Rationale and design of the Novel Uses of adaptive Designs to Guide provider Engagement in Electronic Health Records (NUDGE-EHR) pragmatic adaptive randomized trial: a trial protocol.
Adaptive trial
Decision support
Deprescribing
Older adults
Pragmatic trial
Prescribing
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 01 2021
07 01 2021
Historique:
received:
25
11
2020
accepted:
22
12
2020
entrez:
8
1
2021
pubmed:
9
1
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The prescribing of high-risk medications to older adults remains extremely common and results in potentially avoidable health consequences. Efforts to reduce prescribing have had limited success, in part because they have been sub-optimally timed, poorly designed, or not provided actionable information. Electronic health record (EHR)-based tools are commonly used but have had limited application in facilitating deprescribing in older adults. The objective is to determine whether designing EHR tools using behavioral science principles reduces inappropriate prescribing and clinical outcomes in older adults. The Novel Uses of Designs to Guide provider Engagement in Electronic Health Records (NUDGE-EHR) project uses a two-stage, 16-arm adaptive randomized pragmatic trial with a "pick-the-winner" design to identify the most effective of many potential EHR tools among primary care providers and their patients ≥ 65 years chronically using benzodiazepines, sedative hypnotic ("Z-drugs"), or anticholinergics in a large integrated delivery system. In stage 1, we randomized providers and their patients to usual care (n = 81 providers) or one of 15 EHR tools (n = 8 providers per arm) designed using behavioral principles including salience, choice architecture, or defaulting. After 6 months of follow-up, we will rank order the arms based upon their impact on the trial's primary outcome (for both stages): reduction in inappropriate prescribing (via discontinuation or tapering). In stage 2, we will randomize (a) stage 1 usual care providers in a 1:1 ratio to one of the up to 5 most promising stage 1 interventions or continue usual care and (b) stage 1 providers in the unselected arms in a 1:1 ratio to one of the 5 most promising interventions or usual care. Secondary and tertiary outcomes include quantities of medication prescribed and utilized and clinically significant adverse outcomes. Stage 1 launched in October 2020. We plan to complete stage 2 follow-up in December 2021. These results will advance understanding about how behavioral science can optimize EHR decision support to improve prescribing and health outcomes. Adaptive trials have rarely been used in implementation science, so these findings also provide insight into how trials in this field could be more efficiently conducted. Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04284553 , registered: February 26, 2020).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The prescribing of high-risk medications to older adults remains extremely common and results in potentially avoidable health consequences. Efforts to reduce prescribing have had limited success, in part because they have been sub-optimally timed, poorly designed, or not provided actionable information. Electronic health record (EHR)-based tools are commonly used but have had limited application in facilitating deprescribing in older adults. The objective is to determine whether designing EHR tools using behavioral science principles reduces inappropriate prescribing and clinical outcomes in older adults.
METHODS
The Novel Uses of Designs to Guide provider Engagement in Electronic Health Records (NUDGE-EHR) project uses a two-stage, 16-arm adaptive randomized pragmatic trial with a "pick-the-winner" design to identify the most effective of many potential EHR tools among primary care providers and their patients ≥ 65 years chronically using benzodiazepines, sedative hypnotic ("Z-drugs"), or anticholinergics in a large integrated delivery system. In stage 1, we randomized providers and their patients to usual care (n = 81 providers) or one of 15 EHR tools (n = 8 providers per arm) designed using behavioral principles including salience, choice architecture, or defaulting. After 6 months of follow-up, we will rank order the arms based upon their impact on the trial's primary outcome (for both stages): reduction in inappropriate prescribing (via discontinuation or tapering). In stage 2, we will randomize (a) stage 1 usual care providers in a 1:1 ratio to one of the up to 5 most promising stage 1 interventions or continue usual care and (b) stage 1 providers in the unselected arms in a 1:1 ratio to one of the 5 most promising interventions or usual care. Secondary and tertiary outcomes include quantities of medication prescribed and utilized and clinically significant adverse outcomes.
