Search

Background: Integrating behavioral health services in primary care is challenging; a toolkit approach to practice implementation can help. A recent comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial examined the impact of a toolkit for improving integration on outcomes for patients with multiple chronic conditions. Some aspects of behavioral health integration improved; patient-reported outcomes did not. This report evaluates the implementation strategy (Toolkit) using Proctor's (2011) implementation outcomes model. Methods: Using data from the 20 practices randomized to the active (toolkit strategy) arm (education, redesign workbooks, online learning community, remote coaching), we identified 23 measures from practice member surveys, coach interviews, reports, and field logs to assess Toolkit acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and fidelity. A practice survey score was high (met expectations) if its average was ≥ 4 on a scale 1-5; all other data were coded dichotomously, with high = 1. Results: Regarding acceptability, 74% (14) of practices had high scores for willingness of providers and staff to use the Toolkit and 68% (13) for quality improvement teams liking the Toolkit. For appropriateness, 95% (19) of practices had high scores for the structured process being a good match and 63% (12) for the Toolkit being a good match. Feasibility, measured by Toolkit prerequisites, was scored lower by site members at project end (e.g., provider leader available as champion: 53% of practices) compared to remote coaches observing practice teams (74%). For "do-ability," coaches rated feasibility lower for practices (e.g., completion of workbook activities: 32%) than the practice teams (68%). Fidelity was low as assessed across seven measures, with 50% to 78% of practices having high scores across the seven measures. Conclusions: Existing data from large trials can be used to describe implementation outcomes. The Toolkit was not implemented with fidelity in at least one quarter of the sites, despite being acceptable and appropriate, possibly due to low feasibility in the form of unmet prerequisites and Toolkit complexity. Variability in fidelity reflects the importance of implementation strategies that fit each organization, suggesting that further study on contextual factors and use of the Toolkit, as well as the relationship of Toolkit use and study outcomes, is needed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983; date of registration: 08/15/2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dissemination and implementation science is an evolving field that focuses on the strategies and mechanisms by which scientific evidence is adopted, used, and sustained in clinical and community practice. Main body: Implementation scientists are confronted by the challenge to balance rigor and generalizability in their work while also attempting to speed the translation of evidence into clinical and community practice. Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation studies and the RE-AIM framework were conceptualized to address these challenges. Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation (HEI) studies provide methods of examining the effectiveness of health promoting interventions while concurrently assessing the utility of dissemination and implementation strategies designed to enhance the application of evidence-based principles in practice. RE-AIM provides a set of planning and evaluation dimensions that can be assessed with a goal to balance internal and external validity. The purpose of this commentary is to provide clarity on definitions of each approach and how to effectively use them together to answer research questions that will advance dissemination and implementation science for health promotion. Conclusions: We provide examples of concerted use of RE-AIM within HEI studies from the literature and focus on language to provide a clarity and consistency across research questions, designs, and settings. We share how to operationalize RE-AIM dimensions in HEI studies for both dissemination and implementation strategies. Future directions include refining, defining, and evaluating each RE-AIM dimension within hybrid studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectivesMethodsResultsConclusionsClinical ImplicationsThe study evaluated the feasibility of implementing Dementia Collaborative Coaching (DCC) into the routine workflow of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working in nursing homes (NHs). DCC is an intervention delivered by SLPs to train nursing assistants (CNAs) in communication strategies to support people living with dementia (PLWD).We assessed the feasibility of identifying eligible PLWD; estimated intervention fidelity; evaluated suitability of outcome measures; and determined the preliminary impact on behavioral and psychological symptoms of distress (BPSD) among PLWD. SLPs completed a semi-structured interview to collect further acceptability data.Four SLPs in four NHs completed DCC with 10 CNAs and 15 eligible PLWD that they appropriately identified from their caseloads. SLPs conducted 90 DCC sessions with 64% fidelity and billed Medicare for all sessions. The outcome measure of Minimum Data Set item E0200B: Rejection of Care did not vary enough to be useful, but positive changes were noted on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory, t(14) = 10.51, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.76. Interviews further indicated feasibility.It is feasible to implement DCC into the workflow of SLPs in NHs.Given the feasibility and preliminary positive impacts, SLPs could consider implementing DCC in routine care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Integrating behavioral health services in primary care is challenging; a toolkit approach to practice implementation can help. A recent comparative effectiveness randomized clinical trial examined the impact of a toolkit for improving integration on outcomes for patients with multiple chronic conditions. Some aspects of behavioral health integration improved; patient-reported outcomes did not. This report evaluates the implementation strategy (Toolkit) using Proctor’s (2011) implementation outcomes model. Methods Using data from the 20 practices randomized to the active (toolkit strategy) arm (education, redesign workbooks, online learning community, remote coaching), we identified 23 measures from practice member surveys, coach interviews, reports, and field logs to assess Toolkit acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and fidelity. A practice survey score was high (met expectations) if its average was ≥ 4 on a scale 1-5; all other data were coded dichotomously, with high = 1. Results Regarding acceptability, 74% (14) of practices had high scores for willingness of providers and staff to use the Toolkit and 68% (13) for quality improvement teams liking the Toolkit. For appropriateness, 95% (19) of practices had high scores for the structured process being a good match and 63% (12) for the Toolkit being a good match. Feasibility, measured by Toolkit prerequisites, was scored lower by site members at project end (e.g., provider leader available as champion: 53% of practices) compared to remote coaches observing practice teams (74%). For “do-ability,” coaches rated feasibility lower for practices (e.g., completion of workbook activities: 32%) than the practice teams (68%). Fidelity was low as assessed across seven measures, with 50% to 78% of practices having high scores across the seven measures. Conclusions Existing data from large trials can be used to describe implementation outcomes. The Toolkit was not implemented with fidelity in at least one quarter of the sites, despite being acceptable and appropriate, possibly due to low feasibility in the form of unmet prerequisites and Toolkit complexity. Variability in fidelity reflects the importance of implementation strategies that fit each organization, suggesting that further study on contextual factors and use of the Toolkit, as well as the relationship of Toolkit use and study outcomes, is needed. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983; date of registration: 08/15/2016.

Abstract Background Dissemination and implementation science is an evolving field that focuses on the strategies and mechanisms by which scientific evidence is adopted, used, and sustained in clinical and community practice. Main body Implementation scientists are confronted by the challenge to balance rigor and generalizability in their work while also attempting to speed the translation of evidence into clinical and community practice. Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation studies and the RE-AIM framework were conceptualized to address these challenges. Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation (HEI) studies provide methods of examining the effectiveness of health promoting interventions while concurrently assessing the utility of dissemination and implementation strategies designed to enhance the application of evidence-based principles in practice. RE-AIM provides a set of planning and evaluation dimensions that can be assessed with a goal to balance internal and external validity. The purpose of this commentary is to provide clarity on definitions of each approach and how to effectively use them together to answer research questions that will advance dissemination and implementation science for health promotion. Conclusions We provide examples of concerted use of RE-AIM within HEI studies from the literature and focus on language to provide a clarity and consistency across research questions, designs, and settings. We share how to operationalize RE-AIM dimensions in HEI studies for both dissemination and implementation strategies. Future directions include refining, defining, and evaluating each RE-AIM dimension within hybrid studies.

