistic 0.83, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.00) and resulted in 2226 records being excluded. After full-text screening of the remaining 1129 records, 800 CRTs were included in our review. The study flow diagram is presented in figure 1.

Figure 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram.

Trial characteristics

Types of CRT designs included parallel arm (716, 89.5%), stepped wedge (45, 5.6%), factorial (30, 3.8%), crossover (8, 1.0%) and parallel adaptive (1, 0.1%). Clusters were most commonly geographical areas (400, 50.0%), primary care clinics or settings (167, 20.9%) and schools or classrooms (110, 13.8%). The three countries in which most CRTs were conducted were India (83, 10.4%), China (78, 9.8%) and Kenya (53, 6.6%). Table 1 presents descriptive characteristics of the 800 CRTs included in our review, online supplemental table 6 presents a full breakdown of CRT conduct by country.

Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of n=800 cluster randomised trials included in the review

	Frequency (%)	
	Exclusively low-income countries	Exclusively lower-middle-income countries	Exclusively upper-middle-income countries	Total*	
	N=183	N=397	N=210	N=800	
Publication year	
 2017	34 (18.6)	54 (13.6)	33 (15.7)	121 (15.1)	
 2018	26 (14.2)	48 (12.1)	32 (15.2)	108 (13.5)	
 2019	33 (18.0)	77 (19.4)	34 (16.2)	148 (18.5)	
 2020	33 (18.0)	74 (18.6)	42 (20.0)	151 (19.0)	
 2021	47 (25.7)	91 (22.9)	38 (18.1)	177 (22.1)	
 2022	10 (5.46)	53 (13.3)	31 (14.8)	95 (11.8)	
Trial design	
 Parallel arm	165 (90.2)	353 (88.9)	189 (90.0)	716 (89.5)	
 Stepped wedge	10 (5.46)	21 (5.3)	12 (5.7)	45 (5.6)	
 Factorial	7 (3.8)	17 (4.3)	7 (3.3)	30 (3.8)	
 Crossover	0 (0.0)	6 (1.5)	2 (1.0)	8 (1.0)	
 Parallel adaptive	1 (0.5)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (0.1)	
Unit of randomisation	
 Geographical areas	102 (55.7)	228 (57.4)	64 (30.5)	400 (50.0)	
 Primary care clinics/settings	49 (26.8)	72 (18.1)	43 (20.5)	167 (20.9)	
 Schools/classrooms	8 (4.4)	54 (13.6)	48 (22.9)	110 (13.8)	
 Hospitals or specialised care settings	4 (2.2)	19 (4.8)	26 (12.4)	50 (6.3)	
 Professionals	4 (2.2)	1 (0.3)	9 (4.3)	14 (1.8)	
 Workplaces	0 (0.0)	3 (0.8)	8 (3.8)	11 (1.4)	
 Childcare institutions	2 (1.1)	1 (0.3)	5 (2.4)	8 (1.0)	
 Residential complexes	1 (0.5)	4 (1.0)	1 (0.5)	6 (0.8)	
 Mixed units of randomisation	2 (1.1)	5 (1.3)	1 (0.5)	8 (1.0)	
 Other†	11 (6.0)	10 (2.5)	5 (2.4)	26 (3.25)	
WHO region of trial conduct	
 Africa	181 (98.9)	155 (39.0)	37 (17.6)	373 (46.6)	
 South-East Asia	0 (0.0)	160 (40.3)	15 (7.1)	175 (21.9)	
 Western Pacific	0 (0.0)	29 (7.3)	88 (41.9)	117 (14.6)	
 Americas	0 (0.0)	2 (0.5)	63 (30.0)	65 (8.1)	
 Eastern Mediterranean	2 (1.1)	50 (12.6)	1 (0.5)	53 (6.6)	
 Europe	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	5 (2.4)	5 (0.6)	
 Multiregional	0 (0.0)	1 (0.3)	1 (0.5)	12 (1.5)	
* N=10 were multinational cluster randomised trials conducted in mixed economies, for example, both low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

† Other units of randomisation include: days of the week or time of clinic presentation; caregivers and their children; individual with an illness and their close contacts; microfinance loan groups; nursing homes or long-term care facilities; orphanages; pharmacies or dispensaries; places of worship; prisons; recreational community clubs; and support groups.

