Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39430273›Full record

ArticleLearning health systems2024

Overcoming challenges in real-world evidence generation: An example from an Adult Medical Care Coordination program.

Samuel T Savitz, Michelle A Lampman, Shealeigh A Inselman, Ruchita Dholakia, Vicki L Hunt, Angela B Mattson, Robert J Stroebel, Pamela J McCabe, Stephanie G Witwer, Bijan J Borah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning health systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Samuel T SavitzRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3190-7740
Michelle A LampmanRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Shealeigh A InselmanRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Ruchita DholakiaRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Vicki L HuntDivision of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Angela B MattsonDepartment of Nursing Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Robert J StroebelDivision of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Pamela J McCabeDepartment of Nursing Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Stephanie G WitwerDepartment of Nursing Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Bijan J BorahRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Adult Medical Care Coordination program ("the program") was implemented at Mayo Clinic to promote patient self-management and improve 30-day unplanned readmission for patients with high risk for readmission after hospital discharge. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the program compared to usual care using a pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomized trial ("stepped wedge trial"). However, several challenges arose including large differences between the study arms. Our goal is to describe the challenges and present lessons learned on how to overcome such challenges and generate evidence to support practice decisions. We describe the challenges encountered during the trial, the approach to addressing these challenges, and lessons learned for other learning health system researchers facing similar challenges. The trial experienced several challenges in implementation including several clinics dropping from the study and care disruptions due to COVID-19. Additionally, there were large differences in the patient population between the program and usual care arms. For example, the mean age was 76.8 for the program and 68.1 for usual care. Due to these differences, we adapted the methods using the propensity score matching approach that is traditionally applied to observational designs and adjusted for differences in observable characteristics. When conducting pragmatic research, researchers will encounter factors beyond their control that may introduce bias. The lessons learned include the need to weigh the tradeoffs of pragmatic design elements and the potential value of adaptive designs for pragmatic trials. Applying these lessons would promote the successful generation of evidence that informs practice decisions.

Indexed as

care transitionscase managementpatient readmissionpragmatic clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID39430273
PMCPMC11488116

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.