Pragmatism in clinical trials is focused on increasing the generalizability of research findings for routine clinical care settings. Hybridism in clinical trials (i.e., assessing both clinical effectiveness and implementation success) is focused on speeding up the process by which evidence-based practices are developed and adopted into routine clinical care. Even though pragmatic trial methodologies and implementation science evolved from very different disciplines, Pragmatic Trials and Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials share many similar design features. In fact, these types of trials can easily be conflated, creating the potential for investigators to mislabel their trial type or mistakenly use the wrong trial type to answer their research question. Blurred boundaries between trial types can hamper the evaluation of grant applications, the scientific interpretation of findings, and policy-making. Acknowledging that most trials are not pure Pragmatic Trials nor pure Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials, there are key differences in these trial types and they answer very different research questions. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the similarities and differences of these trial types for funders, researchers, and policy-makers. In addition, recommendations are offered to help investigators choose, label, and operationalize the most appropriate trial type to answer their research question. These recommendations complement existing reporting guidelines for clinical effectiveness trials (TIDieR) and implementation trials (StaRI). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the benefits and challenges of conducting pragmatic trials using electronic health records (EHRs). Pragmatic trials are crucial for informing clinical practice when there is limited data available. EHRs offer advantages such as accessibility and the ability to enroll large numbers of patients quickly. However, there are unique challenges in conducting EHR-enabled trials, including potential biases and contamination of treatment groups. Real-time monitoring of enrollment and safety events is also difficult. Despite these challenges, EHR-enabled trials have shown promising results in various fields. The article emphasizes the importance of careful planning, monitoring, and validation of data in EHR-enabled trials to ensure accurate and reliable results. It also discusses the potential benefits and limitations of EHR-enabled trials in improving patient care. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Learning health systems (LHSs) iteratively generate evidence that can be implemented into practice to improve care and produce generalizable knowledge. Pragmatic clinical trials fit well within LHSs as they combine real‐world data and experiences with a degree of methodological rigor which supports generalizability. Objectives: We established a pragmatic clinical trial unit ("RapidEval") to support the development of an LHS. To further advance the field of LHS, we sought to further characterize the role of health information technology (HIT), including innovative solutions and challenges that occur, to improve LHS project delivery. Methods: During the period from December 2021 to February 2023, eight projects were selected out of 51 applications to the RapidEval program, of which five were implemented, one is currently in pilot testing, and two are in planning. We evaluated pre‐study planning, implementation, analysis, and study closure approaches across all RapidEval initiatives to summarize approaches across studies and identify key innovations and learnings by gathering data from study investigators, quality staff, and IT staff, as well as RapidEval staff and leadership. Implementation (Results): Implementation approaches spanned a range of HIT capabilities including interruptive alerts, clinical decision support integrated into order systems, patient navigators, embedded micro‐education, targeted outpatient hand‐off documentation, and patient communication. Study approaches include pre‐post with time‐concordant controls (1), randomized stepped‐wedge (1), cluster randomized across providers (1) and location (3), and simple patient level randomization (2). Conclusions: Study selection, design, deployment, data collection, and analysis required close collaboration between data analysts, informaticists, and the RapidEval team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Shared decision‐making (SDM) is a method of care by which patients and clinicians work together to co‐create a plan of care. Electronic health record (EHR) integration of SDM tools may increase adoption of SDM. We conducted a "lightweight" integration of a freely available electronic SDM tool, CV Prevention Choice, within the EHRs of three healthcare systems. Here, we report how the healthcare systems collaborated to achieve integration. Methods: This work was conducted as part of a stepped wedge randomized pragmatic trial. CV Prevention Choice was developed using guidelines for HTML5‐based web applications. Healthcare systems integrated the tool in their EHR using documentation the study team developed and refined with lessons learned after each system integrated the electronic SDM tool into their EHR. CV Prevention Choice integration populates the tool with individual patient data locally without sending protected health information between the EHR and the web. Data abstraction and secure transfer systems were developed to manage data collection to assess tool implementation and effectiveness outcomes. Results: Time to integrate CV Prevention Choice in the EHR was 12.1 weeks for the first system, 10.4 weeks for the second, and 9.7 weeks for the third. One system required two 1‐hour meetings with study team members and two healthcare systems required a single 1‐hour meeting. Healthcare system information technology teams collaborated by sharing information and offering improvements to documentation. Challenges included tracking CV Prevention Choice use for reporting and capture of combination medications. Data abstraction required refinements to address differences in how each healthcare system captured data elements. Conclusion: Targeted documentation on tool features and resource mapping supported collaboration of IT teams across healthcare systems, enabling them to integrate a web‐based SDM tool with little additional research team effort or oversight. Their collaboration helped overcome difficulties integrating the web application and address challenges to data harmonization for trial outcome analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all‐cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half‐life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking. Methods and results: The TRANSFORM‐HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long‐term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post‐hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30–<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ‐CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30–<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all‐cause mortality and all‐cause (re)‐hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p‐value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ‐CSS (p‐value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously. Conclusion: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient‐reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Learning health systems (LHSs) iteratively generate evidence that can be implemented into practice to improve care and produce generalizable knowledge. Pragmatic clinical trials fit well within LHSs as they combine real‐world data and experiences with a degree of methodological rigor which supports generalizability. Objectives We established a pragmatic clinical trial unit (“RapidEval”) to support the development of an LHS. To further advance the field of LHS, we sought to further characterize the role of health information technology (HIT), including innovative solutions and challenges that occur, to improve LHS project delivery. Methods During the period from December 2021 to February 2023, eight projects were selected out of 51 applications to the RapidEval program, of which five were implemented, one is currently in pilot testing, and two are in planning. We evaluated pre‐study planning, implementation, analysis, and study closure approaches across all RapidEval initiatives to summarize approaches across studies and identify key innovations and learnings by gathering data from study investigators, quality staff, and IT staff, as well as RapidEval staff and leadership. Implementation (Results) Implementation approaches spanned a range of HIT capabilities including interruptive alerts, clinical decision support integrated into order systems, patient navigators, embedded micro‐education, targeted outpatient hand‐off documentation, and patient communication. Study approaches include pre‐post with time‐concordant controls (1), randomized stepped‐wedge (1), cluster randomized across providers (1) and location (3), and simple patient level randomization (2). Conclusions Study selection, design, deployment, data collection, and analysis required close collaboration between data analysts, informaticists, and the RapidEval team.

Abstract Introduction Shared decision‐making (SDM) is a method of care by which patients and clinicians work together to co‐create a plan of care. Electronic health record (EHR) integration of SDM tools may increase adoption of SDM. We conducted a “lightweight” integration of a freely available electronic SDM tool, CV Prevention Choice, within the EHRs of three healthcare systems. Here, we report how the healthcare systems collaborated to achieve integration. Methods This work was conducted as part of a stepped wedge randomized pragmatic trial. CV Prevention Choice was developed using guidelines for HTML5‐based web applications. Healthcare systems integrated the tool in their EHR using documentation the study team developed and refined with lessons learned after each system integrated the electronic SDM tool into their EHR. CV Prevention Choice integration populates the tool with individual patient data locally without sending protected health information between the EHR and the web. Data abstraction and secure transfer systems were developed to manage data collection to assess tool implementation and effectiveness outcomes. Results Time to integrate CV Prevention Choice in the EHR was 12.1 weeks for the first system, 10.4 weeks for the second, and 9.7 weeks for the third. One system required two 1‐hour meetings with study team members and two healthcare systems required a single 1‐hour meeting. Healthcare system information technology teams collaborated by sharing information and offering improvements to documentation. Challenges included tracking CV Prevention Choice use for reporting and capture of combination medications. Data abstraction required refinements to address differences in how each healthcare system captured data elements. Conclusion Targeted documentation on tool features and resource mapping supported collaboration of IT teams across healthcare systems, enabling them to integrate a web‐based SDM tool with little additional research team effort or oversight. Their collaboration helped overcome difficulties integrating the web application and address challenges to data harmonization for trial outcome analyses.

