Cluster Randomized Trials

Optimising management of low back pain through the pain and disability drivers management model: Findings from a pilot cluster nonrandomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) remains the leading cause of disability. The Low Back Pain and Disability Drivers Management (PDDM) model aims to identify the domains driving pain and disability to guide clinical decisions. The objectives of this study were to determine the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic controlled trial of the PDDM model and to explore its effectiveness compared to clinical practice guidelines' recommendations for LBP management.

METHODS

A pilot cluster nonrandomised controlled trial. Participants included physiotherapists and their patients aged 18 years or older presenting with a primary complaint of LBP. Primary outcomes were the feasibility of the trial design. Secondary exploratory analyses were conducted on LBP-related outcomes such as pain severity and interference at 12-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Feasibility of study procedures were confirmed, recruitment exceeded our target number of participants, and the eligibility criteria were deemed suitable. Lost to follow-up at 12 weeks was higher than expected (43.0%) and physiotherapists' compliance rates to the study protocol was lower than our predefined threshold (75.0% vs. 57.5%). A total of 44 physiotherapists and 91 patients were recruited. Recommendations for a larger scale trial were formulated. The PDDM model group demonstrated slightly better improvements in all clinical outcome measures compared to the control group at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The findings support the feasibility of conducting such trial contingent upon a few recommendations to foster proper future planning to determine the effectiveness of the PDDM model. Our results provide preliminary evidence of the PDDM model effectiveness to optimise LBP management.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT04893369.

Impact of a pharmacist intervention on DOAC knowledge and satisfaction in ambulatory patients

Patient education of high-risk medications such as direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is limited in ambulatory care settings. Clinical pharmacists are uniquely equipped to educate patients about DOACS but seldom interact with patients in those settings where patient education and satisfaction are often overlooked. Recently, the Anticoagulation Forum endorsed a checklist (DOAC Checklist) to guide and educate patients initiating or resuming DOACs. We assessed the impact on knowledge and satisfaction of an intervention framed around the checklist. Randomized clinical trial. Ambulatory patients starting a DOAC or resuming one after setback (bleeding, stroke, or transient ischemic attack) in an ambulatory setting (office, emergency department, or short stay hospitalization). Three educational clinical pharmacist tele-visits, hotline access to the pharmacist, and coordination with continuity providers in 3 months. Patient knowledge scores from a 15-item DOAC-related questionnaire and satisfaction scores from an abbreviated version of the Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Survey (DASS). Of 561 randomized patients, 436 completed our follow-up surveys. Knowledge scores were similar for the 233 intervention patients vs. 203 control patients (63.7% vs 62.2% correct). Satisfaction scores on the 7-point Likert scale were virtually identical (6.24 and 6.22). Our pharmacist-led intervention framed around the DOAC checklist had little impact on knowledge and satisfaction. Delays between intervention end and completion of the follow-up questionnaires may have obscured benefits experienced earlier. More intensive education or strategies other than telephone-based consultation may be required to produce sustained knowledge.TRN: NCT04068727 retrospectively registered on August 22, 2019.

Challenges for the evaluation of digital health solutions-A call for innovative evidence generation approaches

The field of digital health, and its meaning, has evolved rapidly over the last 20 years. For this article we followed the most recent definition provided by FDA in 2020. Emerging solutions offers tremendous potential to positively transform the healthcare sector. Despite the growing number of applications, however, the evolution of methodologies to perform timely, cost-effective and robust evaluations have not kept pace. It remains an industry-wide challenge to provide credible evidence, therefore, hindering wider adoption. Conventional methodologies, such as clinical trials, have seldom been applied and more pragmatic approaches are needed. In response, several academic centers such as researchers from the Institute of Global Health Innovation at Imperial College London have initiated a digital health clinical simulation test bed to explore new approaches for evidence gathering relevant to solution type and maturity. The aim of this article is to: (1) Review current research approaches and discuss their limitations; (2) Discuss challenges faced by different stakeholders in undertaking evaluations; and (3) Call for new approaches to facilitate the safe and responsible growth of the digital health sector.

