Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 8, 2026

Development of a Virtual Reality Assessment of Everyday Living Skills
Published on: April 23, 2014
Navigating blinding challenges in complex intervention trials: insights from a UK researcher survey
Abdullah Yonis1, Sarah Gerard Dean2, Fiona C Warren2
1Department of Health and Community Sciences, Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. ay302@exeter.ac.uk.
Background:
One major methodological challenge faced by researchers when conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions is blinding. Given the nature of complex interventions, trial participants and intervention providers often cannot be blinded to the intervention. This lack of blinding may result in a lower evidence rating for the trial, potentially hindering the implementation of its findings. One option to mitigate this issue is to single blind studies, with the blinding only of outcome assessors to group allocation. Despite the potential advantages, outcome assessment blinding is frequently underutilised. The challenges behind its limited adoption in this field are not clearly understood. This study aimed to explore the attitudes and practices of UK researchers regarding blinding, particularly outcome assessment blinding, in complex intervention RCTs.
Methods:
We conducted an online survey targeting researchers affiliated with the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs), the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Trials Methodology Research Partnership (TMRP) and National Health Service (NHS)-NIHR research units.
Results:
A total of 63 researchers participated in the survey. Most were affiliated with UKCRC (49/63, 77%), TMRP (6/63, 8%) or NHS-NIHR research units (8/63, 12%). The majority (57/63, 91%) agreed that complex interventions pose significant challenges to adequate blinding. Concerns about compromised internal validity due to lack of blinding were noted by 45% of respondents (28/63), and 67% (42/63) expressed dissatisfaction with existing quality assessment tools for complex intervention RCTs. Although 66% of respondents (41/63) found outcome assessment blinding often feasible, 52% (33/63) identified limited resources as a primary obstacle. Free-text responses highlighted practical constraints and additional costs associated with blinding. Furthermore, two-thirds of respondents (43/63, 68%) reported a lack of specific recommendations on blinding, which may exacerbate these challenges. Opinions on the influence of the new Medical Research Council (MRC)-NIHR Framework 2021 were mixed. However, most respondents 76% (48/63)) agreed that NIHR plays a role in improving blinding strategies in complex intervention RCTs and 79% (50/63) agreed that a wider stakeholder engagement is necessary to overcome blinding challenges.
Conclusion:
This survey offers insights into the views of experienced UK-based researchers on blinding in complex intervention RCTs. Four key findings emerged: (1) the challenges of blinding due to the inherent complexity of these interventions, (2) the essential role of blinding in reducing bias, (3) the variability in the feasibility of outcome assessment blinding due to practical and resource constraints and (4) the positive impact of stakeholder involvement in addressing blinding challenges. However, respondents expressed dissatisfaction with current quality assessment tools and held divergent views on outcome assessment blinding, highlighting the need for more definitive methodological guidance on blinding in complex intervention trials.
More Related Videos
13:08Measurement of Fronto-limbic Activity Using an Emotional Oddball Task in Children with Familial High Risk for Schizophrenia
Published on: December 2, 2015
09:34A Methodological Protocol and Considerations for Transcranial Ultrasonic Stimulation in Exploratory Clinical Human Studies
Published on: December 12, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Blind Procedures
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Blinding
Clinical Trials: Overview
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...