Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36708968›Full record

ReviewContemporary clinical trials2023

Intervention delivery for embedded pragmatic clinical trials: Development of a tool to measure complexity.

Karen L Staman, Devon K Check, Doug Zatzick, Vincent Mor, Julie M Fritz, Kathleen Sluka, Lynn L DeBar, Jeffrey G Jarvik, Angelo Volandes, Gloria D Coronado and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Contemporary clinical trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors.

Karen L StamanDuke Clinical Research Institute, CHB Wordsmith, Inc, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Devon K CheckPopulation Health Sciences and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Doug ZatzickUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Vincent MorBrown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Julie M FritzUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Kathleen SlukaUniversity of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Lynn L DeBarKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jeffrey G JarvikUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Angelo VolandesHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Gloria D CoronadoKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA.
David A ChambersNational Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Kevin P WeinfurtPopulation Health Sciences and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Steven Z GeorgeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: steven.george@duke.edu.

Funding

NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory-Coordinating Center (U24)U24AT009676 · NCCIH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LESLEY H CURTIS, Adrian Hernandez · 2017 to 2026
$21.5M
Improving Advance Care Planning in Oncology: A Pragmatic, Cluster-Randomized Trial Integrating Patient Videos and Clinician Communication TrainingUH3AG060626 · NIA · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI TULSKY, JAMES A., VOLANDES, ANGELO · 2019 to 2025
$10.1M
UW Core Center for Clinical Research of Musculoskeletal ConditionsP30AR072572 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JEFFREY G JARVIK, Pradeep Suri · 2017 to 2026
$8.3M
PPACT Administrative Supplement for Research on Sleep Disturbances and Impact on Chronic PainUH3NS088731 · NINDS · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI DEBAR, LYNN L. · 2014 to 2017
$7.7M
Fibromyalgia TENS in Physical Therapy Study (TIPS): an embedded pragmatic clinical trial: Administrative SupplementUH3AR076387 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI CROFFORD, LESLIE J, SLUKA, KATHLEEN A · 2020 to 2023
$7.3M
HEAL Collaboratory Resource Coordinating Center (PRISM) (U24): Bioethics SupplementU24AT010961 · NCCIH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CURTIS, LESLEY H, HERNANDEZ, ADRIAN · 2019 to 2021
$6.4M
PROVEN: PRagmatic trial Of Video Education in Nursing homesUH3AG049619 · NIA · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI MITCHELL, SUSAN L, MOR, VINCENT · 2015 to 2018
$6.2M
Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority PopulationsUH3CA188640 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI CORONADO, GLORIA D · 2014 to 2017
$6.1M
A Pragmatic Trial of Lumbar Image Reporting with Epidemiology (LIRE)UH3AR066795 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JARVIK, JEFFREY G · 2014 to 2017
$6.0M
A Policy Relevant US Trauma Care System Pragmatic Trial for PTSD and ComorbidityUH3MH106338 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ZATZICK, DOUGLAS F · 2015 to 2018
$5.5M
Nonpharmacologic Pain Management in FQHC primary care clinicsUH3NR019943 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI FRITZ, JULIE M · 2021 to 2024
$4.9M
NCCIH NIH HHS U24 AT009676NCCIH NIH HHS U24 AT010961NCI NIH HHS UH3 CA188640NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR072572NIAMS NIH HHS UH3 AR066795NIAMS NIH HHS UH3 AR076387NIA NIH HHS UH3 AG049619NIA NIH HHS UH3 AG060626NIMH NIH HHS UH3 MH106338NINDS NIH HHS UH3 NS088731NINR NIH HHS UH3 NR019943
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConducting an embedded pragmatic clinical trial in the workflow of a healthcare system is a complex endeavor. The complexity of the intervention delivery can have implications for study planning, ability to maintain fidelity to the intervention during the trial, and/or ability to detect meaningful differences in outcomes.

methodsWe conducted a literature review, developed a tool, and conducted two rounds of phone calls with NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory Demonstration Project principal investigators to develop the Intervention Delivery Complexity Tool. After refining the tool, we piloted it with Collaboratory demonstration projects and developed an online version of the tool using the R Shiny application (https://duke-som.shinyapps.io/ICT-ePCT/).

resultsThe 6-item tool consists of internal and external factors. Internal factors pertain to the intervention itself and include workflow, training, and the number of intervention components. External factors are related to intervention delivery at the system level including differences in healthcare systems, the dependency on setting for implementation, and the number of steps between the intervention and the outcome.

conclusionThe Intervention Delivery Complexity Tool was developed as a standard way to overcome communication challenges of intervention delivery within an embedded pragmatic trial. This version of the tool is most likely to be useful to the trial team and its health system partners during trial planning and conduct. We expect further evolution of the tool as more pragmatic trials are conducted and feedback is received on its performance outside of the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareResearch DesignCommunicationHumansClinical workflowComplex interventionsImplementation

Identifiers

PMID36708968
PMCPMC10126825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.