Formal String Instrument Training in a Class Setting Enhances Cognitive and Sensorimotor Development of Primary School Children

This cluster randomized controlled trial provides evidence that focused musical instrumental practice, in comparison to traditional sensitization to music, provokes multiple transfer effects in the cognitive and sensorimotor domain. Over the last 2 years of primary school (10-12 years old), 69 children received group music instruction by professional musicians twice a week as part of the regular school curriculum. The intervention group learned to play string instruments, whereas the control group (i.e., peers in parallel classes) was sensitized to music via listening, theory and some practice. Broad benefits manifested in the intervention group as compared to the control group for working memory, attention, processing speed, cognitive flexibility, matrix reasoning, sensorimotor hand function, and bimanual coordination Apparently, learning to play a complex instrument in a dynamic group setting impacts development much stronger than classical sensitization to music. Our results therefore highlight the added value of intensive musical instrumental training in a group setting within the school curriculum. These results encourage general implementation of such training in public primary schools, thus better preparing children for secondary school and for daily living activities.

Reducing Both Food Insecurity and Excess Body Weight in Costa Rican Women: A Cluster Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

The coexistence of food insecurity and excess body weight has been well documented in women. Both food insecurity and excess body weight have multiple consequences for physical and mental health. Concerns have been raised about interventions aimed to reduce food insecurity because these interventions might contribute to excess body weight, particularly in adult women. The purpose of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate an intervention to simultaneously reduce food insecurity and body weight through alleviating discouragement-which women described as feeling sad, depressed, hopeless, and lacking drive to do important activities, such as finding a job or studying more-by increasing women's empowerment.

STUDY DESIGN

This 2-armed cluster RCT was conducted from February to December 2017. Data were analyzed from January to July 2018.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Participants were food-insecure women with excess body weight in the Central Canton of the province of Alajuela, Costa Rica.

INTERVENTION

The intensive intervention arm consisted of activities at the individual (12 sessions lasting 2 hours each, 3 follow-up monthly sessions, and 1 closing session), household (1 workshop with the participants' household and community members and homework with family participation), and community (2 brochures and 1 workshop) levels. The nonintensive control arm consisted of 3 sessions about healthy lifestyles lasting 1 hour each.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included BMI, waist circumference, and food insecurity.

RESULTS

A total of 171 participants were enrolled (83 in intensive and 88 in nonintensive control arms). At 6 months, the intensive arm had greater decreases from baseline in BMI (-0.648, p=0.019), waist circumference (-2.21, p=0.002), and food insecurity (-1.35, p=0.009) compared with the nonintensive control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

The intensive intervention was effective in simultaneously reducing food insecurity and excess body weight. Educational components should be added to interventions aimed to reduce food insecurity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT03492619.

The role of real-world data in the development of treatment guidelines: a case study on guideline developers' opinions about using observational data on antibiotic prescribing in primary care

Background

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a prominent threat to public health. Although many guidelines have been developed over the years to tackle this issue, their impact on health care practice varies. Guidelines are often based on evidence from clinical trials, but these have limitations, particularly in the breadth and generalisability of the evidence and evaluation of the guidelines’ uptake. The aim of this study was to investigate how national and local guidelines for managing common infections are developed and explore guideline committee members’ opinions about using real-world observational evidence in the guideline development process.

Methods

Six semi-structured interviews were completed with participants who had contributed to the development or adjustment of national or local guidelines on antimicrobial prescribing over the past 5 years (from the English National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed thematically. This also included review of policy documents including guidelines, reports and minutes of guideline development group meetings that were available to the public.

Results

Three key themes emerged through our analysis: perception versus actual guideline development process, using other types of evidence in the guideline development process, and guidelines are not enough to change antibiotic prescribing behaviour. In addition, our study was able to provide some insight between the documented and actual guideline development process within NICE, as well as how local guidelines are developed, including differences in types of evidence used.

Conclusions

This case study indicates that there is the potential for a wider range of evidence to be included as part of the guideline development process at both the national and local levels. There was a general agreement that the inclusion of observational data would be appropriate in enhancing the guideline development process, as well providing a potential solution for monitoring guideline use in clinical practice, and improving the implementation of treatment guidelines in primary care.

Specific barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials on medical devices

BACKGROUND

Medical devices play an important role in the diagnosis, prevention, treatment and care of diseases. However, compared to pharmaceuticals, there is no rigorous formal regulation for demonstration of benefits and exclusion of harms to patients. The medical device industry argues that the classical evidence hierarchy cannot be applied for medical devices, as randomised clinical trials are impossible to perform. This article aims to identify the barriers for randomised clinical trials on medical devices.

METHODS

Systematic literature searches without meta-analysis and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications taking place during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project.

RESULTS

In addition to the barriers that exist for all trials, we identified three major barriers for randomised clinical trials on medical devices, namely: (1) randomisation, including timing of assessment, acceptability, blinding, choice of the comparator group and considerations on the learning curve; (2) difficulties in determining appropriate outcomes; and (3) the lack of scientific advice, regulations and transparency.