Among 800 CRTs, 30 (3.7%) had no authors affiliated with an institution based in an LMIC, while 124 (15.5%) were published by authors who were all affiliated with an institution based in an LMIC. First author affiliations were exclusively within high-income countries in 338 (42.2%) CRTs, exclusively with LMICs in 336 (42.0%) and both high-income country and LMIC affiliations in 126 (15.8%). Last author affiliations were exclusively with high-income countries in 410 (51.2%) CRTs, exclusively with LMICs in 303 (37.9%) and both high-income country and LMIC affiliations in 87 (10.9%). The prevalence of first and last author LMIC affiliation increases as country’s economic level increases. In 246 (30.8%) CRTs, neither first nor last author had an LMIC affiliation. Table 2 provides the descriptive summary of author affiliations.

Table 2 Overview of author affiliations among n=800 cluster randomised trials included in the review

	Frequency (%)	
 	Exclusively low-income countries	Exclusively lower-middle-income countries	Exclusively upper-middle-income countries	Total*	
 	N=183	N=397	N=210	N=800	
Was at least one author affiliated with an LMIC?	
 Yes	175 (95.6)	379 (95.5)	206 (98.1)	770 (96.3)	
 No	8 (4.4)	18 (4.5)	4 (1.9)	30 (3.7)	
Were all authors affiliated with an LMIC?	
 Yes	13 (7.1)	55 (13.9)	56 (26.7)	124 (15.5)	
 No	170 (89.9)	342 (86.1)	154 (73.3)	676 (84.5)	
What was the first author’s affiliation?	
 Exclusively HIC	95 (51.9)	185 (46.6)	51 (24.3)	338 (42.2)	
 Exclusively LMIC	52 (28.4)	147 (37.0)	134 (63.8)	336 (42.0)	
 Joint HIC and LMIC	36 (19.7)	65 (16.4)	25 (11.9)	126 (15.8)	
What was the last author’s affiliation?	
 Exclusively HIC	109 (59.6)	226 (56.9)	66 (31.4)	410 (51.2)	
 Exclusively LMIC	54 (29.5)	129 (32.5)	120 (57.1)	303 (37.9)	
 Joint HIC and LMIC	20 (10.9)	42 (10.6)	24 (11.4)	87 (10.9)	
Was either the first or last author affiliated with an LMIC?	
 Yes	119 (65.0)	255 (64.2)	176 (83.8)	554 (69.2)	
 No	64 (35.0)	142 (35.8)	34 (16.2)	246 (30.8)	
* N=10 were multinational cluster randomised trials conducted in mixed economies, for example, both low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

HIC, high-income country; LMIC, low-income and middle-income country

The most commonly reported primary focus among the 800 CRTs was maternal and neonatal disorders (106, 13.3%), followed by HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (91, 11.4%) and malaria and other neglected tropical diseases (88, 11.0%). Figure 2 presents the top 10 primary foci of CRTs in LMICs. Online supplemental table 7 presents a frequency distribution of the primary focus of each CRT, including the Global Burden of Disease level 1, 2 and level 3 categories.21

Figure 2 Top 10 primary clinical focus of n=800 cluster randomised trials in low-income and middle-income countries.* Categories taken from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation’s Global Burden of Disease 2019 Cause and Risk Summaries.

Trial registration and ethics reporting

Table 3 presents information relevant to trial registration and ethics reporting. Among 800 CRTs, 670 (83.8%) reported registration in 19 different trial registries. Among the 670 CRTs reporting registration, 642 (95.8%) reported registration in one registry and 28 (4.2%) in two different registries.

