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.

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

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

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

Multi-center clinical trials: Randomization and ancillary statistics

Adaptive Clinical Trials: Exploiting Sequential Patient Recruitment and Allocation

Randomized phase II selection design with order constrained strata

A Bayesian Response-Adaptive Covariate-Balanced Randomization Design with Application to A Leukemia Clinical Trial

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

Modeling restricted enrollment and optimal cost-efficient design in multicenter clinical trials

Mathematical programming tools for randomization purposes in small two‐arm clinical trials: A case study with real data

Subgroup identification in clinical trials: an overview of available methods and their implementations with R

Mathematical programming tools for randomization purposes in small two-arm clinical trials: A case study with real data

Uncovering key clinical trial features influencing recruitment

Introduction and Prospection of Minimization Random on Clinical Trials

Simulation Study of Multi-Stage Randomized-Play-the-winner-rule

Forced randomization: the what, why, and how

Minimax-Regret Sample Selection in Randomized Experiments

Randomization Bias in Field Trials to Evaluate Targeting Methods

Adaptive Randomization Method to Prevent Extreme Instances of Group Size and Covariate Imbalance in Stroke Trials

Asymptotic properties of covariate-adaptive randomization

Addressing selection bias in cluster randomized experiments via weighting