Background
Methods
Ethics
Setting
Project title | Research question | Setting | Patient population | Design | Example of changes during planning period |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Active Bathing to Eliminate Infection (ABATE Infection) | Does routine daily bathing with antiseptic soap for all patients plus targeted use of a nasal antibiotic ointment for MRSA carriers reduce multidrug resistant organisms and bloodstream infections in general medical, surgical, and oncology inpatient units? | Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) | Inpatients in non-critical care units at 53 U.S. HCA hospitals. Units where chlorhexidine bathing or nasal decolonization is common were excluded. | Cluster randomized trial of hospitals to compare two quality improvement strategies to reduce multidrug resistant organisms and bloodstream infections in non-critical care units. The two strategies to be evaluated are: | No changes of note. |
Arm 1: Routine Care - Routine policy for showering/bathing | |||||
Arm 2: Decolonization - Use of chlorhexidine as routine soap for showering or bed bathing for all patients plus mupirocin × 5 days if MRSA+ by history, culture, or screen | |||||
A Pragmatic Trial of Lumbar Image Reporting with Epidemiology (LIRE) | Does adding epidemiologic benchmark data to spine imaging reports decrease subsequent back-related healthcare utilization? | Primary care clinics within the Kaiser Permanente-Northern California, Group Health Cooperative, Mayo Clinic Health System, and Henry Ford Health System | Approximately 150,000 adults for whom a primary care provider has requested imaging of the lumbar spine | Cluster randomized trial comparing typical imaging reports to those that include benchmarks prevalence data of findings in patients without back pain. | Clinics with a single provider were excluded, making recruitment slightly more restricted. |
Collaborative Care for Chronic Pain in Primary Care (PPACT) | Does an interdisciplinary team-based program sited in primary care help patients manage chronic pain? | Primary practices in three Kaiser Permanente regions | Approximately 1,000 patients prioritized by their providers who have nonmalignant chronic pain and who are on long-term opioid therapy. | Mixed-methods cluster-randomized trial comparing multispecialty services within the primary care setting to usual care. The intervention is an integrated, interdisciplinary program that guides all pain-related care for intervention patients. It is embedded into everyday clinical practice flow utilizing assessment measures and intervention staff directly from the clinical care system. | Study infrastructure built to support and bolster EMR-based patient reported outcome data collection. |
Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) | Does an evidence-based, culturally tailored approach increase colorectal cancer screening in clinics that serve minority and low-income populations? | Federally Qualified Health Center clinics | 30,000 patients aged 50 to 74 with no evidence of having had a recent colorectal cancer screening exam (fecal test, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy), and no history of colorectal disease. | Cluster randomized trial comparing usual care to intervention. The intervention consists of an automated data-driven, electronic health record-linked program for mailing FIT kits (with linguistically appropriate pictographic instructions and return postage) to patients due for CRC screening. | STOP CRC allowed patient reminders to be sent by email or letter and used a standard, well-validated quality improvement process (Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles) to facilitate program adaptations. |
Time to Reduce Mortality in End-Stage Renal Disease (TiME) | Does systematically implementing a hemodialysis session duration of at least 4.25 hours improve survival, reduce hospitalizations and improve quality of life for patients with end-stage kidney disease? | Two large dialysis provider organizations | 6432 patients with end stage renal disease treated by thrice weekly maintenance hemodialysis | Cluster-randomized, parallel-group clinical trial for patients initiating treatment with maintenance hemodialysis. Facilities are randomized in a 1:1 distribution to either: Intervention arm: recommend dialysis session durations of at least 4.25 hours for all patients initiating hemodialysis treatment regardless of body size or dialysis solute clearance measurements, or Usual care arm: no trial-driven approach to session duration. | 24 hour urine collection eliminated and the quality of life survey was changed to the survey administered as part of routine care. |
Participants/Raters
Rating procedures
Training
Analysis
Results
Comparison of domains across trials
PRECIS domain | ABATE Infection | LIRE | PPACT | STOP CRC | TiME |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD, Median) | Mean (SD, Median) | Mean (SD, Median) | Mean (SD, Median) | Mean (SD, Median) | |
Eligibility | 3.9 (1.1, 4.0) | 4.3 (0.9, 4.5) | 3.4 (1.1, 3.5) | 4.4 (0.5, 4.0) | 4.8 (0.7, 5.0) |
Recruitment | 4.5 (1.1, 5.0) | 4.8 (0.5, 5.0) | 3.6 (0.9, 4.0) | 3.9 (0.8, 4.0) | 4.6 (0.7, 5.0) |
Setting | 4.0 (1.1, 4.0) | 4.0 (0.9, 4.0) | 4.0 (1.1, 4.0) | 4.3 (0.7, 4.0) | 4.4 (0.7, 4.5) |
Organization | 2.6 (1.2, 2.5) | 3.8 (0.9, 3.5) | 2.9 (0.8, 3.0) | 2.9 (0.8, 3.0) | 4.4 (1.1, 5.0) |
Delivery | 2.1 (1.0, 2.0) | 4.5 (0.8, 5.0) | 3.0 (0.5, 3.0) | 3.8 (0.5, 4.0) | 4.1 (0.6, 4.0) |
Adherence | 3.4 (1.4, 3.5) | 4.5 (0.8, 5.0) | 2.8 (0.7, 3.0) | 3.8 (0.9, 3.5) | 4.4 (0.7, 4.5) |
Follow-up intensity | 3.4 (1.2, 3.0) | 4.9 (0.4, 5.0) | 3.9 (0.6, 4.0) | 3.9 (0.8, 4.0) | 4.6 (0.5, 5.0) |