Table 3 Adherence to trial registration and ethics reporting requirements in n=800 cluster randomised trials included in the review

	Frequency (%)	
 	2017–2018	2019–2020	2021–2022	Total*	
 	N=229	N=299	N=272	N=800	
Was trial registration reported?†	
 Yes	190 (83.0)	254 (84.9)	226 (83.1)	670 (83.8)	
 No	39 (17.0)	45 (15.1)	46 (16.9)	130 (16.2)	
Number of registries reported				N=670	
 One	181 (95.3)	240 (94.5)	220 (97.3)	641 (95.6)	
 Two	9 (4.7)	14 (5.5)	6 (2.7)	29 (4.4)	
Was a statement about research ethics committee review reported?	
 Yes, reported REC approval	222 (96.9)	295 (98.7)	269 (98.9)	786 (98.2)	
 Yes, reported REC exemption	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	
 Yes, reported not submitted for REC review	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	
 No	7 (3.1)	4 (1.3)	3 (1.1)	14 (1.8)	
Where was the REC located?				N=786	
 Both host and sponsor country	136 (61.3)	175 (59.3)	142 (52.8)	452 (57.5)	
 Host country only	79 (35.6)	113 (38.3)	122 (45.4)	315 (40.1)	
 Sponsor country only	7 (3.2)	6 (2.0)	5 (1.9)	18 (2.3)	
 Neither host nor sponsor country‡	0 (0.0)	1 (0.3)	0 (0.0)	1 (0.1)	
Was a statement about consent provided?	
 Yes	215 (93.9)	288 (96.3)	254 (93.4)	757 (94.6)	
 No	14 (6.1)	11 (3.7)	18 (6.6)	43 (5.4)	
To whom did the statement about consent pertain?				N=757	
 Individual-level participants	197 (91.6)	261 (90.6)	225 (88.6)	683 (90.2)	
 Both individual-level and professional-level participants	16 (7.4)	18 (6.2)	22 (8.7)	56 (7.4)	
 Professional-level participants	2 (0.9)	7 (2.4)	7 (2.8)	16 (2.1)	
 Unclear§	0 (0.0)	2 (0.7)	0 (0.0)	2 (0.3)	
Was informed consent obtained or not for some or all aspects of the trial?				N=757	
 Yes, consent was obtained for all aspects of the trial	202 (94.0)	268 (93.1)	241 (94.9)	711 (93.9)	
 No, a waiver of consent was granted or no consent obtained	7 (3.3)	13 (4.5)	5 (2.0)	25 (3.3)	
 Yes, consent was obtained for some aspects of the trial	6 (2.8)	6 (2.1)	8 (3.1)	20 (2.7)	
 Other¶	0 (0.0)	1 (0.3)	0 (0.0)	1 (0.1)	
Was a rationale for not obtaining consent or a waiver of consent provided?				N=46	
 Yes	10 (76.9	15 (75.0)	11 (84.6)	36 (78.3)	
 No	3 (23.1)	5 (25.0)	2 (15.4)	10 (21.7)	
What was the rationale for not obtaining consent or the waiver of consent?**				N=36	
 Trial only uses deidentified, routinely collected data	5 (50.0)	8 (53.3)	4 (36.4)	17 (47.2)	
 Trial only uses anonymised data (eg, administrative databases, registries)	2 (20.0)	4 (26.7)	5 (45.5)	11 (30.6)	
 Trial involves usual care or standard of care treatments	2 (20.0)	3 (20.0)	1 (9.1)	6 (16.7)	
 Trial is evaluating a cluster-level intervention	0 (0.0)	2 (13.3)	1 (9.1)	3 (8.3)	
 Trial poses no more than minimal risk	1 (10.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (9.1)	2 (5.6)	
 Trial would be infeasible with informed consent	0 (0.0)	1 (6.67)	1 (9.1)	2 (5.6)	
 Trial has important social value	0 (0.0)	1 (6.67)	0 (0.0)	1 (2.8)	
 Other††	3 (30.0)	6 (40.0)	3 (27.3)	12 (33.3)	
Was a gatekeeper role reported in the trial?	
 Yes	127 (55.5)	150 (50.2)	126 (46.3)	403 (50.4)	
 No	92 (40.2)	124 (41.5)	134 (49.3)	350 (43.7)	
 Unclear‡‡	10 (4.4)	25 (8.4)	12 (4.4)	47 (5.9)	
* N=10 were multinational cluster randomised trials conducted in mixed economies, for example, both low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

† The three most common trial registries were ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT), International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number and Pan African Clinical Trial Registry.

