Laura Marsden
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Laura Marsden has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Adam Martin
Affiliation Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
1 shared publicationAlys Griffiths
Affiliation Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
1 shared publication- Andrew Toby Prevost
King's College London London UK
1 shared publication - Catherine Walshe
International Observatory on End of Life Care, Lancaster University, UK
1 shared publication - Claire Surr
Centre for Dementia Research, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
1 shared publication Jane Fossey
Affiliation Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 23 February 2024
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 19 (2) , e0297184
Researchers’ experiences of the design and conduct challenges associated with parallel-group cluster-randomised trials and views on a novel open-cohort design
Two accepted designs exist for parallel-group cluster-randomised trials (CRTs). Closed-cohort designs follow the same individuals over time with a single recruitment period before randomisation, but face challenges in settings with high attrition. (Repeated) cross-sectional designs recruit at one or more timepoints before and/or after randomisation, collecting data from different individuals present in the cluster at these timepoints, but are unsuitable for assessment of individual change over time. An ‘open-cohort’ design allows individual follow-up with recruitment before and after cluster-randomisation, but little literature exists on acceptability to inform their use in CRTs. To document the views and experiences of expert trialists to identify: Qualitative consultation via two expert workshops including triallists (n = 24) who had worked on CRTs over a range of settings. Workshop transcripts were analysed using Descriptive Thematic Analysis utilising inductive and deductive coding. Two central organising concepts were developed. Design and conduct challenges with established CRT designs confirmed that current CRT designs are unable to deal with many of the complex research and intervention circumstances found in some trial settings (e.g. care homes). Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers of open cohort designs included themes on: approaches to recruitment; data collection; analysis; minimising/investigating the impact of bias; and how open-cohort designs might address or present CRT design challenges. Open-cohort designs were felt to provide a solution for some of the challenges current CRT designs present in some settings. Open-cohort CRT designs hold promise for addressing the challenges associated with standard CRT designs. Research is needed to provide clarity around definition and guidance on application.
- 23 February 2024
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 19 (2) , e0297184
Open AccessResearchers’ experiences of the design and conduct challenges associated with parallel-group cluster-randomised trials and views on a novel open-cohort design
Two accepted designs exist for parallel-group cluster-randomised trials (CRTs). Closed-cohort designs follow the same individuals over time with a single recruitment period before randomisation, but face challenges in settings with high attrition. (Repeated) cross-sectional designs recruit at one or more timepoints before and/or after randomisation, collecting data from different individuals present in the cluster at these timepoints, but are unsuitable for assessment of individual change over time. An ‘open-cohort’ design allows individual follow-up with recruitment before and after cluster-randomisation, but little literature exists on acceptability to inform their use in CRTs. To document the views and experiences of expert trialists to identify: Qualitative consultation via two expert workshops including triallists (n = 24) who had worked on CRTs over a range of settings. Workshop transcripts were analysed using Descriptive Thematic Analysis utilising inductive and deductive coding. Two central organising concepts were developed. Design and conduct challenges with established CRT designs confirmed that current CRT designs are unable to deal with many of the complex research and intervention circumstances found in some trial settings (e.g. care homes). Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers of open cohort designs included themes on: approaches to recruitment; data collection; analysis; minimising/investigating the impact of bias; and how open-cohort designs might address or present CRT design challenges. Open-cohort designs were felt to provide a solution for some of the challenges current CRT designs present in some settings. Open-cohort CRT designs hold promise for addressing the challenges associated with standard CRT designs. Research is needed to provide clarity around definition and guidance on application.