Primary outcome | 3.5 (1.1, 3.0) | 3.6 (0.9, 4.0) | 4.6 (0.5, 5.0) | 3.9 (1.1, 4.0) | 4.9 (0.4, 5.0) |
Analysis | 4.5 (0.8, 5.0) | 4.5 (0.5, 4.5) | 4.9 (0.4, 5.0) | 4.9 (0.4, 5.0) | 4.5 (0.8, 5.0) |
Overall composite | |||||
Median rating | 3.5 | 4.5 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 4.5 |
Mean rating | 3.5 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 4.0 | 4.5 |
AC1 statistic | 0.08 | 0.29* | 0.23* | 0.28* | 0.40* |
Intraclass correlation coefficient | 0.31 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.06 |
Reliability
Change over time
Rater comments
Domain | More pragmatic: examples from training | More explanatory: examples from training | Study criteria noted by raters that training did not specifically address | Rating commentary |
---|---|---|---|---|
Eligibility: who is selected to participate in the trial? | Participants essentially identical to those who would receive the intervention if it was in usual care: both health care systems and patients | Lots of exclusions (for example, those who do not comply, respond to treatment, or are not at high risk for primary outcome, are children or elderly), or use many selection tests not used in usual care. | Cognitive impairment; clinic size; clinic willingness to participate; patient willingness to consent (more explanatory) | Differentiating site vs. patient eligibility |
Especially for complex or novel interventions, are exclusions based on comorbidities any different for intervention than what would occur in usual care? | ||||
Recruitment: how are participants recruited into the trial? | Usual appointment or clinic | Targeted invitation letters, advertising in newspapers, radio plus incentives and other routes that would not be used in usual care | Informed consent procedures; extra screening procedures in EHR (more explanatory) | None noted |
Setting: where is the trial being done? | Setting of trial identical to usual care setting | A very explanatory approach would occur only a single center, or only specialized trial or academic centers | Diversity in terms of number, location, and organization type considered in very pragmatic ratings; regional studies, studies conducted in one type of health care system; consent requirements considered in more explanatory ratings | There are many dimensions to consider when comparing the setting to usual care. For example, was the goal to rate compared to a particular type of setting such as safety net clinics or to include multiple types of health systems? Additionally, participating institutions tended to have good quality improvement capacity; it is difficult to rate how this compares to “typical” settings. |
Organization: what expertise and resources are needed to deliver the intervention? | Resources, provider expertise and the organization of care delivery in the intervention arm identical to usual care | Trial increases staff levels, gives additional training, requires more than usual experience or certification and increases resources | Space, intervention delivery, outreach (more explanatory). A train the trainer approach is one way to make training procedures more pragmatic. | It was noted that many of these trials take place in innovative health systems that may not be typical of the country, potentially conflating setting and organization. |
Difficult to determine weight or importance of organization at provider level versus organization at IT or administration level. | ||||
The amount of effort undertaken to maintain ‘adherence’ at the organizational level was not particularly well documented. | ||||
Flexibility of delivery: how should the intervention be delivered? | Flexibility in delivering intervention identical to usual care | If there is a strict protocol, monitoring and measures to improve compliance, with specific advice on allowed co-interventions and complications | An example noted was that guidance in place but provider can deviate from it or the guidance can be modified over time based on stakeholder feedback | What happens if there is a strict protocol in usual care as well? |
Flexibility of adherence: what measures are in place to make sure participants adhere to the intervention? | No more than usual encouragement to adhere to the intervention | Exclusion based on adherence, and measures to improve adherence if found wanting | Distinguishing adherence encouragement that would happen in usual care from the intervention. At the clinic/provider level, monitoring was interpreted to relate both to flexibility of delivery and adherence. | |
Follow-up: how closely are the participants followed-up? | No more than usual follow-up | More frequent, longer visits, unscheduled visits triggered by primary outcome event or intervening event, and more extensive data collection | Use of electronic records (more pragmatic); additional contacts, additional measures (more explanatory) | None noted |
Primary outcome: how relevant is it to participants? | Outcome measure very relevant to participants | Using a surrogate, physiological outcome, central adjudication or use assessment expertise that is not available in usual care, or the outcome is measured at an earlier time than in usual care | Implementation feasibility or other procedural details (more explanatory) | How to handle clinic- versus patient-relevant outcomes |
Primary analysis: to what extent are all data included? | intention to treat with all available data | Excludes ineligible post-randomization participants, includes only completers or those following the treatment protocol | Extensive analytic details were not available in the materials raters had available. |