‡ For-profit research ethics committee not associated with the host or sponsor countries.

§ Unclear statements of consent referred to consent without specifying from whom consent was obtained.

¶ A waiver of consent was granted for all aspects of the trial at 30 sites, while written informed consent was required for all aspects of the trial at three sites.

** Multiple rationales for not obtaining consent or waiving consent are possible; frequencies do not add up to 100%.

†† Consent was obtained from a gatekeeper; consent from parents/legal guardian is not required when obtained from minors; consent would preclude large numbers of eligible participants; consent would introduce bias; health providers have a duty to participate in research; trial is evaluating a quality improvement intervention; trial is observing public behaviour; trial does not involve a biomedical intervention; and trial uses cluster randomisation.

‡‡ Unclear statements include, for example, ‘clinics agreeing to participate’. No gatekeeper is clearly identified in such statements, but a gatekeeper role is clearly identified.

RECresearch ethics committee

A statement about research ethics committee approval was reported in 786 (98.1%) CRTs. Of these, 452 (57.5%) reported review from both host and sponsor country, 315 (40.1%) from host country only, 18 (2.3%) from sponsor country only and 1 (0.1%) reported review from a for-profit ethics committee not associated with either the host or sponsor country.

A statement about consent was reported in 757 (94.6%) CRTs. Among studies with a consent statement, 683 (90.2%) pertained to individual-level participants (eg, patients, students), 56 (7.4%) pertained to professional-level participants (eg, health providers, teachers), 16 (2.1%) pertained to both individual-level and professional-level participants and 2 (0.3%) were unclear.

Informed consent was reported as being obtained for all aspects of the trial in 711 (93.9%) CRTs, obtained for only some aspects of the trial (eg, data collection procedures) in 20 (2.7%) and not obtained or waived for all aspects of the trial in 25 (3.3%). One (0.1%) CRT reported obtaining written informed consent from participants enrolled at three study sites, while a waiver of consent was granted at 30 study sites.

For CRTs in which consent was not obtained or waived for some or all aspects of the trial, 36 (78.3%) provided a rationale. Rationales included the use of deidentified routinely collected data, administrative data or registry data (23, 63.9%), the research involves a standard of care or usual care intervention (6, 17.7%), consent was obtained from gatekeepers (4, 11.1%), the research involves a cluster-level intervention (3, 8.3%) and other (14, 38.9%).

A gatekeeper’s role was identified in 403 (50.4%) CRTs. Identified gatekeeper roles included: assisting with study implementation or intervention development; facilitating or involved in consultations, engagement activities or public events; identifying eligible clusters or participants; providing or withholding access to data or study intervention(s); providing or withholding permission for study conduct or to approach cluster members; providing proxy consent on behalf of cluster members; and reviewing or approving study protocols.

No meaningful changes over time were observed with respect to reporting of trial registration or consent.

Discussion

Summary of key findings

This systematic scoping review characterises the types of clusters, settings, author affiliations and primary clinical focus of CRTs in LMICs. Geographical areas were the most common units of randomisation. We found that most CRTs were conducted in India, China and Kenya. Almost all CRTs included at least one author with an LMIC affiliation, but a substantial minority had neither first nor last author with an LMIC affiliation. We also found that the relative frequency of all authors having exclusively LMIC affiliations increases as a country’s economic level increases and that the prevalence of the first or last author having exclusively LMIC affiliations increases as a country’s economic level increases. The most common primary clinical focus of CRTs in LMICs were to reduce the prevalence or incidence of maternal and neonatal disorders, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and malaria or other neglected tropical diseases.

