Literature DB >> 26628511

Balancing Contamination and Referral Bias in a Randomized Clinical Trial: An Application of Pseudo-Cluster Randomization.

Brian W Pence, Bradley N Gaynes, Nathan M Thielman, Amy Heine, Michael J Mugavero, Elizabeth L Turner, Evelyn B Quinlivan.   

Abstract

In randomized trials of provider-focused clinical interventions, treatment allocation often cannot be blinded to participants, study staff, or providers. The choice of unit of randomization (patient, provider, or clinic) entails tradeoffs in cost, power, and bias. Provider- or clinic-level randomization can minimize contamination, but it incurs the equally problematic potential for referral bias; that is, because arm assignment of future participants generally cannot be concealed, differences between arms may arise in the types of patients enrolled. Pseudo-cluster randomization is a novel study design that balances these competing validity threats. Providers are randomly assigned to an imbalanced proportion of intervention-arm participants (e.g., 80% or 20%). Providers can be masked to the imbalance, avoiding referral bias. Contamination is reduced because only a minority of control-arm participants are treated by majority-intervention providers. Pseudo-cluster randomization was implemented in a randomized trial of a decision support intervention to manage depression among patients receiving human immunodeficiency virus care in the southern United States in 2010-2014. The design appears successful in avoiding referral bias (participants were comparable between arms on important characteristics) and contamination (key depression treatment indicators were comparable between usual care participants managed by majority-intervention and majority-usual care providers and were markedly different compared with intervention participants).
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical trials; contamination; pseudo-cluster randomization; referral bias; study design

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26628511      PMCID: PMC4675661          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwv132

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  23 in total

Review 1.  Lessons for cluster randomized trials in the twenty-first century: a systematic review of trials in primary care.

Authors:  Sandra M Eldridge; Deborah Ashby; Gene S Feder; Alicja R Rudnicka; Obioha C Ukoumunne
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  Intraclass correlation coefficients for cluster randomized trials in primary care: the cholesterol education and research trial (CEART).

Authors:  Donna R Parker; Evangelos Evangelou; Charles B Eaton
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.226

Review 3.  Pseudo cluster randomization dealt with selection bias and contamination in clinical trials.

Authors:  S Teerenstra; R J F Melis; P G M Peer; G F Borm
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-02-14       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Designing phase III or IV trials for vaccines: choosing between individual or cluster randomised trial designs.

Authors:  Paul Vaucher
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2009-01-31       Impact factor: 3.641

Review 5.  Treating depression within the HIV "medical home": a guided algorithm for antidepressant management by HIV clinicians.

Authors:  Julie L Adams; Bradley N Gaynes; Teena McGuinness; Riddhi Modi; James Willig; Brian W Pence
Journal:  AIDS Patient Care STDS       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 5.078

6.  A comparison of methods to analyse continuous data from pseudo cluster randomized trials.

Authors:  S Teerenstra; M Moerbeek; R J F Melis; G F Borm
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-09-30       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Lack of concealment may lead to selection bias in cluster randomized trials of palliative care.

Authors:  M S Jordhøy; P M Fayers; M Ahlner-Elmqvist; S Kaasa
Journal:  Palliat Med       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.762

8.  A randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioral therapy for adherence and depression (CBT-AD) in HIV-infected individuals.

Authors:  Steven A Safren; Conall O'Cleirigh; Judy Y Tan; Sudha R Raminani; Laura C Reilly; Michael W Otto; Kenneth H Mayer
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.267

9.  Pseudo cluster randomization performed well when used in practice.

Authors:  René J F Melis; S Teerenstra; M G M Olde Rikkert; G F Borm
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-06-11       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  The U.S. training institute for dissemination and implementation research in health.

Authors:  Helen I Meissner; Russell E Glasgow; Cynthia A Vinson; David Chambers; Ross C Brownson; Lawrence W Green; Alice S Ammerman; Bryan J Weiner; Brian Mittman
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 7.327

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Review of Recent Methodological Developments in Group-Randomized Trials: Part 1-Design.

Authors:  Elizabeth L Turner; Fan Li; John A Gallis; Melanie Prague; David M Murray
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  The effect of antidepressant treatment on HIV and depression outcomes: results from a randomized trial.

Authors:  Brian W Pence; Bradley N Gaynes; Julie L Adams; Nathan M Thielman; Amy D Heine; Michael J Mugavero; Teena McGuinness; James L Raper; James H Willig; Kristen G Shirey; Michelle Ogle; Elizabeth L Turner; E Byrd Quinlivan
Journal:  AIDS       Date:  2015-09-24       Impact factor: 4.177

3.  The Integrating Pharmacogenetics in Clinical Care (I-PICC) Study: Protocol for a point-of-care randomized controlled trial of statin pharmacogenetics in primary care.

Authors:  Jason L Vassy; Charles A Brunette; Nilla Majahalme; Sanjay Advani; Lauren MacMullen; Cynthia Hau; Andrew J Zimolzak; Stephen J Miller
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 2.226

4.  A Cost-Consequence Analysis of Preemptive SLCO1B1 Testing for Statin Myopathy Risk Compared to Usual Care.

Authors:  Charles A Brunette; Olivia M Dong; Jason L Vassy; Morgan E Danowski; Nicholas Alexander; Ashley A Antwi; Kurt D Christensen
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2021-10-31

5.  Applying quantitative bias analysis to estimate the plausible effects of selection bias in a cluster randomised controlled trial: secondary analysis of the Primary care Osteoarthritis Screening Trial (POST).

Authors:  L A Barnett; M Lewis; C D Mallen; G Peat
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 2.279

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.