BackgroundFalls are common in older adults and can lead to severe injuries. The Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial cluster-randomized 86 primary care practices across 10 health systems to a multifactorial intervention to prevent fall injuries, delivered by registered nurses trained as falls care managers, or enhanced usual care. STRIDE enrolled 5451 community-dwelling older adults age ≥70 at increased fall injury risk.MethodsWe assessed fall-related outcomes via telephone interviews of participants (or proxies) every 4 months. At baseline, 12 and 24 months, we assessed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS. We used Poisson models to assess intervention effects on falls, fall-related fractures, fall injuries leading to hospital admission, and fall injuries leading to medical attention. We used hierarchical longitudinal linear models to assess HRQOL.ResultsFor recurrent event models, intervention versus control incidence rate ratios were 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.00; p = 0.048) for falls, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.80-1.08; p = 0.337) for self-reported fractures, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.73-1.07; p = 0.205) for adjudicated fractures, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.77-1.07; p = 0.263) for falls leading to hospital admission, and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.89-1.06; p = 0.477) for falls leading to medical attention. Similar effect sizes (non-significant) were obtained for dichotomous outcomes (e.g., participants with ≥1 events). The difference in least square mean change over time in EQ-5D-5L (intervention minus control) was 0.009 (95% CI, -0.002 to 0.019; p = 0.106) at 12 months and 0.005 (95% CI, -0.006 to 0.015; p = 0.384) at 24 months.ConclusionsAcross a standard set of outcomes typically reported in fall prevention studies, we observed modest improvements, one of which was statistically significant. Future work should focus on patient-, practice-, and organization-level operational strategies to increase the real-world effectiveness of interventions, and improving the ability to detect small but potentially meaningful clinical effects.Clinicaltrialsgov identifier: NCT02475850.

Purpose: The purpose of this research was to examine the effectiveness of using a nudge strategy to encourage eligible clients to participate in colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) at primary care facilities. Additionally, it emphasizes the good outcomes of utilizing nudge in primary healthcare settings by reflecting on the novel experience of family physicians and nurses in the field of CRCS. Nudge is a cost-effective intervention that serves as a choice architect to assist people in making wise decisions for their lives. It is a subtly changed environment or combination of words that push individuals to make a decision without restricting their alternatives. Research Methods: This is a six-month, pragmatic trial with open-label recruitment that enrolled people with an average CRC risk from four screening healthcare zones that included 34 public primary care facilities. The study protocol is registered and can be accessed here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05785975. Results: An obvious increase in the proportion of the uptake of CRCS screening is higher in the two intervention sites--Al Hait General Hospital Zone (38%) and Al-Shamli General Hospital Zone (26%), than in the two control sites, Bagaa General Hospital Zone (18%) and King Khalid Hospital Zone (18%). Conclusions: Using the nudge strategy to increase CRCS uptake is valuable and effective; additionally, front-line family physicians and nurses in primary care are encouraged to use a planned, positive, and highly selective set of words when offering screening. Policymakers could make use of these research outcomes when designing new guidelines for CRCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the use of the cluster randomized trial (CRT) design to evaluate vaccines, public health interventions or health systems is increasing, the ethical issues posed by the design are not adequately addressed, especially in low- and middle-income country settings (LMICs). To help reveal ethical challenges, qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders experienced in designing and conducting two selected CRTs in Malawi. The 18 interviewed stakeholders included investigators, clinicians, nurses, data management personnel and community workers who were invited to share their experiences related to implementation of CRTs. Data analysis revealed five major themes with ethical implications: (1) The moral obligation for health care providers to participate in health research and its compensation; (2) Suboptimal care services compromising the integrity of CRT; (3) Ensuring scientific validity and withholding care service; (4) Obtaining valid consent and permission for waiver of consent; and (5) Inadequate risk assessment for trial participation. Understanding key ethical issues posed by CRTs in Malawi could improve ethical review and research oversight of this particular study design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pipeline from discovery to testing and then implementing evidence-based innovations in real-world contexts may take 2 decades or more to achieve. Implementation science innovations, such as hybrid studies that combine effectiveness and implementation research questions, may help to bridge the chasm between intervention testing and implementation in dementia care. This paper describes hybrid effectiveness studies and presents 3 examples of dementia care interventions conducted in various community-based settings. Studies that focus on outcomes and implementation processes simultaneously may result in a truncated and more efficient implementation pipeline, thereby providing older persons, their families, health care providers, and communities with the best evidence to improve quality of life and care more rapidly. We offer post-acute and long-term care researchers considerations related to study design, sampling, data collection, and analysis that they can apply to their own dementia and other chronic disease care investigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medicaid-funded home and community-based services (HCBSs) reach large numbers of individuals living with dementia who would otherwise reside in nursing homes with Medicaid funding. Medicaid HCBSs also often augment care provided by family and other informal caregivers to individuals living with dementia. Although Medicaid-funded HCBSs are offered in most states in lieu of nursing home care, they have been largely overlooked as health care system partners for implementation and testing of evidence-based dementia care interventions using embedded pragmatic clinical trial (ePCT) designs. In this article, we make the case for the importance of Medicaid-funded HCBSs as dementia care ePCT partners because of the volume of vulnerable clients with dementia served and the potential positive impacts that evidence-based dementia care programs can have on clients and their informal caregivers. This article first characterizes the Medicaid HCBS setting in terms of populations served and organizational arrangements across states. We then characterize strengths and potential limitations presented by Medicaid HCBSs as settings within which to implement dementia care ePCTs, using as a conceptual framework the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) tool and its domains. We draw on our experiences implementing the Care of Persons with Dementia in their Environments (COPE) program in a statewide Medicaid HCBS setting to highlight how these potential ePCT partners can help optimize pragmatic approaches to several PRECIS-2 domains. We found that partners are especially effective in implementing pragmatic ways to determine eligibility for evidence-based dementia care programs; assist with recruitment of eligible individuals; incorporate dementia care interventions into the range of existing HCBSs; and track outcomes relevant to persons living with dementia, caregivers, HCBS providers, and Medicaid insurance stakeholders. We conclude with recommendations for researchers, potential ePCT partners, and policymakers to help facilitate the growth of dementia care ePCTs in Medicaid HCBS settings across the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conceptual framework of pragmatism in clinical trials is explored using the American Society of Clinical Oncology's pragmatic, non-randomized, phase II, multi-center basket clinical trial, the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study (NCT02693535) as a model. The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study aims to identify signals of drug activity when Food and Drug Administration approved drugs are matched to pre-specified genomic targets in patients with advanced cancer outside of their approved indication(s). The objectives of the study are to generate evidence of potential signals of activity in targeted therapies prescribed in an off-label setting as well as to expose and educate community cancer centers to genomic testing and precision medicine through the study protocol. The principles of pragmatic trial design can be applied across a broad spectrum of evidence-generation strategies, from explanatory trials to real-world evidence studies, and are briefly discussed. American Society of Clinical Oncology's Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study falls closer to the pragmatic end of this spectrum as it seeks to assess the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration approved drugs used outside their approved indications under usual care conditions, yielding results generalizable to the population that would likely receive the intervention in practice, while still adhering to rigorous data quality standards. The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study's pragmatic objectives, characteristics, strengths, and limitations in its implementation are discussed and demonstrate that a large, multi-center, precision medicine basket trial can be mounted in the context of community practice and can generate clinically useful information with minimal burden to patients and clinical trial sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gincy George,1 Beth Russell,1 Anne Rigg,2 Anthony CC Coolen,3 Mieke Van Hemelrijck1 1Translational Oncology and Urology Research, King’s College London, London, UK; 2Guy’s Cancer Centre, Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; 3Department of Biophysics, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Gincy George, King’s College London, Translational Oncology and Urology Research, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom, Email gincy.e.george@kcl.ac.ukAbstract: There is a growing interest in real world evidence when developing antineoplastic drugs owing to the shorter length of time and low costs compared to randomised controlled trials. External validity of studies in the regulatory phase can be enhanced by complementing randomised controlled trials with real world evidence. Furthermore, the use of real world evidence ensures the inclusion of patients often excluded from randomised controlled trials such as the elderly, certain ethnicities or those from certain geographical areas. This review explores approaches in which real world data may be integrated with randomised controlled trials. One approach is by using big data, especially when investigating drugs in the antineoplastic setting. This can even inform artificial intelligence thus ensuring faster and more precise diagnosis and treatment decisions. Pragmatic trials also offer an approach to examine the effectiveness of novel antineoplastic drugs without evading the benefits of randomised controlled trials. A well-designed pragmatic trial would yield results with high external validity by employing a simple study design with a large sample size and diverse settings. Although randomised controlled trials can determine efficacy of antineoplastic drugs, effectiveness in the real world may differ. The need for pragmatic trials to help guide healthcare decision-making led to the development of trials within cohorts (TWICs). TWICs make use of cohorts to conduct multiple randomised controlled trials while maintaining characteristics of real world data in routine clinical practice. Although real world data is often affected by incomplete data and biases such as selection and unmeasured biases, the use of big data and pragmatic approaches can improve the use of real world data in the development of antineoplastic drugs that can in turn steer decision-making in clinical practice.Keywords: real world data, randomised controlled trials, big data, pragmatic trials, TWICs

Abstract Introduction Individuals who have a low socio-economic position (SEP) are more likely to smoke and face greater barriers to quitting tobacco. However, the effectiveness of tailored interventions has been limited probably due to specific challenges relative to this population. We conducted a mixed-method study to better understand health professionals’ perceptions and barriers when implementing a preference-based smoking cessation (SC) intervention among disadvantaged smokers. Methods A self-administered online questionnaire was sent to health professionals (doctors’ and other health professionals specialized in SC) participating in “STOP” a pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial. Perceptions regarding patient eligibility, the doctor-patient relationship, general study organization, and satisfaction were measured. Results Twenty-eight STOP study investigators responded. Health professionals prioritize smoking cessation for disadvantaged patients, but face challenges in approaching and following them. A research intervention providing cessation tools based on preference was deemed useful but generally undermined by time constraints. Health professionals’ preconceptions regarding patients in low SEP having other “pressing problems” which might be exacerbated by quitting smoking were also identified. Further, participation in a research intervention was perceived as not satisfactory due to workload and lack of time. Conclusion Our results highlight general barriers inherent to implementing pragmatic trials. They also present specific challenges in smoking cessation trials among disadvantaged population, essential to advance equity in tobacco control.

Background/aimsWhen participants in individually randomized group treatment trials are treated by multiple clinicians or in multiple group treatment sessions throughout the trial, this induces partially nested clusters which can affect the power of a trial. We investigate this issue in the Whole Health Options and Pain Education trial, a three-arm pragmatic, individually randomized clinical trial. We evaluate whether partial clusters due to multiple visits delivered by different clinicians in the Whole Health Team arm and dynamic participant groups due to changing group leaders and/or participants across treatment sessions during treatment delivery in the Primary Care Group Education arm may impact the power of the trial. We also present a Bayesian approach to estimate the intraclass correlation coefficients.MethodsWe present statistical models for each treatment arm of Whole Health Options and Pain Education trial in which power is estimated under different intraclass correlation coefficients and mapping matrices between participants and clinicians or treatment sessions. Power calculations are based on pairwise comparisons. In practice, sample size calculations depend on estimates of the intraclass correlation coefficients at the treatment sessions and clinician levels. To accommodate such complexities, we present a Bayesian framework for the estimation of intraclass correlation coefficients under different participant-to-session and participant-to-clinician mapping scenarios. We simulated continuous outcome data based on various clinical scenarios in Whole Health Options and Pain Education trial using a range of intraclass correlation coefficients and mapping matrices and used Gibbs samplers with conjugate priors to obtain posteriors of the intraclass correlation coefficients under those different scenarios. Posterior means and medians and their biases are calculated for the intraclass correlation coefficients to evaluate the operating characteristics of the Bayesian intraclass correlation coefficient estimators.ResultsPower for Whole Health Team versus Primary Care Group Education is sensitive to the intraclass correlation coefficient in the Whole Health Team arm. In these two arms, an increased number of clinicians, more evenly distributed workload of clinicians, or more homogeneous treatment group sizes leads to increased power. Our simulation study for the intraclass correlation coefficient estimation indicates that the posterior mean intraclass correlation coefficient estimator has less bias when the true intraclass correlation coefficients are large (i.e. 0.10), but when the intraclass correlation coefficient is small (i.e. 0.01), the posterior median intraclass correlation coefficient estimator is less biased.ConclusionKnowledge of intraclass correlation coefficients and the structure of clustering are critical to the design of individually randomized group treatment trials with partially nested clusters. We demonstrate that the intraclass correlation coefficient of the Whole Health Team arm can affect power in the Whole Health Options and Pain Education trial. A Bayesian approach provides a flexible procedure for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficients under complex scenarios. More work is needed to educate the research community about the individually randomized group treatment design and encourage publication of intraclass correlation coefficients to help inform future trial designs.

Favourable regulatory assessments, liberal policy changes, new research centres and substantial commercial investment signal that psychedelic therapy is making a major comeback. Positive findings from modern trials are catalysing developments, but it is questionable whether current confirmatory trials are sufficient for advancing our understanding of safety and best practice. Here we suggest supplementing traditional confirmatory trials with pragmatic trials, real-world data initiatives and digital health solutions to better support the discovery of optimal and personalised treatment protocols and parameters. These recommendations are intended to help support the development of safe, effective and cost-efficient psychedelic therapy, which, given its history, is vulnerable to excesses of hype and regulation.

BackgroundChronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice's degree of behavioral health integration.MethodsForty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered "Vanguard" (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice's degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration.DiscussionAs primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016.

Abstract Background Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to reflect how an investigational treatment would be applied in clinical practice. As such, unlike their explanatory counterparts, they measure therapeutic effectiveness and are capable of generating high-quality real-world evidence. However, the conduct of PCTs remains extremely rare. The scarcity of such studies has contributed to the emergence of the efficacy-effectiveness gap and has led to calls for launching more of them, including in the field of oncology. This analysis aimed to identify self-labelled pragmatic trials of antineoplastic interventions and to evaluate whether their use of this label was justified. Methods We searched PubMed® and Embase® for publications corresponding with studies that investigated antitumor therapies and that were tagged as pragmatic in their titles, abstracts and/or index terms. Subsequently, we consulted all available source documents for the included trials and extracted relevant information from them. The data collected were then used to appraise the degree of pragmatism displayed by the PCTs with the help of the validated PRECIS-2 tool. Results The literature search returned 803 unique records, of which 46 were retained upon conclusion of the screening process. This ultimately resulted in the identification of 42 distinct trials that carried the ‘pragmatic’ label. These studies examined eight different categories of neoplasms and were mostly randomized, open-label, multicentric, single-country trials sponsored by non-commercial parties. On a scale of one (very explanatory) to five (very pragmatic), the median PCT had a PRECIS-2 score per domain of 3.13 (interquartile range: 2.57–3.53). The most and least pragmatic studies in the sample had a score of 4.44 and 1.57, respectively. Only a minority of trials were described in sufficient detail to allow them to be graded across all domains of the PRECIS-2 instrument. Many of the studies examined also had features that arguably precluded them from being pragmatic altogether, such as being monocentric or placebo-controlled in nature. Conclusion PCTs of antineoplastic treatments are generally no more pragmatic than they are explanatory.