We found that most CRTs in LMICs report trial registration. We also found that adherence to ethics recommendations was high, although not ideal. Nearly all CRTs report a statement about research ethics committee review and approval. Almost all CRTs reported a statement about consent and, when reported, it was almost always clear from whom consent was obtained. However, when consent was reported as not obtained or waived, a substantial minority of CRTs did not report a justification. Many of the provided justifications were not consistent with or explicitly rejected by the Ottawa Statement recommendations.

Implications of key findings

One of the most common justifications for adopting a CRT design over an individually randomised design is to avoid contamination between study arms.22 When geographical areas are selected as the unit of randomisation—which we found to be typical of CRTs in LMICs—there is often a substantial risk of spillover effects caused by migration of individuals between clusters that can undermine the scientific validity of a CRT. Future in-depth analyses should explore any efforts to avoid or mitigate contamination between geographical clusters in these trials.

First and last authorship positions are considered prestigious and are often used by funding agencies reviewing grants and by institutions evaluating applications for promotion. Yet, researchers affiliated with LMIC institutions are often ‘stuck in the middle when it comes to global health authorship resulting from international partnerships’.23 Our findings suggest that this holds true for many CRTs in LMICs. To take steps towards rectifying inequities in authorship, researchers affiliated with high-income-country institutions should, at the very least, create more opportunities for local LMIC-affiliated collaborators to contribute to CRTs in ways that lead to first and last authorship.24

The primary focus of CRTs in LMICs are oriented towards communicable, maternal, neonatal and nutritional diseases, which corresponds to the focus of the global donor community during the Millennium Development Goals period (2000–2015).25 Since we did not explore this issue in our data, we can only speculate that many of these studies are donor driven. Priorities should evolve, if they have not started to do so already, to address the ‘rapid rise in non-communicable diseases and disabilities’ that currently account for much of the burden of disease worldwide (with the exception of countries early in the epidemiological transition).26 The focus of future CRTs in LMICs should correspond to local burden of disease that are of national importance in the Sustainable Development Goals period (2016–2030).27

Finally, almost all CRTs in LMICs were compliant with trial registration and ethics reporting recommendations. Yet, there is room for improved reporting of justifications for not obtaining consent or using a waiver of consent. A probable reason for poor reporting is that it is not required by most journals or trial reporting guidelines. However, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for stepped-wedge CRTs states, ‘When a waiver or modification of consent has been granted by a research ethics committee, it should be reported and a justification given. It should be clear whose consent was waived and whether the waiver pertains to study participation, data collection or both’.28 Other reporting guidelines ought to be updated to improve reporting of consent practices in CRTs.

Comparison with other studies

This is the first study to describe the characteristics of CRTs conducted exclusively in LMICs. Two previous studies have also examined the characteristics of CRTs and ethics reporting, although none is specific to LMICs: a review of 300 primary CRT reports published between 2000 and 200829; and a review of 173 articles reporting primary or secondary analysis of CRTs published in 2008.30 These reviews found that 15%–25% of CRTs are conducted in LMICs. Consistent with our findings, these reviews also found that geographical areas are commonly the units of randomization in CRTs; yet, CRTs in LMICs are more likely to randomise geographical areas (50%) than CRTs in general (15%).29

In terms of trial registration requirements, Odutayo et al’s cross-sectional study of 1122 primary reports of randomised controlled trials published in December 2012 found that only 593 (52.9%) reported trial registration.31 Among the 1122 trials, 31 (2.8%) were CRTs and, of these, 17 (54.8%) reported trial registration. Our review suggests that CRTs in LMICs are more likely to report trial registration in the primary report than randomised controlled trials and CRTs in general or that a substantial improvement in trial registration has occurred over the last 10 years.