CONCLUSIONS

The present review offers potential solutions to break down the barriers identified, and argues for applying the randomised clinical trial design when assessing the benefits and harms of medical devices.

Magic Mirror, on the Wall-Which Is the Right Study Design of Them All?-Part I

The assessment of a new or existing treatment or intervention typically answers 1 of 3 research-related questions: (1) "Can it work?" (efficacy); (2) "Does it work?" (effectiveness); and (3) "Is it worth it?" (efficiency or cost-effectiveness). There are a number of study designs that on a situational basis are appropriate to apply in conducting research. These study designs are classified as experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational, with observational studies being further divided into descriptive and analytic categories. This first of a 2-part statistical tutorial reviews these 3 salient research questions and describes a subset of the most common types of experimental and quasi-experimental study design. Attention is focused on the strengths and weaknesses of each study design to assist in choosing which is appropriate for a given study objective and hypothesis as well as the particular study setting and available resources and data. Specific studies and papers are highlighted as examples of a well-chosen, clearly stated, and properly executed study design type.

Effectiveness of the World Health Organization cancer pain relief guidelines: an integrative review

Inadequate cancer pain relief has been documented extensively across historical records. In response, in 1986, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed guidelines for cancer pain treatment. The purpose of this paper is to disseminate the results of a comprehensive, integrative review of studies that evaluate the effectiveness of the WHO guidelines. Studies were included if they: 1) identified patients treated with the guidelines, 2) evaluated self-reported pain, 3) identified instruments used, 4) provided data documenting pain relief, and 5) were written in English. Studies were coded for duration of treatment, definition of pain relief, instruments used, findings related to pain intensity or relief, and whether measures were used other than the WHO analgesic ladder. Twenty-five studies published since 1987 met the inclusion criteria. Evidence indicates 20%-100% of patients with cancer pain can be provided pain relief with the use of the WHO guidelines - while considering their status of treatment or end-of-life care. Due to multiple limitations in included studies, analysis was limited to descriptions. Future research to examine the effectiveness of the WHO guidelines needs to consider recommendations to facilitate study comparisons by standardizing outcome measures. Recent studies have reported that patients with cancer experience pain at moderate or greater levels. The WHO guidelines reflect the knowledge and effectual methods to relieve most cancer pain, but the guidelines are not being adequately employed. Part of the explanation for the lack of adoption of the WHO guidelines is that they may be considered outdated by many because they are not specific to the pharmacological and interventional options used in contemporary pain management practices. The conundrum of updating the WHO guidelines is to encompass the latest pharmacological and interventional innovations while maintaining its original simplicity.

The effect of changing movement and posture using motion-sensor biofeedback, versus guidelines-based care, on the clinical outcomes of people with sub-acute or chronic low back pain-a multicentre, cluster-randomised, placebo-controlled, pilot trial

Background

The aims of this pilot trial were to (i) test the hypothesis that modifying patterns of painful lumbo-pelvic movement using motion-sensor biofeedback in people with low back pain would lead to reduced pain and activity limitation compared with guidelines-based care, and (ii) facilitate sample size calculations for a fully powered trial.

Methods

A multicentre (8 clinics), cluster-randomised, placebo-controlled pilot trial compared two groups of patients seeking medical or physiotherapy primary care for sub-acute and chronic back pain. It was powered for longitudinal analysis, but not for adjusted single-time point comparisons. The intervention group (n = 58) received modification of movement patterns augmented by motion-sensor movement biofeedback (ViMove, dorsaVi.com) plus guidelines-based medical or physiotherapy care. The control group (n = 54) received a placebo (wearing the motion-sensors without biofeedback) plus guidelines-based medical or physiotherapy care.

Primary outcomes were self-reported pain intensity (VAS) and activity limitation (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS)), all on 0–100 scales. Both groups received 6–8 treatment sessions. Outcomes were measured seven times during 10-weeks of treatment and at 12, 26 and 52 week follow-up, with 17.0 % dropout. Patients were not informed of group allocation or the study hypothesis.

Results

Across one-year, there were significant between-group differences favouring the intervention group [generalized linear model coefficient (95 % CI): group effect RMDQ −7.1 (95 % CI–12.6;–1.6), PSFS −10.3 (−16.6; −3.9), QVAS −7.7 (−13.0; −2.4); and group by time effect differences (per 100 days) RMDQ −3.5 (−5.2; −2.2), PSFS −4.7 (−7.0; −2.5), QVAS −4.8 (−6.1; −3.5)], all p < 0.001. Risk ratios between groups of probability of improving by >30 % at 12-months = RMDQ 2.4 (95 % CI 1.5; 4.1), PSFS 2.5 (1.5; 4.0), QVAS 3.3 (1.8; 5.9).