The growing number of people living with dementia (PLWD) requires a coordinated clinical response to deliver pragmatic, evidence‐based interventions in frontline care settings. However, infrastructure to support such a response is lacking. Moreover, there are too few researchers conducting rigorous embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) to make the vision of high quality, widely accessible dementia care a reality. National Institute on Aging (NIA) Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's disease and Related Dementias Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory seeks to improve the pipeline of early career researchers qualified to lead ePCTs by funding career development awards. Even with support from the Collaboratory, awardees face practical and methodological challenges to success, recently exacerbated by the COVID‐19 pandemic. We first describe the training opportunities and support network for the IMPACT CDA recipients. This report then describes the unique career development challenges faced by early‐career researchers involved in ePCTs for dementia care. Topics addressed include challenges in establishing a laboratory, academic promotion, mentoring and professional development, and work‐life balance. Concrete suggestions to address these challenges are offered for early‐career investigators, their mentors, and their supporting institutions. While some of these challenges are faced by researchers in other fields, this report seeks to provide a roadmap for expanding the work of the IMPACT Collaboratory and initiating future efforts to recruit, train, and retain talented early‐career researchers involved in ePCTs for dementia care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Individuals who have a low socio-economic position (SEP) are more likely to smoke and face greater barriers to quitting tobacco. However, the effectiveness of tailored interventions has been limited probably due to specific challenges relative to this population. We conducted a mixed-method study to better understand health professionals' perceptions and barriers when implementing a preference-based smoking cessation (SC) intervention among disadvantaged smokers. Methods: A self-administered online questionnaire was sent to health professionals (doctors' and other health professionals specialized in SC) participating in "STOP" a pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial. Perceptions regarding patient eligibility, the doctor-patient relationship, general study organization, and satisfaction were measured. Results: Twenty-eight STOP study investigators responded. Health professionals prioritize smoking cessation for disadvantaged patients, but face challenges in approaching and following them. A research intervention providing cessation tools based on preference was deemed useful but generally undermined by time constraints. Health professionals' preconceptions regarding patients in low SEP having other "pressing problems" which might be exacerbated by quitting smoking were also identified. Further, participation in a research intervention was perceived as not satisfactory due to workload and lack of time. Conclusion: Our results highlight general barriers inherent to implementing pragmatic trials. They also present specific challenges in smoking cessation trials among disadvantaged population, essential to advance equity in tobacco control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/objectivesIn the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) study, a multifactorial intervention was associated with a nonsignificant 8% reduction in time to first serious fall injury but a significant 10% reduction in time to first self-reported fall injury relative to enhanced usual care. The effect of the intervention on other outcomes important to patients has not yet been reported. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on patient well-being including concern about falling, anxiety, depression, physical function, and disability.DesignPragmatic cluster-randomized trial of 5,451 community-living persons at high risk for serious fall injuries.SettingA total of 86 primary care practices within 10 U.S. healthcare systems.ParticipantsA random subsample of 743 persons aged 75 and older.MeasurementsThe well-being measures, assessed at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months, included a modified version of the Fall Efficacy Scale, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety and depression scales, and Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument.ResultsParticipants in the intervention (n = 384) and control groups (n = 359) were comparable in age: mean (standard deviation) of 81.9 (4.7) versus 81.8 (5.0) years. Mean scores were similar between groups at 12 and 24 months for concern about falling, physical function, and disability, whereas the intervention group's mean scores on anxiety and depression were .7 points lower (i.e., better) at 12 months and .6 to .8 points lower at 24 months. For each of these outcomes, differences between the groups' adjusted least square mean changes from baseline to 12 and 24 months, respectively, were quantitatively small. The overall difference in means between groups over 2 years was statistically significant only for depression, favoring the intervention: -1.19 (99% confidence interval, -2.36 to -.02), with 3.5 points representing a minimally important difference.ConclusionsSTRIDE's multifactorial intervention to reduce fall injuries was not associated with clinically meaningful improvements in patient well-being.

Background: There are unique opportunities related to the design and conduct of pragmatic trials embedded in health insurance plans, which have longitudinal data on member/patient demographics, dates of coverage, and reimbursed medical care, including prescription drug dispensings, vaccine administrations, behavioral healthcare encounters, and some laboratory results. Such trials can be large and efficient, using these data to identify trial-eligible patients and to ascertain outcomes. Methods: We use our experience primarily with the National Institutes of Health Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory Distributed Research Network, which comprises health plans that participate in the US Food & Drug Administration's Sentinel System, to describe lessons learned from the conduct and planning of embedded pragmatic trials. Results: Information is available for research on more than 75 million people with commercial or Medicare Advantage health plans. We describe three studies that have used or plan to use the Network, as well as a single health plan study, from which we glean our lessons learned. Conclusions: Studies that are conducted in health plans provide much-needed evidence to drive clinically meaningful changes in care. However, there are many unique aspects of these trials that must be considered in the planning, implementation, and analytic phases. The type of trial best suited for studies embedded in health plans will be those that require large sample sizes, simple interventions that could be disseminated through health plans, and where data available to the health plan can be leveraged. These trials hold potential for substantial long-term impact on our ability to generate evidence to improve care and population health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public–private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to reflect how an investigational treatment would be applied in clinical practice. As such, unlike their explanatory counterparts, they measure therapeutic effectiveness and are capable of generating high-quality real-world evidence. However, the conduct of PCTs remains extremely rare. The scarcity of such studies has contributed to the emergence of the efficacy-effectiveness gap and has led to calls for launching more of them, including in the field of oncology. This analysis aimed to identify self-labelled pragmatic trials of antineoplastic interventions and to evaluate whether their use of this label was justified. Methods: We searched PubMed® and Embase® for publications corresponding with studies that investigated antitumor therapies and that were tagged as pragmatic in their titles, abstracts and/or index terms. Subsequently, we consulted all available source documents for the included trials and extracted relevant information from them. The data collected were then used to appraise the degree of pragmatism displayed by the PCTs with the help of the validated PRECIS-2 tool. Results: The literature search returned 803 unique records, of which 46 were retained upon conclusion of the screening process. This ultimately resulted in the identification of 42 distinct trials that carried the 'pragmatic' label. These studies examined eight different categories of neoplasms and were mostly randomized, open-label, multicentric, single-country trials sponsored by non-commercial parties. On a scale of one (very explanatory) to five (very pragmatic), the median PCT had a PRECIS-2 score per domain of 3.13 (interquartile range: 2.57–3.53). The most and least pragmatic studies in the sample had a score of 4.44 and 1.57, respectively. Only a minority of trials were described in sufficient detail to allow them to be graded across all domains of the PRECIS-2 instrument. Many of the studies examined also had features that arguably precluded them from being pragmatic altogether, such as being monocentric or placebo-controlled in nature. Conclusion: PCTs of antineoplastic treatments are generally no more pragmatic than they are explanatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many randomized trials that aim to assess new or commonly used medical or surgical interventions have been so small that the validity of conclusions becomes questionable. Methods: We illustrate the small trial problem using the power calculation of five Cochrane-reviewed studies that compared vertebroplasty versus placebo interventions. We discuss some of the reasons why the statistical admonition not to dichotomize continuous variables may not apply to the calculation of the number of patients required for trials to be meaningful. Results: Placebo–controlled vertebroplasty trials planned to recruit between 23 and 71 patients per group. Four of five studies used the standardized mean difference of a continuous pain variable (centimeters on the visual analog scale (VAS)) to plan implausibly small trials. What is needed is not a mean effect at the population level but a measure of efficacy at the patient level. Clinical practice concerns the care of individual patients that vary in many more respects than the variation around the mean of a single selected variable. The inference from trial to practice concerns the frequency of success of the experimental intervention performed one patient at a time. A comparison of the proportions of patients reaching a certain threshold is a more meaningful method that appropriately requires larger trials. Conclusion: Most placebo-controlled vertebroplasty trials used comparisons of means of a continuous variable and were consequently very small. Randomized trials should instead be large enough to account for the diversity of future patients and practices. They should offer an evaluation of a clinically meaningful number of interventions performed in various contexts. Implications of this principle are not specific to placebo-controlled surgical trials. Trials designed to inform practice require a per-patient comparison of outcomes and the size of the trial should be planned accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of the precision medicine paradigm in oncology has led to increasing interest in the integration of real-world data (RWD) into cancer clinical research. As sources of real-world evidence (RWE), such data could potentially help address the uncertainties that surround the adoption of novel anticancer therapies into the clinic following their investigation in clinical trials. At present, RWE-generating studies which investigate antitumour interventions seem to primarily focus on collecting and analysing observational RWD, typically forgoing the use of randomisation despite its methodological benefits. This is appropriate in situations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible and non-randomised RWD analyses can offer valuable insights. Nevertheless, depending on how they are designed, RCTs have the potential to produce strong and actionable RWE themselves. The choice of which methodology to employ for RWD studies should be guided by the nature of the research question they are intended to answer. Here, we attempt to define some of the questions that do not necessarily require the conduct of RCTs. Moreover, we outline the strategy of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to contribute to the generation of robust and high-quality RWE by prioritising the execution of pragmatic trials and studies set up according to the trials-within-cohorts approach. If treatment allocation cannot be left up to random chance due to practical or ethical concerns, the EORTC will consider undertaking observational RWD research based on the target trial principle. New EORTC-sponsored RCTs may also feature concurrent prospective cohorts composed of off-trial patients. • The role of real-world data (RWD) in cancer clinical research is increasing. • A false dichotomy exists between RWD studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). • There are different methodologies for RWD studies, including RCT designs. • The methodology to be employed should be determined by the research question. • We outline the RWD strategy of a large academic clinical cancer research organisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: The US Department of Veterans Affairs Point of Care Clinical Trial Program conducts studies that utilize informatics infrastructure to integrate clinical trial protocols into routine care delivery. The Diuretic Comparison Project compared hydrochlorothiazide to chlorthalidone in reduction of major cardiovascular events in subjects with hypertension. Here we describe the cultural, technical, regulatory, and logistical challenges and solutions that enabled successful implementation of this large pragmatic comparative effectiveness Point of Care clinical trial. Methods: Patients were recruited from 72 Veterans Affairs Healthcare Systems using centralized processes for subject identification, obtaining informed consent, data collection, safety monitoring, site communication, and endpoint identification with minimal perturbation of the local clinical care ecosystem. Patients continued to be managed exclusively by their clinical care providers without protocol specified study visits, treatment recommendations, or data collection extraneous to routine care. Centralized study processes were operationalized through the application layer of the electronic health record via a data coordinating center staffed by clinical nurses, data scientists, and statisticians without site-based research coordinators. Study data was collected from the Veterans Affairs electronic health record supplemented by Medicare and National Death Index data. Results: The study exceeded its enrolled goal (13,523 subjects) and followed subjects for the 5-year study duration. The key determinant of program success was collaboration between researchers, regulators, clinicians, and administrative staff at the site level to customize study procedures to align with local clinical practice. This flexibility was enabled by designation of the study as minimal risk and determination that clinical care providers were not engaged in research by the Veterans Affairs Central Institutional Review Board. Cultural, regulatory, technical, and logistical problems were identified and solved through iterative collaboration between clinical and research entities. Paramount among these problems was customization of the Veterans Affairs electronic health record and data systems to accommodate study procedures. Conclusions: Leveraging clinical care for large-scale clinical trials is feasible but requires a rethinking of traditional clinical trial design (and regulation) to better meet requirements of clinical care ecosystems. Study designs must accommodate site-specific practice variation to reduce the impact on clinical care. A tradeoff thus exists between designing trial processes tailored to expedite local study implementation versus those to produce a more refined response to the research question. The availability of a uniform and flexible electronic health record in the Department of Veterans Affairs played a major role in the success of the trial. Conducting Point of Care research in other healthcare systems without such research-friendly infrastructure presents a more formidable challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/objectivesAlthough several approaches have been developed to provide comprehensive care for persons living with dementia (PWD) and their family or friend caregivers, the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of community-based dementia care (CBDC) versus health system-based dementia care (CBDC) and the effectiveness of both approaches compared with usual care (UC) are unknown.DesignPragmatic randomized three-arm superiority trial. The unit of randomization is the PWD/caregiver dyad.SettingFour clinical trial sites (CTSs) based in academic and clinical health systems.ParticipantsA total of 2,150 English- or Spanish-speaking PWD who are not receiving hospice or residing in a nursing home and their caregivers.InterventionsEighteen months of (1) HSDC provided by a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant dementia care specialist who works within the health system, or (2) CBDC provided by a social worker or nurse care consultant who works at a community-based organization, or (3) UC with as needed referral to the Alzheimer's Association Helpline.MeasurementsPrimary outcomes: PWD behavioral symptoms and caregiver distress as measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) Severity and Modified Caregiver Strain Index scales.Secondary outcomesNPI-Q Distress, caregiver unmet needs and confidence, and caregiver depressive symptoms. Tertiary outcomes: PWD long-term nursing home placement rates, caregiver-reported PWD functional status, cognition, goal attainment, "time spent at home," Dementia Burden Scale-Caregiver, a composite measure of clinical benefit, Quality of Life of persons with dementia, Positive Aspects of Caregiving, and cost effectiveness using intervention costs and Medicare claims.ResultsThe results will be reported in the spring of 2024.ConclusionD-CARE will address whether emphasis on clinical support and tighter integration with other medical services has greater benefit than emphasis on social support that is tied more closely to community resources. It will also assess the effectiveness of both interventions compared with UC and will evaluate the cost effectiveness of each intervention.