Finally, in terms of ethics reporting, the two aforementioned reviews found that 73%–90% of CRTs include a statement about research ethics committee approval and 69%–83% include a statement about informed consent.29 30 Compared with these earlier reviews, our review found a higher percentage of reporting research ethics committee approval (98.2%) and informed consent (94.6%), which suggests that adherence to ethics reporting requirements may be higher in CRTs conducted exclusively in LMICs or that an improvement has occurred over time.

Strengths and limitations

Our study is the largest review of CRTs conducted to date and provides a comprehensive overview of CRTs in LMICs. It has also created a large database of CRTs that can serve as a rich recourse for further in-depth analysis. Our study has some limitations. First, by excluding CRTs conducted in high-income countries from the search and only included trials conducted exclusively in LMICs, we cannot compare the two sets of trials. This limits our ability to accurately identify ethical issues that are unique to trials conducted in LMICs. However, stratifying results allowed for some comparison between LMIC categories. Second, our literature search was limited to MEDLINE and the English language; using other databases and languages may have identified additional trials. However, since our study objectives relate to a general characterisation of CRTs conducted in LMICs and a description of their adherence to trial registration and ethics reporting requirements, capturing a large, representative sample of such trials was considered adequate. Searching other databases and including non-English primary reports of CRTs would have been unlikely to yield substantively different conclusions. Third, single data extraction was used since the scope of this review would render duplicate review unmanageable. To limit misclassification, the primary extractor underwent multiple rounds of training prior to commencing data extraction and the extraction form provided clear guidance and examples. There was also high inter-reviewer agreement on the subset of 80 trials that were used to ensure accuracy and consistency of data extraction.

Conclusion

In this review, which is part of a larger project to update the Ottawa Statement, we compiled a large database of 800 CRTs conducted exclusively in LMICs, characterised the types of clusters, settings, author affiliations and primary clinical focus of these trials and evaluated their adherence to trial registration and ethics reporting requirements. Our findings suggest existing inequity in authorship practices. We also found high adherence to trial registration and ethics reporting requirements, although greater attention to reporting a justification for using a waiver of consent is needed. Future secondary analyses will examine specific ethical and methodological issues in more detail to ensure that the updated Ottawa Statement recommendations are applicable to all CRTs irrespective of location, while also providing recommendations to address unique issues raised by CRTs in LMICs.

supplementary material

10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087724 online supplemental file 1

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Laura Quinn (LQ) for assisting with full-text screening and Spencer Phillip Hey (SPH) for assisting with ClincalTrials.gov data extraction and linkage.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

Review Process File
17 09 2024

Funding: This work was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) project grant (PJT-479757). CEG is supported by a CIHR Fellowship Award. These funding sources had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the report or decision to publish.

Prepublication history and additional supplemental material for this paper are available online. To view these files, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087724).

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.

Ethics approval: Not applicable.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting or dissemination plans of this research.
==== Refs
References

