Readiness assessment for pragmatic trials (RAPT): a model to assess the readiness of an intervention for testing in a pragmatic trial.

Effectiveness Framework Implementation science Model Pragmatic clinical trial Pragmatic trial Translational research

Journal

BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 07 2019
Historique:
received: 15 04 2019
accepted: 03 07 2019
entrez: 20 7 2019
pubmed: 20 7 2019
medline: 11 6 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Pragmatic randomized, controlled trials (PCTs) test the effectiveness of interventions implemented in routine clinical practice. Because PCT findings are generalizable, this approach is gaining momentum among interventionists and funding agencies seeking to accelerate the testing and adoption of evidence-based strategies to improve care and outcomes. Particular attention is being paid to non-pharmacological interventions, which are often complex and may be difficult to uniformly implement across multiple sites. While many such non-pharmacological interventions have proven efficacious in small trials, most have not been widely adopted. PCTs could accelerate effectiveness testing and adoption, yet there are no established criteria to identify interventions ready for testing in a PCT. We convened 30 interventionists and healthcare leaders to identify criteria to assess the readiness of non-pharmacological interventions for PCTs. Based on this discussion, we created a model with multiple domains, qualitative scoring guidelines for each domain, and a graphical summary of readiness assessments. All workshop participants had an opportunity to review and comment on the resulting model; three piloted it with their own interventions. Several other experts also provided input. The Readiness Assessment for Pragmatic Trials (RAPT) model enables interventionists to assess an intervention's readiness for PCTs. RAPT includes nine domains: implementation protocol, evidence, risk, feasibility, measurement, cost, acceptability, alignment, and impact. Domains reflect a range of considerations regarding the feasibility of successfully employing PCT methods and the prospect of an intervention's widespread adoption, if proven effective. Individuals evaluating an intervention are asked to qualitatively assess each domain from low to high readiness. In this report, we provide assessment guidelines and examples of scored interventions. RAPT is the first model to help interventionists and funders assess the extent to which interventions are ready for PCTs. Scoring efficacious interventions using RAPT can inform research team discussions regarding whether or not to advance an intervention to effectiveness testing using a PCT and how do design that PCTs.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Pragmatic randomized, controlled trials (PCTs) test the effectiveness of interventions implemented in routine clinical practice. Because PCT findings are generalizable, this approach is gaining momentum among interventionists and funding agencies seeking to accelerate the testing and adoption of evidence-based strategies to improve care and outcomes. Particular attention is being paid to non-pharmacological interventions, which are often complex and may be difficult to uniformly implement across multiple sites. While many such non-pharmacological interventions have proven efficacious in small trials, most have not been widely adopted. PCTs could accelerate effectiveness testing and adoption, yet there are no established criteria to identify interventions ready for testing in a PCT.
METHODS
We convened 30 interventionists and healthcare leaders to identify criteria to assess the readiness of non-pharmacological interventions for PCTs. Based on this discussion, we created a model with multiple domains, qualitative scoring guidelines for each domain, and a graphical summary of readiness assessments. All workshop participants had an opportunity to review and comment on the resulting model; three piloted it with their own interventions. Several other experts also provided input.
RESULTS
The Readiness Assessment for Pragmatic Trials (RAPT) model enables interventionists to assess an intervention's readiness for PCTs. RAPT includes nine domains: implementation protocol, evidence, risk, feasibility, measurement, cost, acceptability, alignment, and impact. Domains reflect a range of considerations regarding the feasibility of successfully employing PCT methods and the prospect of an intervention's widespread adoption, if proven effective. Individuals evaluating an intervention are asked to qualitatively assess each domain from low to high readiness. In this report, we provide assessment guidelines and examples of scored interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
RAPT is the first model to help interventionists and funders assess the extent to which interventions are ready for PCTs. Scoring efficacious interventions using RAPT can inform research team discussions regarding whether or not to advance an intervention to effectiveness testing using a PCT and how do design that PCTs.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31319789
doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0794-9
pii: 10.1186/s12874-019-0794-9
pmc: PMC6637482
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

156

Subventions

Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : P01 AG027296
Pays : United States

Références

J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Jan;63(1):165-9
pubmed: 25537789
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 May;62(5):464-75
pubmed: 19348971
Nonpharmacol Ther Dement. 2012;2(2):101-110
pubmed: 23828731
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018 Jul;19(7):560-562
pubmed: 29656839
Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(2):217-24
pubmed: 21842619
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Dec;64(12):2424-2432
pubmed: 27861718
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Mar;64(3):477-88
pubmed: 27000321
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Nov;64(11):2385-2392
pubmed: 27676237

Auteurs

Rosa R Baier (RR)

Center for Long-Term Care Quality & Innovation, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-6, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA. Rosa_Baier@Brown.edu.
Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-6, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA. Rosa_Baier@Brown.edu.

Eric Jutkowitz (E)

Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-6, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Center for Gerontology & Healthcare Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-6, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.

Susan L Mitchell (SL)

Center for Gerontology & Healthcare Practice, 1200 Centre Street, Boston, MA, 02131, USA.

Ellen McCreedy (E)

Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-6, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Center for Gerontology & Healthcare Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-6, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.

Vincent Mor (V)

Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-6, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Center for Gerontology & Healthcare Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-6, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH