Ann M Nguyen1, Charles M Cleland2, L Miriam Dickinson3, Michael P Barry4, Samuel Cykert5, F Daniel Duffy6, Anton J Kuzel7, Stephan R Lindner8, Michael L Parchman9, Donna R Shelley10, Theresa L Walunas11. 1. Rutgers University, Center for State Health Policy, New Brunswick, New Jersey anguyen@ifh.rutgers.edu. 2. NYU Langone Health, New York, New York. 3. University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado. 4. SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University College of Medicine, Brooklyn, New York. 5. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 6. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 7. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 8. Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 9. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 10. New York University School of Global Public Health, New York, New York. 11. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite the growing popularity of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) for practice-based research, the design's advantages and challenges are not well documented. The objective of this study was to identify the advantages and challenges of the SW-CRT design for large-scale intervention implementations in primary care settings. METHODS: The EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health initiative, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, included a large collection of SW-CRTs. We conducted qualitative interviews with 17 key informants from EvidenceNOW grantees to identify the advantages and challenges of using SW-CRT design. RESULTS: All interviewees reported that SW-CRT can be an effective study design for large-scale intervention implementations. Advantages included (1) incentivized recruitment, (2) staggered resource allocation, and (3) statistical power. Challenges included (1) time-sensitive recruitment, (2) retention, (3) randomization requirements and practice preferences, (4) achieving treatment schedule fidelity, (5) intensive data collection, (6) the Hawthorne effect, and (7) temporal trends. CONCLUSIONS: The challenges experienced by EvidenceNOW grantees suggest that certain favorable real-world conditions constitute a context that increases the odds of a successful SW-CRT. An existing infrastructure can support the recruitment of many practices. Strong retention plans are needed to continue to engage sites waiting to start the intervention. Finally, study outcomes should be ones already captured in routine practice; otherwise, funders and investigators should assess the feasibility and cost of data collection.VISUAL ABSTRACT.
PURPOSE: Despite the growing popularity of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) for practice-based research, the design's advantages and challenges are not well documented. The objective of this study was to identify the advantages and challenges of the SW-CRT design for large-scale intervention implementations in primary care settings. METHODS: The EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health initiative, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, included a large collection of SW-CRTs. We conducted qualitative interviews with 17 key informants from EvidenceNOW grantees to identify the advantages and challenges of using SW-CRT design. RESULTS: All interviewees reported that SW-CRT can be an effective study design for large-scale intervention implementations. Advantages included (1) incentivized recruitment, (2) staggered resource allocation, and (3) statistical power. Challenges included (1) time-sensitive recruitment, (2) retention, (3) randomization requirements and practice preferences, (4) achieving treatment schedule fidelity, (5) intensive data collection, (6) the Hawthorne effect, and (7) temporal trends. CONCLUSIONS: The challenges experienced by EvidenceNOW grantees suggest that certain favorable real-world conditions constitute a context that increases the odds of a successful SW-CRT. An existing infrastructure can support the recruitment of many practices. Strong retention plans are needed to continue to engage sites waiting to start the intervention. Finally, study outcomes should be ones already captured in routine practice; otherwise, funders and investigators should assess the feasibility and cost of data collection.VISUAL ABSTRACT.
Authors: Emma Beard; James J Lewis; Andrew Copas; Calum Davey; David Osrin; Gianluca Baio; Jennifer A Thompson; Katherine L Fielding; Rumana Z Omar; Sam Ononge; James Hargreaves; Audrey Prost Journal: Trials Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jennifer A Thompson; Katherine L Fielding; Calum Davey; Alexander M Aiken; James R Hargreaves; Richard J Hayes Journal: Stat Med Date: 2017-05-28 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Kaustubh Joag; Guillermo Ambrosio; Edgar Kestler; Charles Weijer; Karla Hemming; Rieke Van der Graaf Journal: Trials Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Susan N Hastings; Karen M Stechuchak; Ashley Choate; Elizabeth P Mahanna; Courtney Van Houtven; Kelli D Allen; Virginia Wang; Nina Sperber; Leah Zullig; Hayden B Bosworth; Cynthia J Coffman Journal: Trials Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Tom Marshall; Michael Caley; Karla Hemming; Paramjit Gill; Nicola Gale; Kate Jolly Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 3.295