Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37996884›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2023

Design of a dual randomized trial in a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study.

June Stevens, Sarah Denton Mills, Mary-Louise Millett, Feng-Chang Lin, Jennifer Leeman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Dissemination and Implementation-A Primer for Accelerating "Time to Translation" in Radiation Oncology.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. 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.

June StevensDepartments of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. June_Stevens@unc.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7306-7298
Sarah Denton MillsLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA.
Mary-Louise MillettUTHealth Houston Institute for Implementation Science, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Feng-Chang LinDepartment of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Jennifer LeemanSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.

Funding

Coordinating Center for the DECIPHeR NetworkU24HL151308 · NHLBI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI JUNE STEVENS, KIMBERLY P TRUESDALE · 2020 to 2026
$4.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS 1U24HL151308NHLBI NIH HHS U24 HL151308
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDual randomized controlled trials (DRCT) are type 2 hybrid studies that include two randomized trials: one testing implementation strategies and one testing an intervention. We argue that this study design offers efficiency by providing rigorous investigation of both implementation and intervention in one study and has potential to accelerate generation of the evidence needed to translate interventions that work into real-world practice. Nevertheless, studies using this design are rare in the literature. MAIN TEXT: We construct a paradigm that breaks down the components of the DRCT and provide a step-by-step explanation of features of the design and recommendations for use. A clear distinction is made between the dual strands that test the implementation versus the intervention, and a minimum of three randomized arms is advocated. We suggest an active treatment arm that includes both the implementation strategy and intervention that are hypothesized to be superior. We suggest two comparison/control arms: one to test the implementation strategy and the second to test the intervention. Further, we recommend selection criteria for the two control arms that place emphasis on maximizing the utility of the study design to advance public health practice.

conclusionsOn the surface, the design of a DRCT can appear simple, but actual application is complex. We believe it is that complexity that has limited its use in the literature. We hope that this paper will give both implementation scientists and trialists who are not familiar with implementation science a better understanding of the DRCT design and encouragement to use it.

Indexed as

Research DesignHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicImplementation scienceMethodsRandomized trial

Identifiers

PMID37996884
PMCPMC10666326

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.