BackgroundVeterans Affairs (VA) has rolled out a holistic, multicomponent Whole Health care model nationwide, yet no pragmatic trials have been conducted in real-world clinical settings to compare its effectiveness against other evidence-based approaches for chronic pain management in veterans.ObjectivesWe describe the adaptation of the first large pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the Whole Health model for chronic pain care for diverse VA clinical settings.Research designInformed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Systems implementation framework, we conducted qualitative semistructured interviews to obtain feedback on trial design from VA leadership, frontline clinicians, and veterans with chronic pain at 5 VA enrollment sites. Next, we convened in-person evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) meetings with study stakeholders (including frontline clinicians and administrators) at each site to discuss study design; review interview themes; and identify site-specific barriers, facilitators, and approaches to implementation. Ethnographic observations from EBQI meetings provided additional insight into implementation strategies.SubjectsSeventy-four veteran and VA staff stakeholders were interviewed; 71 stakeholders participated in EBQI meetings.ResultsAt each site, unique clinical contexts and varying resources for Whole Health and pain care delivery affected plans for trial implementation. We present examples of local adaptations that emerged through the formative evaluation process to facilitate implementation and yield a more pragmatic trial design.ConclusionsA systematic formative evaluation can facilitate engagement and buy-in of study stakeholders. Locally tailored pragmatic implementation strategies may improve the likelihood of successful trial execution as well as future implementation of evidence-based pain care approaches in real-world clinical settings.

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) advance research on Alzheimers disease/Alzheimers disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD) in real-world contexts; however, health equity issues have not yet been fully considered, assessed, or integrated into ePCT designs. Health disparity populations may not be well represented in ePCTs without special efforts to identify and successfully recruit sites of care that serve larger numbers of these populations. The National Institute on Aging (NIA) Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimers disease (AD) and AD-Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratorys Health Equity Team will contribute to the overall mission of the collaboratory by developing and implementing strategies to address health equity in the conduct of ePCTs and ensure the collaboratory is a national resource for all Americans with dementia. As a first step toward meeting these goals, this article reviews what is currently known about the inclusion of health disparities populations of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers in ePCTs, highlights unique challenges related to health equity in the conduct of ePCTs, and suggests priority areas in the design and implementation of ePCTs to increase the awareness and avoidance of pitfalls that may perpetuate and magnify healthcare disparities. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S8-S13, 2020.

ObjectivesThe Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) study is testing the effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention to prevent serious fall injuries. Our aim was to describe procedures that were implemented to optimize participant retention; report retention yields by age, sex, clinical site, and follow-up time; provide reasons for study withdrawals; and highlight the successes and lessons learned from the STRIDE retention efforts.DesignPragmatic cluster randomized trial.SettingA total of 86 primary care practices within 10 US healthcare systems.ParticipantsA total of 5451 community-living persons, 70 years of age or older, at high risk for serious fall injuries.MeasurementsStudy outcomes were collected every 4 months by a central call center. Reconsent was required to extend follow-up beyond the originally planned 36 months.ResultsOver a median follow-up of 3.2 years (interquartile range = 2.8-3.7 y), 439 (8.1%) participants died and 600 (11.0%) withdrew their consent or did not reconsent to extend follow-up beyond 36 months, yielding rates (per 100 person-years) of deaths and withdrawals of 2.6 and 3.6, respectively. The withdrawal rate increased with advancing age, was comparable for men and women, and did not differ much by clinical site. The most common reasons for withdrawal were illness and unable to contact for reconsent at 36 months. Completion of the follow-up interviews was greater than 93% at each time point. Most participants completed all (71.8%) or all but one (9.2%) of the follow-up interviews. The most common reason for not completing a follow-up interview was unable to contact, with rates ranging from 2.8% at 40 months to 4.6% at 20 months.ConclusionCompletion of the thrice-yearly follow-up interviews in STRIDE was high, and retention of participants over 44 months exceeded the original projections. The procedures used in STRIDE, together with lessons learned, should assist other investigators who are planning or conducting large pragmatic trials of vulnerable older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1242-1249, 2020.

