Interpretation of primary care physicians' attitude regarding rotavirus immunisation using diffusion of innovation theories

To evaluate primary care physicians' attitude towards implementation of rotavirus (RV) immunisation into the Swiss immunisation schedule, an eight-question internet-based questionnaire was sent to the 3799 subscribers of InfoVac, a nationwide web-based expert network on immunisation issues, which reaches >95% of paediatricians and smaller proportions of other primary care physicians. Five demographic variables were also inquired. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses for the main outcome "acceptance of routine RV immunisation" and other variables were performed. Diffusion of innovation theory was used for data assessment. Nine-hundred seventy-seven questionnaires were returned (26%). Fifty percent of participants were paediatricians. Routine RV immunisation was supported by 146 participants (15%; so called early adopters), dismissed by 620 (64%), leaving 211 (21%) undecided. However, when asked whether they would recommend RV vaccination to parents if it were officially recommended by the federal authorities and reimbursed, 467 (48.5%; so called early majority) agreed to recommend RV immunisation. Multivariate analysis revealed that physicians who would immunise their own child (OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 4.1-6.3), hospital-based physicians (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1-2.3) and physicians from the French (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.2-2.3) and Italian speaking areas of Switzerland (OR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.1-5.8) were more likely to support RV immunisation. Diffusion of innovation theory predicts a >80% implementation if approximately 50% of a given population support an innovation. Introduction of RV immunisation in Switzerland is likely to be successful, if (i) the federal authorities issue an official recommendation and (ii) costs are covered by basic health care insurance.

Initiation and continuation of randomized trials after the publication of a trial stopped early for benefit asking the same study question: STOPIT-3 study design

BACKGROUND Randomized control trials (RCTs) stopped early for benefit (truncated RCTs) are increasingly common and, on average, overestimate the relative magnitude of benefit by approximately 30%. Investigators stop trials early when they consider it is no longer ethical to enroll patients in a control group. The goal of this systematic review is to determine how investigators of ongoing or planned RCTs respond to the publication of a truncated RCT addressing a similar question. METHODS/DESIGN We will conduct systematic reviews to update the searches of 210 truncated RCTs to identify similar trials ongoing at the time of publication, or started subsequently, to the truncated trials ('subsequent RCTs'). Reviewers will determine in duplicate the similarity between the truncated and subsequent trials. We will analyze the epidemiology, distribution, and predictors of subsequent RCTs. We will also contact authors of subsequent trials to determine reasons for beginning, continuing, or prematurely discontinuing their own trials, and the extent to which they rely on the estimates from truncated trials. DISCUSSION To the extent that investigators begin or continue subsequent trials they implicitly disagree with the decision to stop the truncated RCT because of an ethical mandate to administer the experimental treatment. The results of this study will help guide future decisions about when to stop RCTs early for benefit.