Intervention delivery for embedded pragmatic clinical trials: Development of a tool to measure complexity.

Clinical workflow Complex interventions Implementation

Journal

Contemporary clinical trials
ISSN: 1559-2030
Titre abrégé: Contemp Clin Trials
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101242342

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 2023
Historique:
received: 08 10 2022
revised: 03 01 2023
accepted: 23 01 2023
pmc-release: 01 03 2024
pubmed: 29 1 2023
medline: 11 3 2023
entrez: 28 1 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Conducting an embedded pragmatic clinical trial in the workflow of a healthcare system is a complex endeavor. The complexity of the intervention delivery can have implications for study planning, ability to maintain fidelity to the intervention during the trial, and/or ability to detect meaningful differences in outcomes. We conducted a literature review, developed a tool, and conducted two rounds of phone calls with NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory Demonstration Project principal investigators to develop the Intervention Delivery Complexity Tool. After refining the tool, we piloted it with Collaboratory demonstration projects and developed an online version of the tool using the R Shiny application (https://duke-som.shinyapps.io/ICT-ePCT/). The 6-item tool consists of internal and external factors. Internal factors pertain to the intervention itself and include workflow, training, and the number of intervention components. External factors are related to intervention delivery at the system level including differences in healthcare systems, the dependency on setting for implementation, and the number of steps between the intervention and the outcome. The Intervention Delivery Complexity Tool was developed as a standard way to overcome communication challenges of intervention delivery within an embedded pragmatic trial. This version of the tool is most likely to be useful to the trial team and its health system partners during trial planning and conduct. We expect further evolution of the tool as more pragmatic trials are conducted and feedback is received on its performance outside of the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Conducting an embedded pragmatic clinical trial in the workflow of a healthcare system is a complex endeavor. The complexity of the intervention delivery can have implications for study planning, ability to maintain fidelity to the intervention during the trial, and/or ability to detect meaningful differences in outcomes.
METHODS
We conducted a literature review, developed a tool, and conducted two rounds of phone calls with NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory Demonstration Project principal investigators to develop the Intervention Delivery Complexity Tool. After refining the tool, we piloted it with Collaboratory demonstration projects and developed an online version of the tool using the R Shiny application (https://duke-som.shinyapps.io/ICT-ePCT/).
RESULTS
The 6-item tool consists of internal and external factors. Internal factors pertain to the intervention itself and include workflow, training, and the number of intervention components. External factors are related to intervention delivery at the system level including differences in healthcare systems, the dependency on setting for implementation, and the number of steps between the intervention and the outcome.
CONCLUSION
The Intervention Delivery Complexity Tool was developed as a standard way to overcome communication challenges of intervention delivery within an embedded pragmatic trial. This version of the tool is most likely to be useful to the trial team and its health system partners during trial planning and conduct. We expect further evolution of the tool as more pragmatic trials are conducted and feedback is received on its performance outside of the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36708968
pii: S1551-7144(23)00028-9
doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2023.107105
pmc: PMC10126825
mid: NIHMS1870907
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

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

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

107105

Subventions

Organisme : NCCIH NIH HHS
ID : U24 AT009676
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCCIH NIH HHS
ID : U24 AT010961
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Références

Curr Cardiol Rep. 2016 Aug;18(8):81
pubmed: 27423939
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Oct;90:19-27
pubmed: 28720510
Implement Sci. 2016 Apr 30;11:58
pubmed: 27130272
Pain Med. 2020 Dec 12;21(Suppl 2):S62-S72
pubmed: 33313728
Transl Behav Med. 2019 Nov 25;9(6):1002-1011
pubmed: 31170296
Psychiatry. 2009 Winter;72(4):346-59
pubmed: 20070133
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Apr 26;17(1):76
pubmed: 28446138
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 15;9(8):e029954
pubmed: 31420394
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Sep 18;17(1):144
pubmed: 28923013
BMJ. 2015 May 08;350:h2147
pubmed: 25956159
Contemp Clin Trials. 2022 Feb;113:106646
pubmed: 34863929
BMJ Open. 2020 Jul 14;10(7):e040999
pubmed: 32665394
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Aug 1;180(8):1070-1078
pubmed: 32628258
Clin Trials. 2017 Apr;14(2):140-151
pubmed: 28068789
Contemp Clin Trials. 2014 Jul;38(2):344-9
pubmed: 24937017
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2019 Mar;46(2):255-270
pubmed: 30488143
JAMA Surg. 2021 May 1;156(5):430-474
pubmed: 33688908
Ann Intern Med. 2022 Jan;175(1):46-55
pubmed: 34724405
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Sep 1;178(9):1174-1181
pubmed: 30083752
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1488-1491
pubmed: 32294344
Contemp Clin Trials. 2018 Apr;67:91-99
pubmed: 29522897
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2017 Jun 14;5(1):13
pubmed: 29930961
Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 Nov;45(Pt B):157-163
pubmed: 26493088
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Sep 1;3(9):e2015713
pubmed: 32886121
Contemp Clin Trials. 2022 Aug;119:106816
pubmed: 35714912
Pain. 2021 May 1;162(5):1545-1555
pubmed: 33230010

Auteurs

Karen L Staman (KL)

Duke Clinical Research Institute, CHB Wordsmith, Inc, Raleigh, NC, USA.

Devon K Check (DK)

Population Health Sciences and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.

Doug Zatzick (D)

University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Vincent Mor (V)

Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.

Julie M Fritz (JM)

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Kathleen Sluka (K)

University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, IA, USA.

Lynn L DeBar (LL)

Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.

Jeffrey G Jarvik (JG)

University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Angelo Volandes (A)

Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Gloria D Coronado (GD)

Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA.

David A Chambers (DA)

National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.

Kevin P Weinfurt (KP)

Population Health Sciences and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.

Steven Z George (SZ)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: steven.george@duke.edu.

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