DISCUSSION
Stage 1 launched in October 2020. We plan to complete stage 2 follow-up in December 2021. These results will advance understanding about how behavioral science can optimize EHR decision support to improve prescribing and health outcomes. Adaptive trials have rarely been used in implementation science, so these findings also provide insight into how trials in this field could be more efficiently conducted.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04284553 , registered: February 26, 2020).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33413494
doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01078-9
pii: 10.1186/s13012-020-01078-9
pmc: PMC7792313
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04284553']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
9Subventions
Organisme : NLM NIH HHS
ID : R01 LM013352
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R21 AG057388
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R33 AG057388
Pays : United States
Références
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Jun;64(6):1210-22
pubmed: 27321600
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1998 Nov;76(2):149-188
pubmed: 9831520
JAMA. 2018 Nov 13;320(18):1889-1898
pubmed: 30422193
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Jun;174(6):890-8
pubmed: 24733354
JAMA Cardiol. 2021 Jan 1;6(1):48-49
pubmed: 33026415
BMJ Open. 2017 May 9;7(5):e015293
pubmed: 28490560
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 12;2:CD009095
pubmed: 26866421
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Jul-Aug;19(4):635-43
pubmed: 22246963
BMJ Open. 2015 Dec 09;5(12):e009235
pubmed: 26656020
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 23;169(21):1952-60
pubmed: 19933955
J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Apr;23(4):451-8
pubmed: 18373144
Int J Med Inform. 2020 Sep;141:104147
pubmed: 32544822
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Feb 17;162(4):315-6
pubmed: 25581123
CMAJ. 2003 Sep 16;169(6):549-56
pubmed: 12975221
BMJ. 2020 Jun 18;369:m1822
pubmed: 32554566
Drugs Aging. 2018 Apr;35(4):303-319
pubmed: 29541966
Implement Sci. 2016 May 17;11:72
pubmed: 27189233
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Nov;63(11):2227-46
pubmed: 26446832
Drugs Aging. 2018 Jun;35(6):493-521
pubmed: 29705831
Age Ageing. 2011 May;40(3):398-401
pubmed: 21385784
Implement Sci. 2015 Apr 21;10:53
pubmed: 25895742
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Nov-Dec;21(6):1109-12
pubmed: 24928174
Am J Med. 1996 Apr;100(4):428-37
pubmed: 8610730
Prev Chronic Dis. 2015 Jan 15;12:E06
pubmed: 25590600
Lancet. 2007 Jul 14;370(9582):173-184
pubmed: 17630041
Trials. 2016 Mar 19;17(1):150
pubmed: 26993469
BMC Geriatr. 2011 Nov 30;11:79
pubmed: 22129458
JAMA. 2016 Feb 9;315(6):562-70
pubmed: 26864410
Drugs Aging. 2014 Feb;31(2):131-40
pubmed: 24353033
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Jul;66(7):1382-1387
pubmed: 29582410
Age Ageing. 2015 Mar;44(2):213-8
pubmed: 25324330
Annu Rev Public Health. 2017 Mar 20;38:1-22
pubmed: 28384085
JAMA. 2001 Dec 12;286(22):2823-9
pubmed: 11735757
Implement Sci. 2017 Feb 10;12(1):15
pubmed: 28187747
Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2016 Jun 10;12:1341-9
pubmed: 27354804
Healthc (Amst). 2016 Sep;4(3):148-50
pubmed: 27396533
Nat Hum Behav. 2018 Oct;2(10):743-749
pubmed: 31406294
Am J Manag Care. 2015 Jan;21(1):75-84
pubmed: 25880152
Med Care. 2007 Oct;45(10 Supl 2):S38-43
pubmed: 17909381
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Jun;19(e1):e145-8
pubmed: 22534081
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jul-Aug;16(4):480-5
pubmed: 19390107
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 Apr;67(4):674-694
pubmed: 30693946
Drugs Aging. 2013 Nov;30(11):893-900
pubmed: 24062215
Natl Bur Econ Res Bull Aging Health. 2008;(4):1-2
pubmed: 19340980
Am J Public Health. 2013 Jun;103(6):e38-46
pubmed: 23597377
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Nov 18;161(10 Suppl):S44-52
pubmed: 25402402
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 7;375(1):65-74
pubmed: 27406349
Psychol Health Med. 2013;18(6):645-53
pubmed: 23387993
Am J Manag Care. 2015 Dec;21(12):894-9
pubmed: 26671701
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Sep;23(5):891-8
pubmed: 26911828
Drugs Aging. 2014 Dec;31(12):917-27
pubmed: 25398701
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Apr;27(4):438-44
pubmed: 21993999
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Jan 19;164(2):114-9
pubmed: 26595370
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Sep;82(3):583-623
pubmed: 27077231
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 May 1;18(3):327-34
pubmed: 21422100
Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:431-47
pubmed: 23297657