Abstract Background Pediatric patients have increasing rates of hospital-associated venous thromboembolism (HA-VTE), and while several risk-prediction models have been developed, few are designed to assess all general pediatric patients, and none has been shown to improve patient outcomes when implemented in routine clinical care. Methods The Children’s Likelihood Of Thrombosis (CLOT) trial is an ongoing pragmatic randomized trial being conducted starting November 2, 2020, in the inpatient units at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt in Nashville, TN, USA. All admitted patients who are 21 years of age and younger are automatically enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned to receive either the current standard-of-care anticoagulation practice or the study intervention. Patients randomized to the intervention arm are assigned an HA-VTE risk probability that is calculated from a validated VTE risk-prediction model; the model is updated daily with the most recent clinical information. Patients in the intervention arm with elevated risk (predicted probability of HA-VTE ≥ 0.025) have an additional review of their clinical course by a team of dedicated hematologists, who make recommendations including pharmacologic prophylaxis with anticoagulation, if appropriate. The anticipated enrollment is approximately 15,000 patients. The primary outcome is the occurrence of HA-VTE. Secondary outcomes include initiation of anticoagulation, reasons for not initiating anticoagulation among patients for whom it was recommended, and adverse bleeding events. Subgroup analyses will be conducted among patients with elevated HA-VTE risk. Discussion This ongoing pragmatic randomized trial will provide a prospective assessment of a pediatric risk-prediction tool used to identify hospitalized patients at elevated risk of developing HA-VTE. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04574895. Registered on September 28, 2020. Date of first patient enrollment: November 2, 2020.

The Treatment of Brain Arteriovenous Malformations Study (TOBAS) is an all-inclusive pragmatic study comprising 2 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Patients excluded from the RCTs are followed in parallel treatment and observation registries, allowing a comparison between RCT and registry patients. The first randomized clinical trial (RCT-1) offers 1:1 randomized allocation of intervention versus conservative management for patients with arteriovenous malformation (AVM). The second randomized clinical trial (RCT-2) allocates 1:1 pre-embolization or no pre-embolization to surgery or radiosurgery patients judged treatable with or without embolization. Characteristics of RCT patients are reported and compared to registry patients. From June 2014 to May 2021, 1010 patients with AVM were recruited; 498 patients were observed and 373 were included in the treatment registries. Randomized allocation in RCT-1 was applied to 139 (26%) of the 512 patients (including 127 of 222 [57%] with unruptured AVMs) considered for curative treatment. RCT-1 AVM patients differed (in rupture status, Spetzler-Martin grade and baseline modified Rankin Score) from those in the observation or treatment registries (P < 0.001). Most patients had small (<3 cm; 71%) low-grade (Spetzler-Martin I-II; 64%) unruptured (91%) AVMs. The allocated management was conservative (n = 71) or curative (n = 68), using surgery (n = 39), embolization (n = 16), or stereotactic radiosurgery (n = 13). Pre-embolization was considered for 179/309 (58%) patients allocated/assigned to surgery or stereotactic radiosurgery; 87/179 (49%) were included in RCT-2. RCT-2 patient AVMs differed in size, eloquence and grade from patients of the pre-embolization registry (P < 0.01). Most had small (<3 cm in 82%) low-grade (83%) AVMs in non-eloquent brain (64%). Patients included in the RCTs differ significantly from registry patients. Meaningful results can be obtained if multiple centers actively participate in the TOBAS RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We aimed to understand the effects of aspirin dose on outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) as well as their participation in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Methods: In a subanalysis of the Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) study, we compared aspirin doses (81 vs 325 mg) among participants with PAD and study participation metrics in patients with and without PAD. The primary outcome composite was all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. Results: Among 14,662 participants enrolled in ADAPTABLE with PAD status available, 3493 (23.8%) had PAD. Participants with PAD were more likely to experience the primary composite (13.76% vs 5.31%, p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (7.55% vs 3.01%, p < 0.001), myocardial infarction (5.71% vs 2.09%, p < 0.001), stroke (2.45% vs 0.86%, p < 0.001), and major bleeding (1.19% vs 0.44%, p < 0.001). A higher aspirin dose did not reduce the primary outcome in patients with PAD (13.68% vs 13.84% in 81 mg and 325 mg groups; OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88–1.25). Participants with PAD were less likely to enroll via email (33.0% vs 41.9%, p < 0.0001), less likely to choose internet follow-up (79.2% vs 89.5%, p < 0.0001), and were more likely to change their aspirin doses (39.7% vs 30.7%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: ADAPTABLE participants with PAD did not benefit from a higher dose of aspirin and participated in the study differently from those without PAD. These results reinforce the need for additional PAD-specific research and suggest that different trial strategies may be needed for optimal engagement of patients with PAD. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigators conducting translational research in real-world settings may experience changes that create challenges to the successful completion of the trial as well as post-trial adoption and implementation. Adaptive designs support translational research by systematically adapting content and methods to meet the needs of target populations, settings and contexts. This manuscript describes an adaptive implementation research model that provides strategies for changing content, delivery processes, and research methods to correct course when anticipated and unanticipated circumstances occur during a pragmatic trial. The Breathewell Program included two large pragmatic trials of the effectiveness of a digital communication technology intervention to improve symptom management and medication adherence in asthma care. The first trial targeted parents of children with asthma; the second targeted adults with asthma. Adaptations were made iteratively to adjust to dynamic conditions within the healthcare setting, informed by prospectively collected stakeholder input, and were categorized retrospectively by the authors as proactive or reactive. Study outcomes demonstrated improved treatment adherence and clinical efficiency. Kaiser Permanente Colorado, the setting for both studies, adopted the speech recognition intervention into routine care, however, both interventions required numerous adaptations, including changes to target population, intervention content, and internal workflows. Proactive and reactive adaptations assured that both trials were successfully completed. Adaptive research designs will continue to provide an important pathway to move healthcare delivery research into practice while conducting ongoing effectiveness evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Internet‐based participation has the potential to enhance pragmatic and decentralized trials, where representative study populations and generalizability to clinical practice are key. We aimed to study the differences between internet and noninternet/telephone participants in a large remote, pragmatic trial. Methods and Results In a subanalysis of the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient‐Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long‐Term Effectiveness) study, we compared internet participants with those who opted for noninternet participation. Study process measures examined included participant characteristics at consent, study medication adherence, and study retention. The clinical outcome examined was a composite of all‐cause mortality, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke. Noninternet participants were older (mean 69.4 versus 67.4 years), more likely to be female (38.9% versus 30.2%), more likely to be Black (27.3% versus 6.0%) or Hispanic (11.1% versus 2.0%), and had a higher number of comorbid conditions. The composite clinical outcome was more than twice as high in noninternet participants. The hazard of nonadherence to the assigned aspirin dosage was 46% higher in noninternet participants than internet participants. Conclusions Noninternet participants differed from internet participants in notable demographic characteristics while having poorer baseline health. Over the course of ADAPTABLE, they also had worse clinical outcomes and greater likelihood of study drug nonadherence. These results suggest that trials focused on internet participation select for younger, healthier participants with a higher proportion of traditionally overrepresented patients. Allowing noninternet participation enhances diversity; however, additional steps may be needed to promote study retention and study medication adherence. Registration Information clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02697916.

