BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of balanced incomplete block designs in quality improvement research, and their capacity to control for the Hawthorne effect. METHODS:General practitioners teams were randomized into three arms and received an intervention on test ordering, relating to tests for two groups of clinical problems (A tests and B tests). In the two trials within the block design, we tried to control for the Hawthorne effect by comparing the complete intervention in both arms on either the A (arm I) or B tests (arm II); the arms acted as blind controls for each other. In the classical trial, the complete intervention on B tests (arm II) was compared with a control arm without any intervention on B tests (arm III). RESULTS: The trials with the block design yielded statistically significant changes in the numbers of A tests ordered (P=.013), but not in the numbers of B tests ordered (P=.29). In the classical design, the complete intervention reached a marginally significant change in the B tests (P=.068). The Hawthorne effect was the same for both arms of the block design. In the classical design, the effect could to some extent be attributed to the Hawthorne effect. CONCLUSION: Our block design allowed us to control for the Hawthorne effect. Suitable use of block designs may further our knowledge of nonspecific effects in quality improvement research.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of balanced incomplete block designs in quality improvement research, and their capacity to control for the Hawthorne effect. METHODS: General practitioners teams were randomized into three arms and received an intervention on test ordering, relating to tests for two groups of clinical problems (A tests and B tests). In the two trials within the block design, we tried to control for the Hawthorne effect by comparing the complete intervention in both arms on either the A (arm I) or B tests (arm II); the arms acted as blind controls for each other. In the classical trial, the complete intervention on B tests (arm II) was compared with a control arm without any intervention on B tests (arm III). RESULTS: The trials with the block design yielded statistically significant changes in the numbers of A tests ordered (P=.013), but not in the numbers of B tests ordered (P=.29). In the classical design, the complete intervention reached a marginally significant change in the B tests (P=.068). The Hawthorne effect was the same for both arms of the block design. In the classical design, the effect could to some extent be attributed to the Hawthorne effect. CONCLUSION: Our block design allowed us to control for the Hawthorne effect. Suitable use of block designs may further our knowledge of nonspecific effects in quality improvement research.
Authors: A F J E Vrancken; S Kalmijn; E Buskens; H Franssen; M Vermeulen; J H J Wokke; N C Notermans Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Meredith A Goodwin; Kurt C Stange; Stephen J Zyzanski; Benjamin F Crabtree; Elaine A Borawski; Susan A Flocke Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Lorenzo Moja; Ivan Moschetti; Michela Cinquini; Valeria Sala; Anna Compagnoni; Piergiorgio Duca; Christian Deligant; Roberto Manfrini; Luca Clivio; Roberto Satolli; Antonio Addis; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Pietro Dri; Alessandro Liberati Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: J Trietsch; B van Steenkiste; R Grol; B Winkens; H Ulenkate; J Metsemakers; T van der Weijden Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Jasper Trietsch; Trudy van der Weijden; Wim Verstappen; Rob Janknegt; Paul Muijrers; Ron Winkens; Ben van Steenkiste; Richard Grol; Job Metsemakers Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Brian Godman; Anna Bucsics; Thomas Burkhardt; Jutta Piessnegger; Manuela Schmitzer; Corrado Barbui; Emanuel Raschi; Marion Bennie; Lars L Gustafsson Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Mona Jabbour; Janet Curran; Shannon D Scott; Astrid Guttman; Thomas Rotter; Francine M Ducharme; M Diane Lougheed; M Louise McNaughton-Filion; Amanda Newton; Mark Shafir; Alison Paprica; Terry Klassen; Monica Taljaard; Jeremy Grimshaw; David W Johnson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 7.327