Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35606135›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of family medicine

Considerations Before Selecting a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial Design for a Practice Improvement Study.

Ann M Nguyen, Charles M Cleland, L Miriam Dickinson, Michael P Barry, Samuel Cykert, F Daniel Duffy, Anton J Kuzel, Stephan R Lindner, Michael L Parchman, Donna R Shelley and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. "Is eat, sleep, console the key to safer and faster discharge for newborns with neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome?"Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

11 authors.

Ann M NguyenRutgers University, Center for State Health Policy, New Brunswick, New Jersey anguyen@ifh.rutgers.edu.
Charles M ClelandNYU Langone Health, New York, New York.
L Miriam DickinsonUniversity of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
Michael P BarrySUNY Downstate Health Sciences University College of Medicine, Brooklyn, New York.
Samuel CykertUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
F Daniel DuffyUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Anton J KuzelVirginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Stephan R LindnerOregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Michael L ParchmanKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Donna R ShelleyNew York University School of Global Public Health, New York, New York.
Theresa L WalunasNorthwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

Funding

Using practice facilitation in primary care settings to reduce risk factors for cardiovascular diseaseR18HS023922 · AHRQ · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI BERRY, CAROLYN ANNE · 2015 to 2017
$14.9M
AHRQ HHS R18 HS023922
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDespite the growing popularity of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) for practice-based research, the design's advantages and challenges are not well documented. The objective of this study was to identify the advantages and challenges of the SW-CRT design for large-scale intervention implementations in primary care settings.

methodsThe EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health initiative, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, included a large collection of SW-CRTs. We conducted qualitative interviews with 17 key informants from EvidenceNOW grantees to identify the advantages and challenges of using SW-CRT design.

resultsAll interviewees reported that SW-CRT can be an effective study design for large-scale intervention implementations. Advantages included (1) incentivized recruitment, (2) staggered resource allocation, and (3) statistical power. Challenges included (1) time-sensitive recruitment, (2) retention, (3) randomization requirements and practice preferences, (4) achieving treatment schedule fidelity, (5) intensive data collection, (6) the Hawthorne effect, and (7) temporal trends.

conclusionsThe challenges experienced by EvidenceNOW grantees suggest that certain favorable real-world conditions constitute a context that increases the odds of a successful SW-CRT. An existing infrastructure can support the recruitment of many practices. Strong retention plans are needed to continue to engage sites waiting to start the intervention. Finally, study outcomes should be ones already captured in routine practice; otherwise, funders and investigators should assess the feasibility and cost of data collection.

Indexed as

Research DesignCluster AnalysisHumansimplementationpractice improvementqualitativestepped wedge cluster randomized trialstudy design

Identifiers

PMID35606135
PMCPMC9199039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.