The only device-related side-effects involved transient skin irritation from tape used to mount motion sensors.

Conclusions

Individualised movement retraining using motion-sensor biofeedback resulted in significant and sustained improvements in pain and activity limitation that persisted after treatment finished. This pilot trial also refined the procedures and sample size requirements for a fully powered RCT.

This trial (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry NCT01572779) was equally funded by dorsaVi P/L and the Victorian State Government.

Ethical and regulatory issues of pragmatic cluster randomized trials in contemporary health systems

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) randomly assign groups of individuals to examine research questions or test interventions and measure their effects on individuals. Recent emphasis on quality improvement, comparative effectiveness, and learning health systems has prompted expanded use of pragmatic CRTs in routine healthcare settings, which in turn poses practical and ethical challenges that current oversight frameworks may not adequately address. The 2012 Ottawa Statement provides a basis for considering many issues related to pragmatic CRTs but challenges remain, including some arising from the current U.S. research and healthcare regulations. In order to examine the ethical, regulatory, and practical questions facing pragmatic CRTs in healthcare settings, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory convened a workshop in Bethesda, Maryland in July of 2013. Attendees included experts in clinical trials, patient advocacy, research ethics, and research regulations from academia, industry, the NIH, and other federal agencies. Workshop participants identified substantial barriers to implementing these types of CRTs, including issues related to research design, gatekeepers and governance in health systems, consent, institutional review boards, data monitoring, privacy, and special populations. We describe these barriers and suggest means for understanding and overcoming them to facilitate pragmatic CRTs in healthcare settings.

Staying on track: a cluster randomized controlled trial of automated reminders aimed at increasing human papillomavirus vaccine completion

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether automated reminders increase on-time completion of the three-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series.

METHODS

Ten reproductive health centers enrolled 365 women aged 19-26 to receive dose one of the HPV vaccine. Health centers were matched and randomized so that participants received either routine follow-up (control) or automated reminder messages for vaccine doses two and three (intervention). Intervention participants selected their preferred method of reminders - text, e-mail, phone, private Facebook message, or standard mail. We compared vaccine completion rates between groups over a period of 32 weeks.

RESULTS

The reminder system did not increase completion rates, which overall were low at 17.2% in the intervention group and 18.9% in the control group (p=0.881). Exploratory analyses revealed that participants who completed the series on-time were more likely to be older (OR=1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.31), report having completed a four-year college degree or more (age-adjusted OR=2.51, 95% CI 1.29-4.90), and report three or more lifetime sexual partners (age-adjusted OR=3.45, 95% CI 1.20-9.92).

CONCLUSIONS

The study intervention did not increase HPV vaccine series completion. Despite great public health interest in HPV vaccine completion and reminder technologies, completion rates remain low.

An Analysis of Methodologies That Can Be Used to Validate if a Perioperative Surgical Home Improves the Patient-centeredness, Evidence-based Practice, Quality, Safety, and Value of Patient Care

Approximately 80 million inpatient and outpatient surgeries are performed annually in the United States. Widely variable and fragmented perioperative care exposes these surgical patients to lapses in expected standard of care, increases the chance for operational mistakes and accidents, results in unnecessary and potentially detrimental care, needlessly drives up costs, and adversely affects the patient healthcare experience. The American Society of Anesthesiologists and other stakeholders have proposed a more comprehensive model of perioperative care, the Perioperative Surgical Home (PSH), to improve current care of surgical patients and to meet the future demands of increased volume, quality standards, and patient-centered care. To justify implementation of this new healthcare delivery model to surgical colleagues, administrators, and patients and maintain the integrity of evidenced-based practice, the nascent PSH model must be rigorously evaluated. This special article proposes comparative effectiveness research aims or objectives and an optimal study design for the novel PSH model.