Background: Most studies evaluating the effect of Xpert MTB/RIF testing for tuberculosis (TB) concluded that it did not reduce overall mortality compared to usual care. We conducted a systematic review to assess whether key study design and execution features contributed to earlier identification of patients with TB and decreased pre-treatment loss to follow-up, thereby reducing the potential impact of Xpert MTB/RIF testing. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Scopus for literature published from 1 st January 2009 to February 2019. We included all primary intervention studies that had evaluated the effect of Xpert MTB/RIF on mortality compared to usual care in participants with presumptive pulmonary TB. We critically reviewed features of included studies across: Study setting and context, Study population, Participant recruitment and enrolment, Study procedures, and Study follow-up. Results: We included seven randomised and one non-randomised study.  All included studies demonstrated relative reductions in overall mortality in the Xpert MTB/RIF arm ranging from 6% to 40%. However, mortality reduction was reported to be statistically significant in two studies. Study features that could explain the lack of observed effect on mortality included: the higher quality of care at study sites; inclusion of patients with a higher pre-test probability of TB leading to higher than expected empirical rates; performance of additional diagnostic testing not done in usual care leading to increased TB diagnosis or empiric treatment initiation; the recruitment of participants likely to return for follow-up; and involvement of study staff in ensuring adherence with care and follow-up. Conclusion: Most studies of Xpert MTB/RIF were designed and conducted in a manner that resulted in more patients being diagnosed and treated for TB, minimising the potential difference in mortality Xpert MTB/RIF testing could have achieved compared to usual care.

Abstract Background Explanatory trials are designed to assess intervention efficacy under ideal conditions, while pragmatic trials are designed to assess whether research-proven interventions are effective in “real-world” settings without substantial research support. Methods We compared two trials (Hyperlink 1 and 3) that tested a pharmacist-led telehealth intervention in adults with uncontrolled hypertension. We applied PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) scores to describe differences in the way these studies were designed and enrolled study-eligible participants, and the effect of these differences on participant characteristics and adherence to study interventions. Results PRECIS-2 scores demonstrated that Hyperlink 1 was more explanatory and Hyperlink 3 more pragmatic. Recruitment for Hyperlink 1 was conducted by study staff, and 2.9% of potentially eligible patients enrolled. Enrollees were older, and more likely to be male and White than non-enrollees. Study staff scheduled the initial pharmacist visit and adherence to attending this visit was 98%. Conversely for Hyperlink 3, recruitment was conducted by clinic staff at routine encounters and 81% of eligible patients enrolled. Enrollees were younger, and less likely to be male and White than non-enrollees. Study staff did not assist with scheduling the initial pharmacist visit and adherence to attending this visit was only 27%. Compared to Hyperlink 1, patients in Hyperlink 3 were more likely to be female, and Asian or Black, had lower socioeconomic indicators, and were more likely to have comorbidities. Owing to a lower BP for eligibility in Hyperlink 1 (>140/90 mm Hg) than in Hyperlink 3 (>150/95 mm Hg), mean baseline BP was 148/85 mm Hg in Hyperlink 1 and 158/92 mm Hg in Hyperlink 3. Conclusion The pragmatic design features of Hyperlink 3 substantially increased enrollment of study-eligible patients and of those traditionally under-represented in clinical trials (women, minorities, and patients with less education and lower income), and demonstrated that identification and enrollment of a high proportion of study-eligible subjects could be done by usual primary care clinic staff. However, the trade-off was much lower adherence to the telehealth intervention than in Hyperlink 1, which is likely to reflect uptake under real-word conditions and substantially dilute intervention effect on BP. Trial registration The Hyperlink 1 study (NCT00781365) and the Hyperlink 3 study (NCT02996565) are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Advance care planning (ACP) is an important part of comprehensive care for persons living with dementia (PLWD). While many trials have established the efficacy of ACP in improving end-of-life communication and documentation of care preferences, there remains a gap in clinical usage. Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) may facilitate the uptake of evidence-based care into existing healthcare by deploying efficacious ACP interventions into real-world settings. However rigorous conduct of ePCTs of ACP for PLWD presents several unique methodological considerations. Here we describe a framework for the construction of these research studies, with a focus on distinguishing between the target of study: the PLWD, their care partners, or both. We outline specific considerations at each step of the research study process including 1) participant identification/eligibility, 2) participant recruitment/enrollment, 3) intervention implementation, and 4) outcome selection/ascertainment. These considerations are weighed in further detail by describing the approaches from three published trials. Specifically, we consider how potential challenges were overcome by tradeoffs in study design. Finally, we offer directions for future growth to advance ePCTs for ACP among PLWD and catalyze future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: Actively engaging patient partners in the conduct of trials is crucial to ensure the studies answer genuine, patient-centered, unmet clinical needs, and to facilitate participant recruitment and retention. The aim of this article is to demonstrate the feasibility of patient engagement within a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial, specifically for the purposes of dissemination of study information/updates and to favorize recruitment and retention. Methods: In the patient-centric, pragmatic ADAPTABLE randomized trial, transparent and timely dissemination of information on the study updates to the trial participants was undertaken to create meaningful engagement and to facilitate retention. A national panel of patient partners, the Adaptors, were directly involved in this information dissemination strategy, and study participants were engaged both nationally and locally to design recruitment methods iteratively during the conduct of the trial. All Adaptors had a lived experience with cardiovascular disease. Results: Adaptors attended bi-weekly meetings facilitated by the director of the study's patient-powered research network. They drafted and/or edited newsletters and ad hoc educational information written in a lay-friendly manner for study participants, which were regularly distributed to the ADAPTABLE community, in addition to online forums where participants could share their experience of their involvement in ADAPTABLE. To spur recruitment, a patient-driven initiative was to draft letters sharing their story, which were distributed by the local study teams. Patient partners thought that using patients' voice to provide their perspectives on why they believed this project was important would be more engaging for prospective participants than traditional approaches. Conclusions: ADAPTABLE's experience has demonstrated the feasibility of engaging patients as partners in the conduct of a large-scale, multi-center, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Future trials should embrace and iteratively improve this model by engaging patient partners as early as study protocol development and funding applications, and quantify its impact on the effectiveness and value of the trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pragmatic trials offer practical means of obtaining real‐world evidence to help improve decision‐making in comparative effectiveness settings. Unfortunately, incomplete adherence is a common problem in pragmatic trials. The commonly used methods in randomized control trials often cannot handle the added complexity imposed by incomplete adherence, resulting in biased estimates. Several naive methods and advanced causal inference methods (e.g., inverse probability weighting and instrumental variable‐based approaches) have been used in the literature to deal with incomplete adherence. Practitioners and applied researchers are often confused about which method to consider under a given setting. This current work is aimed to review commonly used statistical methods to deal with non‐adherence along with their key assumptions, advantages, and limitations, with a particular focus on pragmatic trials. We have listed the applicable settings for these methods and provided a summary of available software. All methods were applied to two hypothetical datasets to demonstrate how these methods perform in a given scenario, along with the R codes. The key considerations include the type of intervention strategy (point treatment settings, where treatment is administered only once versus sustained treatment settings, where treatment has to be continued over time) and availability of data (e.g., the extent of measured or unmeasured covariates that are associated with adherence, dependent confounding impacted by past treatment, and potential violation of assumptions). This study will guide practitioners and applied researchers to use the appropriate statistical method to address incomplete adherence in pragmatic trial settings for both the point and sustained treatment strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of palatal brushing in the treatment of denture-related erythematous stomatitis (DES) in complete denture wearers. Methods: This two-parallel-arm RCT was conducted in three university clinics in Brazil, Canada, and Chile. Participants (n=77) were randomly allocated to receive (i) instructions for palatal brushing and standard oral/denture hygiene (“intervention”); or (ii) standard oral/denture hygiene instructions only (“control”). Data collection was carried out at the baseline and at 3 and 6 months after intervention. Outcomes included the magnitude of oral Candida carriage and the degree of inflammation of denture-bearing tissues. Groups were compared using generalized estimating equations and chi-square test (α=0.05). Results: Palatal inflammation levels were reduced significantly in the “intervention” compared to “control” group at 6 months (intervention: 70%, control: 40%; chi-square, p=0.04). There was no between-group significant difference in the Candida count from denture and palatal biofilms; however, a subgroup analysis restricted to baseline Candida carriers showed further reduction with the intervention at 6 months. No adversity was observed by trialist or reported by participants. Conclusions: Including palatal brushing in oral instructions for denture wearers has positive impact on DES-related mucosal inflammation. Thus, our findings endorse the inclusion of palatal brushing in standard oral hygiene instructions to treat DES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]