Understanding implementability in clinical trials: a pragmatic review and concept map

The Development of Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trials in Surgical Oncology

Investigator-initiated trials (IITs) are designed by principal investigators who identify important, unaddressed clinical gaps and opportunities to answer these questions through clinical trials. Surgical oncologists are poised to lead IITs due to their multidisciplinary clinical practice and substantial research background. The process of developing, organizing, and implementing IITs is multifaceted and involves important steps including (but not limited to) navigating regulatory requirements, obtaining funding, and meeting enrollment targets. Here, the authors explore the steps, methodology, and barriers of IIT development by surgical oncologists and highlight the importance of IITs in oncology.

Implementation of Antenatal Lifestyle Interventions Into Routine Care: Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Lifestyle interventions in pregnancy optimize gestational weight gain and improve pregnancy outcomes, with implementation recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Yet, implementation research taking these efficacy trials into pragmatic translation remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate success factors for implementing pregnancy lifestyle interventions into antenatal care settings in a meta-analysis, using the penetration, implementation, participation, and effectiveness (PIPE) impact metric.

DATA SOURCES

Data from a previous systematic review that searched across 9 databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Health Technology Assessment Database, were obtained, in 2 stages, up to May 6, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials reporting gestational weight gain in singleton pregnancies.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The association of penetration, implementation, and participation with effectiveness of antenatal lifestyle interventions in optimizing gestational weight gain was estimated using random-effects meta-analyses. The Cochrane risk of bias tool, version 1.0, was used to assess risk of bias.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Penetration (reach), implementation (fidelity), participation, and effectiveness of randomized clinical trials of lifestyle interventions in pregnancy.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine studies with 34 546 participants were included. Only 14 studies reported penetration of target populations. Overall, 38 studies (38.4%) had moderate fidelity, 25 (25.2%) had high fidelity, and 36 (36.4%) had unclear fidelity. Participation was reported in 84 studies (84.8%). Lifestyle interventions were associated with reducing gestational weight gain by 1.15 kg (95% CI, -1.40 to -0.91 kg).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that, despite the large body of evidence on efficacy of lifestyle interventions during pregnancy in optimizing gestational weight gain, little guidance is available to inform implementation of this evidence into practice. There is a need to better elucidate implementation outcomes in trial design alongside pragmatic implementation research to improve the health of women who are pregnant and the next generation.

Mapping ongoing nutrition intervention trials in muscle, sarcopenia, and cachexia: a scoping review of future research

Muscle loss alone, or in the context of sarcopenia or cachexia, is a prevalent condition and a predictor of negative outcomes in aging and disease. As adequate nutrition is essential for muscle maintenance, a growing number of studies has been conducted to explore the role of specific nutrients on muscle mass or function. Nonetheless, more research is needed to guide evidence-based recommendations. This scoping review aimed to compile and document ongoing clinical trials investigating nutrition interventions as a strategy to prevent or treat low muscle mass or function (strength and physical performance), sarcopenia, or cachexia. ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched up to 21 April 2021 for planned and ongoing trials. Randomized controlled trials with ≥20 participants per arm were included based on intent to explore the effects of nutrition interventions on muscle-related outcomes (i.e. muscle mass or strength, physical performance, or muscle synthesis rate) in both clinical and non-clinical conditions (i.e. aging). Two reviewers independently screened records for eligibility, and a descriptive synthesis of trials characteristics was conducted. A total of 113 trials were included in the review. Most trials (69.0%) enroll adults with clinical conditions, such as cancer (19.5%), obesity and metabolic diseases (16.8%), and musculoskeletal diseases (10.7%). The effects of nutrition interventions on age-related muscle loss are explored in 31% of trials. Although nutrition interventions of varied types were identified, food supplements alone (48.7%) or combined with dietary advice (11.5%) are most frequently reported. Protein (17.7%), amino acids (10.6%), and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (HMB, 6.2%) are the top three food supplements' nutrients under investigation. Primary outcome of most trials (54.9%) consists of measures of muscle mass alone or in combination with muscle strength and/or performance (as either primary or secondary outcomes). Muscle strength and physical performance are primary outcomes of 38% and 31.9% of the trials, respectively. These measurements were obtained using a variety of techniques. Only a few trials evaluate muscle synthesis rate either as a primary or secondary outcome (5.3%). Several nutrition studies focusing on muscle, sarcopenia, and cachexia are underway and can inform future research in this area. Although many trials have similar type of interventions, methodological heterogeneity may challenge study comparisons, and future meta-analyses aiming to provide evidence-based recommendations. Upcoming research in this area may benefit from guidelines for the assessment of therapeutic effects of nutrition interventions.

Implementability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a conceptual framework

Background

Implementation research may play an important role in reducing research waste by identifying strategies that support translation of evidence into practice. Implementation of healthcare interventions is influenced by multiple factors including the organisational context, implementation strategies and features of the intervention as perceived by people delivering and receiving the intervention. Recently, concepts relating to perceived features of interventions have been gaining traction in published literature, namely, acceptability, fidelity, feasibility, scalability and sustainability. These concepts may influence uptake of healthcare interventions, yet there seems to be little consensus about their nature and impact. The aim of this paper is to develop a testable conceptual framework of implementability of healthcare interventions that includes these five concepts.

Methods

A multifaceted approach was used to develop and refine a conceptual framework of implementability of healthcare interventions. An overview of reviews identified reviews published between January 2000 and March 2021 that focused on at least one of the five concepts in relation to a healthcare intervention. These findings informed the development of a preliminary framework of implementability of healthcare interventions which was presented to a panel of experts. A nominal group process was used to critique, refine and agree on a final framework.

Results

A total of 252 publications were included in the overview of reviews. Of these, 32% were found to be feasible, 4% reported sustainable changes in practice and 9% were scaled up to other populations and/or settings. The expert panel proposed that scalability and sustainability of a healthcare intervention are dependent on its acceptability, fidelity and feasibility. Furthermore, acceptability, fidelity and feasibility require re-evaluation over time and as the intervention is developed and then implemented in different settings or with different populations. The final agreed framework of implementability provides the basis for a chronological, iterative approach to planning for wide-scale, long-term implementation of healthcare interventions.

Conclusions

We recommend that researchers consider the factors acceptability, fidelity and feasibility (proposed to influence sustainability and scalability) during the preliminary phases of intervention development, evaluation and implementation, and iteratively check these factors in different settings and over time.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01171-7.