Search

In contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials, embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted within healthcare settings with real-world patient populations. ePCTs are intentionally designed to align with health system priorities leveraging existing healthcare system infrastructure and resources to ease intervention implementation and increase the likelihood that effective interventions translate into routine practice following the trial. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), supports the conduct of large-scale ePCT Demonstration Projects that address major public health issues within healthcare systems. The Collaboratory has a unique opportunity to draw on the Demonstration Project experiences to generate lessons learned related to ePCTs and the dissemination and implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs. In this article, we use case studies from six completed Demonstration Projects to summarize the Collaboratory's experience with post-trial interpretation of results, and implications for sustainment (or de-implementation) of tested interventions. We highlight three key lessons learned. First, ineffective interventions (i.e., ePCT is null for the primary outcome) may be sustained if they have other measured benefits (e.g., secondary outcome or subgroup) or even perceived benefits (e.g., staff like the intervention). Second, effective interventions-even those solicited by the health system and/or designed with significant health system partner buy-in-may not be sustained if they require significant resources. Third, alignment with policy incentives is essential for achieving sustainment and scale-up of effective interventions. Our experiences point to several recommendations to aid in considering post-trial sustainment or de-implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs: (1) include secondary outcome measures that are salient to health system partners; (2) collect all appropriate data to allow for post hoc analysis of subgroups; (3) collect experience data from clinicians and staff; (4) engage policy-makers before starting the trial.

Background: Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is an effective colorectal cancer screening modality. Little is known about prevalence, reasons, and testing after unsatisfactory FIT, or a FIT that cannot be processed by the laboratory due to inadequate stool specimen or incomplete labeling. Methods: Our retrospective cohort study examined unsatisfactory FIT among average-risk individuals aged 50-74 years in a large, integrated, safety-net health system who completed an index FIT from 2010 to 2019. We determined prevalence of unsatisfactory FIT and categorized reasons hierarchically. We used multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with: (i) unsatisfactory FIT; and (ii) subsequent testing within 15 months of the unsatisfactory FIT. Results: Of 56,980 individuals completing an index FIT, 10.2% had an unsatisfactory FIT. Reasons included inadequate specimen (51%), incomplete labeling (27%), old specimen (13%), and broken/leaking container (8%). Unsatisfactory FIT was associated with being male [OR, 1.10; confidence interval (CI), 1.03-1.16], Black (OR, 1.46; CI, 1.33-1.61), Spanish speaking (OR, 1.12; CI, 1.01-1.24), on Medicaid (OR, 1.42; CI, 1.28-1.58), and received FIT by mail (OR, 2.66; CI, 2.35-3.01). Among those with an unsatisfactory FIT, fewer than half (41%) completed a subsequent test within 15 months (median, 4.4 months). Adults aged 50-54 years (OR, 1.16; CI, 1.01-1.39) and those who received FIT by mail (OR, 1.92; CI, 1.49-2.09) were more likely to complete a subsequent test. Conclusions: One in ten returned a FIT that could not be processed, mostly due to patient-related reasons. Fewer than half completed a subsequent test after unsatisfactory FIT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is an effective colorectal cancer screening modality. Little is known about prevalence, reasons, and testing after unsatisfactory FIT, or a FIT that cannot be processed by the laboratory due to inadequate stool specimen or incomplete labeling., Methods: Our retrospective cohort study examined unsatisfactory FIT among average-risk individuals aged 50-74 years in a large, integrated, safety-net health system who completed an index FIT from 2010 to 2019. We determined prevalence of unsatisfactory FIT and categorized reasons hierarchically. We used multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with: (i) unsatisfactory FIT; and (ii) subsequent testing within 15 months of the unsatisfactory FIT., Results: Of 56,980 individuals completing an index FIT, 10.2% had an unsatisfactory FIT. Reasons included inadequate specimen (51%), incomplete labeling (27%), old specimen (13%), and broken/leaking container (8%). Unsatisfactory FIT was associated with being male [OR, 1.10; confidence interval (CI), 1.03-1.16], Black (OR, 1.46; CI, 1.33-1.61), Spanish speaking (OR, 1.12; CI, 1.01-1.24), on Medicaid (OR, 1.42; CI, 1.28-1.58), and received FIT by mail (OR, 2.66; CI, 2.35-3.01). Among those with an unsatisfactory FIT, fewer than half (41%) completed a subsequent test within 15 months (median, 4.4 months). Adults aged 50-54 years (OR, 1.16; CI, 1.01-1.39) and those who received FIT by mail (OR, 1.92; CI, 1.49-2.09) were more likely to complete a subsequent test., Conclusions: One in ten returned a FIT that could not be processed, mostly due to patient-related reasons. Fewer than half completed a subsequent test after unsatisfactory FIT., Impact: Screening programs should address these breakdowns such as specimen collection and labeling to improve real-world effectiveness. See related In the Spotlight, p. 183., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)