Zhuozhao Zhan1, Edwin R van den Heuvel1, Peter M Doornbos1, Huib Burger2, Charlotte J Verberne3, Theo Wiggers3, Geertruida H de Bock4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands; Department of General Practice, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: g.h.de.bock@umcg.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the advantages and disadvantages of a stepped wedge design for a specific clinical application. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The clinical application was a pragmatic cluster randomized surgical trial intending to find an increased percentage of curable recurrences in patients in follow-up after colorectal cancer. Advantages and disadvantages of the stepped wedge design were evaluated, and for this application, new advantages and disadvantages were presented. RESULTS: A main advantage of the stepped wedge design was that the intervention rolls out to all participants, motivating patients and doctors, and a large number of patients who were included in this study. The stepped wedge design increased the complexity of the data analysis, and there were concerns regarding the informed consent procedure. The repeated measurements may bring burden to patients in terms of quality of life, satisfaction, and costs. CONCLUSION: The stepped wedge design is a strong alternative for pragmatic cluster randomized trials. The known advantages hold, whereas most of the disadvantages were not applicable to this application. The main advantage was that we were able to include a large number of patients. Main disadvantages were that the informed consent procedure can be problematic and that the analysis of the data can be complex.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine the advantages and disadvantages of a stepped wedge design for a specific clinical application. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The clinical application was a pragmatic cluster randomized surgical trial intending to find an increased percentage of curable recurrences in patients in follow-up after colorectal cancer. Advantages and disadvantages of the stepped wedge design were evaluated, and for this application, new advantages and disadvantages were presented. RESULTS: A main advantage of the stepped wedge design was that the intervention rolls out to all participants, motivating patients and doctors, and a large number of patients who were included in this study. The stepped wedge design increased the complexity of the data analysis, and there were concerns regarding the informed consent procedure. The repeated measurements may bring burden to patients in terms of quality of life, satisfaction, and costs. CONCLUSION: The stepped wedge design is a strong alternative for pragmatic cluster randomized trials. The known advantages hold, whereas most of the disadvantages were not applicable to this application. The main advantage was that we were able to include a large number of patients. Main disadvantages were that the informed consent procedure can be problematic and that the analysis of the data can be complex.
Authors: Lena Shah; Marlene Rojas; Oscar Mori; Carlos Zamudio; Jay S Kaufman; Larissa Otero; Eduardo Gotuzzo; Carlos Seas; Timothy F Brewer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Esther de Hoop; Ingeborg van der Tweel; Rieke van der Graaf; Karel G M Moons; Johannes J M van Delden; Johannes B Reitsma; Hendrik Koffijberg Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Mariabeth Silkey; Tobias Homan; Nicolas Maire; Alexandra Hiscox; Richard Mukabana; Willem Takken; Thomas A Smith Journal: Trials Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 2.279