Deciphering ethical assumptions about Stepped-Wedge Designs: The case of Ebola vaccine research Ethical concerns about randomizing persons to a no-treatment arm in the context of Ebola epidemic led to consideration of alternative designs. The stepped wedge (SW) design, in which participants or clusters are randomized to receive the experimental intervention at different time points, gained popularity. Common arguments in favor of using this design are when 1) an intervention is likely to do more good than harm, 2) all participants should receive the experimental intervention at some time point during the study, and 3) the design might be preferable for practical reasons. In this talk, I examine these assumptions when considering Ebola vaccine research, and provide an ethical analysis.
