Re: Effect of telehealth on use of secondary care and mortality: findings from the Whole System Demonstrator cluster randomised trial
We thank Professor Greenhalgh for her response. We agree with her about the importance of non-randomised studies. Yet at the same time, many commentators agree that randomised trials have an important role to play, and we hope that this trial will provide valuable information about telehealth.
Our analysis was conducted and written up in line with published recommendations [1] and our original protocol. Dissemination policies were governed by the standard contractual terms for projects funded by the DH Policy Research Programme [2]. The terms specified that permission to submit findings for publication cannot be withheld. Draft copies of proposed publications were sent to Department of Health in advance of submission for publication and clearance was given in line the contract. We favoured publication of the articles in the peer-reviewed press, so that the draft articles could be extensively examined.
As you note, the Department of Health published several documents during the peer review process [3]. The research team was not involved in these interpretations of the findings and the resulting documents. Our role has been to design and conduct a relevant and high-quality evaluation and to report the findings clearly and transparently. We believe we have done this with the peer-reviewed material.
Rapid Response:
Re: Effect of telehealth on use of secondary care and mortality: findings from the Whole System Demonstrator cluster randomised trial
We thank Professor Greenhalgh for her response. We agree with her about the importance of non-randomised studies. Yet at the same time, many commentators agree that randomised trials have an important role to play, and we hope that this trial will provide valuable information about telehealth.
Our analysis was conducted and written up in line with published recommendations [1] and our original protocol. Dissemination policies were governed by the standard contractual terms for projects funded by the DH Policy Research Programme [2]. The terms specified that permission to submit findings for publication cannot be withheld. Draft copies of proposed publications were sent to Department of Health in advance of submission for publication and clearance was given in line the contract. We favoured publication of the articles in the peer-reviewed press, so that the draft articles could be extensively examined.
As you note, the Department of Health published several documents during the peer review process [3]. The research team was not involved in these interpretations of the findings and the resulting documents. Our role has been to design and conduct a relevant and high-quality evaluation and to report the findings clearly and transparently. We believe we have done this with the peer-reviewed material.
References
[1] Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2004; 328:702-708
[2] Department of Health (2012). Policy Research Programme Guidance for Applicants. Available at: http://prp.dh.gov.uk
[3] Department of Health (2011). Whole system demonstrator programme: Headline findings – December 2011. Available at: www.dh.gov.uk/health/2011/12/wsd-headline-findings.
Competing interests: No competing interests