1 Sullivan SG Wu Z et al Community-based intervention trials in low- and middle-income countries Detels R Oxford textbook of global public health 6th edn Oxford 2015
2 Dron L Taljaard M Cheung YB et al The role and challenges of cluster randomised trials for global health Lancet Glob Health 2021 9 e701 10 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30541-6 33865475
3 Torgerson DJ Contamination in trials: is cluster randomisation the answer? BMJ 2001 322 355 7 10.1136/bmj.322.7282.355 11159665
4 Campbell MK Grimshaw JM Elbourne DR Intracluster correlation coefficients in cluster randomized trials: empirical insights into how should they be reported BMC Med Res Methodol 2004 4 9 10.1186/1471-2288-4-9 15115554
5 Hahn S Puffer S Torgerson DJ et al Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials BMC Med Res Methodol 2005 5 10 10.1186/1471-2288-5-10 15743523
6 Eldridge S Kerry S Torgerson DJ Bias in identifying and recruiting participants in cluster randomised trials: what can be done? BMJ 2009 339 bmj.b4006 10.1136/bmj.b4006 19819928
7 Hemming K Taljaard M Reflection on modern methods: when is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial a good study design choice? Int J Epidemiol 2020 49 1043 52 10.1093/ije/dyaa077 32386407
8 Easter C Thompson JA Eldridge S et al Cluster randomized trials of individual-level interventions were at high risk of bias J Clin Epidemiol 2021 138 49 59 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.021 34197941
9 Weijer C Grimshaw JM Taljaard M et al Ethical issues posed by cluster randomized trials in health research Trials 2011 12 100 10.1186/1745-6215-12-100 21507237
10 Weijer C Grimshaw JM Eccles MP et al The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials PLoS Med 2012 9 e1001346 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001346 23185138
11 Joag K Ambrosio G Kestler E et al Ethical issues in the design and conduct of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials in low-resource settings Trials 2019 20 703 10.1186/s13063-019-3842-1 31852547
12 Mtande TK Weijer C Hosseinipour MC et al 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 J Med Ethics 2019 45 388 93 10.1136/medethics-2019-105374 31189724
13 Howie A Taljaard M Moon PM et al Addressing the disconnect between trial intention and design Lancet Glob Health 2021 9 e577 8 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30543-X 33460560
14 Park JJH Grais RF Taljaard M et al Urgently seeking efficiency and sustainability of clinical trials in global health Lancet Glob Health 2021 9 e681 90 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30539-8 33865473
15 Tricco AC Lillie E Zarin W et al PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and Explanation Ann Intern Med 2018 169 467 73 10.7326/M18-0850 30178033
16 Pérez MC Minoyan N Ridde V et al Comparison of registered and published intervention fidelity assessment in cluster randomised trials of public health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review Trials 2018 19 410 10.1186/s13063-018-2796-z 30064484
17 Lefebvre C Glanville J Briscoe S et al Technical supplement to chapter 4: searching for and selecting studies Higgins JPT Thomas J Chandler J Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2019 Available https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
18 The World Bank World bank country and lending groups 2023 Available https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
19 Nicholls SG McDonald S McKenzie JE et al A review identified challenges distinguishing primary reports of randomized trials for meta-research: a proposal for improved reporting J Clin Epidemiol 2022 145 121 5 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.013 35081448
20 Veritas Health Innovation Covidence systematic review software Melbourne, Australia Veritas Health Innovation Available https://www.covidence.org/
21 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) Global burden of disease 2019 cause and risk summary Seattle, USA IHME, University of Washington 2020 Available https://www.healthdata.org/results/gbd_summaries/2019
22 Taljaard M Goldstein CE Giraudeau B et al Cluster over individual randomization: are study design choices appropriately justified? Review of a random sample of trials Clin Trials 2020 17 253 63 10.1177/1740774519896799 32367741
23 Lawrence DS Hirsch LA Decolonising global health: transnational research partnerships under the spotlight Int Health 2020 12 518 23 10.1093/inthealth/ihaa073 33165557
24 Hedt-Gauthier BL Riviello R Nkurunziza T et al Growing research in global surgery with an eye towards equity Br J Surg 2019 106 e151 5 10.1002/bjs.11066 30620062
25 United Nations Millennium development goals and beyond 2015 2015 Available https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals
26 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Global burden of disease (gbd): key findings from gbd 2019 Available https://www.healthdata.org/research-analysis/gbd#:~:text=The%20Global%20Burden%20of%20Disease,be%20improved%20and%20disparities%20eliminated
27 United Nations Sustainable development goals 2023 Available https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals
28 Hemming K Taljaard M McKenzie JE et al Reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration BMJ 2018 363 k1614 10.1136/bmj.k1614 30413417
29 Taljaard M McRae AD Weijer C et al Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials BMJ 2011 342 d2496 10.1136/bmj.d2496 21562003
30 Giraudeau B Caille A Le Gouge A et al Participant informed consent in cluster randomized trials: review PLoS One 2012 7 e40436 10.1371/journal.pone.0040436 22792319
31 Odutayo A Emdin CA Hsiao AJ et al Association between trial registration and positive study findings: cross sectional study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials-ESORT) BMJ 2017 356 j917 10.1136/bmj.j917 28292744
