Abstract:Abstract Background There exist many different methods of allocating participants to treatment groups during a randomised controlled trial. Although there is research that explores trial characteristics that are associated with the choice of method, there is still a lot of variety in practice not explained. This study used qualitative methods to explore more deeply the motivations behind researchers’ choice of randomisation, and which features of the method they use to evaluate the performance of these methods. Methods Data was collected from online focus groups with various stakeholders involved in the randomisation process. Focus groups were recorded and then transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. Results Twenty-five participants from twenty clinical trials units across the UK were recruited to take part in one of four focus groups. Four main themes were identified: how randomisation methods are selected; researchers’ opinions of the different methods; which features of the method are desirable and ways to measure method features. Most researchers agree that the randomisation method should be selected based on key trial characteristics; however, for many, a unit standard is in place. Opinions of methods were varied with some participants favouring stratified blocks and others favouring minimisation. This was generally due to researchers’ perception of the effect these methods had on balance and predictability. Generally, predictability was considered more important than balance as adjustments cannot be made for it; however, most researchers felt that the importance of these two methods was dependent on the design of the study. Balance is usually evaluated by tabulating variables by treatment arm and looking for perceived imbalances, predictability was generally considered much harder to measure, partly due to differing definitions. Conclusion There is a wide variety in practice on how randomisation methods are selected and researcher’s opinions on methods. The difference in practice observed when looking at randomisation method selection can be explained by a difference in unit practice, and also by a difference in researchers prioritisation of balance and predictability. The findings of this study show a need for more guidance on randomisation method selection.

Forced randomization: the what, why, and how

Randomization to Randomization Probability: Estimating Treatment Effects under Actual Conditions of Use.

Inspection-Guided Randomization: A Flexible and Transparent Restricted Randomization Framework for Better Experimental Design

Adaptive Clinical Trials: Exploiting Sequential Patient Recruitment and Allocation

Response adaptive randomization procedures in seamless phase II/III clinical trials.

Understanding an impact of patient enrollment pattern on predictability of central (unstratified) randomization in a multi‐center clinical trial

Selecting a randomization method for a multi-center clinical trial with stochastic recruitment considerations

Comparison of response adaptive randomization features in multiarm clinical trials with control

Implementing Response-Adaptive Randomisation in Stratified Rare-disease Trials: Design Challenges and Practical Solutions

Choosing and evaluating randomisation methods in clinical trials: a qualitative study

Enhancing Statistical Validity and Power in Hybrid Controlled Trials: A Randomization Inference Approach with Conformal Selective Borrowing

The probabilities of an outcome on intervention and control can be estimated by randomizing subjects to different testing strategies, required for assessing diagnostic tests, test trace and isolation and for natural randomisation

The cornerstones of randomized clinical trials

The Randomized CRM: An Approach to Overcoming the Long-Memory Property of the CRM

Robust Blocked Response-Adaptive Randomization Designs

Randomization Tests for Adaptively Collected Data

Selective Randomization Inference for Adaptive Experiments

Stratification Trees for Adaptive Randomization in Randomized Controlled Trials

Comparing MTI randomization procedures to blocked randomization

Using randomized controlled trials in the sports medicine and performance environment: is it time to reconsider and think outside the methodological box?

A practical Response Adaptive Block Randomization (RABR) design with analytic type I error protection