Measurement in comparative effectiveness research

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) on preventive services can shape policy and help patients, their providers, and public health practitioners select regimens and programs for disease prevention. Patients and providers need information about the relative effectiveness of various regimens they may choose. Decision makers need information about the relative effectiveness of various programs to offer or recommend. The goal of this paper is to define and differentiate measures of relative effectiveness of regimens and programs for disease prevention. Cancer screening is used to demonstrate how these measures differ in an example of two hypothetical screening regimens and programs. Conceptually and algebraically defined measures of relative regimen and program effectiveness also are presented. The measures evaluate preventive services that range from individual tests through organized, population-wide prevention programs. Examples illustrate how effective screening regimens may not result in effective screening programs and how measures can vary across subgroups and settings. Both regimen and program relative effectiveness measures assess benefits of prevention services in real-world settings, but each addresses different scientific and policy questions. As the body of CER grows, a common lexicon for various measures of relative effectiveness becomes increasingly important to facilitate communication and shared understanding among researchers, healthcare providers, patients, and policymakers.

Building the evidence base for decision making in cancer genomic medicine using comparative effectiveness research

The clinical utility is uncertain for many cancer genomic applications. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can provide evidence to clarify this uncertainty. The aim of this study was to identify approaches to help stakeholders make evidence-based decisions and to describe potential challenges and opportunities in using CER to produce evidence-based guidance. We identified general CER approaches for genomic applications through literature review, the authors' experiences, and lessons learned from a recent, seven-site CER initiative in cancer genomic medicine. Case studies illustrate the use of CER approaches. Evidence generation and synthesis approaches used in CER include comparative observational and randomized trials, patient-reported outcomes, decision modeling, and economic analysis. Significant challenges to conducting CER in cancer genomics include the rapid pace of innovation, lack of regulation, and variable definitions and evidence thresholds for clinical and personal utility. Opportunities to capitalize on CER methods in cancer genomics include improvements in the conduct of evidence synthesis, stakeholder engagement, increasing the number of comparative studies, and developing approaches to inform clinical guidelines and research prioritization. CER offers a variety of methodological approaches that can address stakeholders' needs and help ensure an effective translation of genomic discoveries.

Designed delays versus rigorous pragmatic trials: lower carat gold standards can produce relevant drug evaluations

BACKGROUND

Centralized administrative databases enable low-cost pragmatic randomized trials (PRTs) of drug effectiveness and safety. We simplified the PRT strategy by using designed delays (DD) to evaluate drug policies.

OBJECTIVES

To reassess our DD trial of a cost-saving nebulizer-to-inhaler conversion policy and a proposed DD trial of reduced restrictions on Cox-2 inhibitors.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We randomized 52 pairs of communities and clusters of physician practices to the policy either on time or after a 6-month delay. Our 2-stage qualitative reassessment comprised: (1) applying criteria for reporting PRTs and (2) assessing DD trials in 3 domains of responsibility: policymakers' decisions, researchers' decisions, and joint decisions involving negotiation.

MEASURES

A draft checklist of 22 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Researchers' recollections of their degree of influence on decisions.

RESULTS

DD trials deviated from ideal PRTs in the policymakers' domain: the policies affected mixtures of drugs, users, and illnesses, and implementation was not by strict protocol. Aspects negotiated by researchers and policymakers also deviated from ideal: length of delay; size and location of control group; unit of randomization; additional data collection; and communications to physicians. The DD trials complied better with CONSORT in the researchers' domain of analysis and interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

DD trials can be negotiated with policymakers. Low cost and simplicity of DD trials partly compensate for some limitations for evaluating drug safety and effectiveness. The ethics question of whether a DD is routine evaluation or research depends on its purpose and generalizability.

Emerging Methods in Comparative Effectiveness and Safety

BACKGROUND

Interest in new methods for comparative effectiveness, drug and patient safety, and related studies is burgeoning. The advent of Medicare Part D for outpatient prescription drugs has drawn significant attention to the need for efficient ways to monitor the potential benefits and harms of pharmaceuticals. These trends prompted the Effective Health Care program at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and its DEcIDE (Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness) network to examine innovative approaches for such investigations through an invitational symposium in June 2006.

RESULTS

Conference papers covered numerous points about ways to structure both interventional and database-oriented studies, particularly those concerned with adverse drug events, to avoid bias in those studies, and to apply advanced statistical tools to exploit the information from these studies to their fullest. Of particular importance are: (1) using new types of experimental designs, including cluster randomization, delayed designs, pragmatic trials, and practice-based investigations that incorporate the natural variation of data from routine clinical practice; (2) finding efficient ways to use different types of databases-eg, Department of Veterans Affairs files, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance files, Medicaid claims data, and state hospital data-for examining initiation, persistence, and adherence, and the benefits and adverse events of pharmaceutical use; and (3) inventing or refining ways to decrease the threats to validity of analyses relying on administrative or other observational data, particularly through propensity scoring, inverse probability weighting, risk adjustment, and direct or indirect methods for synthesizing comparative effectiveness information.