Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31319789›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019

Readiness assessment for pragmatic trials (RAPT): a model to assess the readiness of an intervention for testing in a pragmatic trial.

Rosa R Baier, Eric Jutkowitz, Susan L Mitchell, Ellen McCreedy, Vincent Mor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A review of trauma and orthopaedic randomised clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Communication Bridge-2 randomized controlled trial: Recruitment and baseline features.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Invested Partner Feedback on Technology Assistance in Dementia (Tech-AiD).Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rosa R BaierCenter for Long-Term Care Quality & Innovation, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-6, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA. Rosa_Baier@Brown.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0284-1749
Eric JutkowitzDepartment of Health Services, Policy & Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-6, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Susan L MitchellCenter for Gerontology & Healthcare Practice, 1200 Centre Street, Boston, MA, 02131, USA.
Ellen McCreedyDepartment of Health Services, Policy & Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-6, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Vincent MorDepartment of Health Services, Policy & Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-6, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.

Funding

VARIATIONS IN LIFE'S FINAL CHAPTERP01AG027296 · NIA · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI AMAL N. TRIVEDI, Kali St. Marie Thomas · 2007 to 2026
$38.9M
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG027296
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPragmatic randomized, controlled trials (PCTs) test the effectiveness of interventions implemented in routine clinical practice. Because PCT findings are generalizable, this approach is gaining momentum among interventionists and funding agencies seeking to accelerate the testing and adoption of evidence-based strategies to improve care and outcomes. Particular attention is being paid to non-pharmacological interventions, which are often complex and may be difficult to uniformly implement across multiple sites. While many such non-pharmacological interventions have proven efficacious in small trials, most have not been widely adopted. PCTs could accelerate effectiveness testing and adoption, yet there are no established criteria to identify interventions ready for testing in a PCT.

methodsWe convened 30 interventionists and healthcare leaders to identify criteria to assess the readiness of non-pharmacological interventions for PCTs. Based on this discussion, we created a model with multiple domains, qualitative scoring guidelines for each domain, and a graphical summary of readiness assessments. All workshop participants had an opportunity to review and comment on the resulting model; three piloted it with their own interventions. Several other experts also provided input.

resultsThe Readiness Assessment for Pragmatic Trials (RAPT) model enables interventionists to assess an intervention's readiness for PCTs. RAPT includes nine domains: implementation protocol, evidence, risk, feasibility, measurement, cost, acceptability, alignment, and impact. Domains reflect a range of considerations regarding the feasibility of successfully employing PCT methods and the prospect of an intervention's widespread adoption, if proven effective. Individuals evaluating an intervention are asked to qualitatively assess each domain from low to high readiness. In this report, we provide assessment guidelines and examples of scored interventions.

conclusionsRAPT is the first model to help interventionists and funders assess the extent to which interventions are ready for PCTs. Scoring efficacious interventions using RAPT can inform research team discussions regarding whether or not to advance an intervention to effectiveness testing using a PCT and how do design that PCTs.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicResearch DesignEvidence-Based MedicineHumansEffectivenessFrameworkImplementation scienceModelPragmatic clinical trialPragmatic trialTranslational research

Identifiers

PMID31319789
PMCPMC6637482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.