Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective One of the most challenging parts of running clinical trials is recruiting enough participants. Our objective was to determine which recruitment strategies were effective in reaching specific subgroups. Study design and setting We assessed the efficacy and costs of the recruitment strategies used in the Assessing Outcomes of Enhanced Chronic Disease Care Through Patient Education and a Value-based Formulary Study (ACCESS) in Alberta, Canada. Results Twenty percent of the study budget ($354,330 CAD) was spent on recruiting 4013 participants, giving an average cost per enrolled of $88 CAD. Pharmacies recruited the most participants ( n  = 1217), at a cost of $128/enrolled. ”Paid media” had the highest cost ($806/enrolled), whereas ”word of mouth” and ”unpaid media” had the lowest (~$3/enrolled). Participants enrolled from ”seniors outreach” had the lowest baseline quality of life and income, while participants from ”word of mouth” had the lowest educational attainment. Conclusion The ”health care providers” strategies were especially successful — at a moderate cost per enrolled. The \"media\" strategies were less effective, short lasting, and more costly. No strategy was singularly effective in recruiting our targeted groups, emphasizing the importance of utilizing a variety of strategies to reach recruitment goals. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02579655 . Registered on 19 October 2015.

Background The clinical research enterprise is not producing the evidence decision makers arguably need in a timely and cost effective manner; research currently involves the use of labor-intensive parallel systems that are separate from clinical care. The emergence of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) poses a possible solution: these large-scale trials are embedded within routine clinical care and often involve cluster randomization of hospitals, clinics, primary care providers, etc. Interventions can be implemented by health system personnel through usual communication channels and quality improvement infrastructure, and data collected as part of routine clinical care. However, experience with these trials is nascent and best practices regarding design operational, analytic, and reporting methodologies are undeveloped. Methods To strengthen the national capacity to implement cost-effective, large-scale PCTs, the Common Fund of the National Institutes of Health created the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (Collaboratory) to support the design, execution, and dissemination of a series of demonstration projects using a pragmatic research design. Results In this article, we will describe the Collaboratory, highlight some of the challenges encountered and solutions developed thus far, and discuss remaining barriers and opportunities for large-scale evidence generation using PCTs. Conclusion A planning phase is critical, and even with careful planning, new challenges arise during execution; comparisons between arms can be complicated by unanticipated changes. Early and ongoing engagement with both health care system leaders and front-line clinicians is critical for success. There is also marked uncertainty when applying existing ethical and regulatory frameworks to PCTS, and using existing electronic health records for data capture adds complexity.

Background Randomised clinical trials are key to advancing medical knowledge and to enhancing patient care, but major barriers to their conduct exist. The present paper presents some of these barriers. Methods We performed systematic literature searches and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project. Results The following barriers to randomised clinical trials were identified: inadequate knowledge of clinical research and trial methodology; lack of funding; excessive monitoring; restrictive privacy law and lack of transparency; complex regulatory requirements; and inadequate infrastructures. There is a need for more pragmatic randomised clinical trials conducted with low risks of systematic and random errors, and multinational cooperation is essential. Conclusions The present paper presents major barriers to randomised clinical trials. It also underlines the value of using a pan-European-distributed infrastructure to help investigators overcome barriers for multi-country trials in any disease area.

Background Improving efficiencies in clinical research is crucial to translation of findings into practice and delivery of effective, patient-centered health care. This paper describes a project that monitored pragmatic clinical trials by working with investigators to track achievement of early phase milestones. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project supported scientifically diverse, low-cost, randomized, controlled, pragmatic clinical intervention trials. Funds were available through a cooperative agreement award mechanism, with the initial phase supporting trial planning and the subsequent 4-year awards funding trial implementation. A coordinating center provided evaluation and administrative support, which included capturing progress toward achieving milestones. Methods Six funded trials participated in monthly calls throughout the first year to identify and demonstrate metrics and deliverables for each milestone in the Notice of Grant Award. Interviews were conducted with investigators, trial team members, and NIH program officers/project scientists to discuss their perceptions of the impact and value of the management strategy. Results Five of six trials transitioned to the implementation phase with milestones ranging from 6 to 15 and quantifiable metrics ranging from 15 to 33, for a total of 121 deliverables. One third of the metrics (42, 35%) were trial-specific. Trial teams reported that the oversight was onerous but complemented their management strategies; program officers/project scientists found that documentation submitted for review was sufficient to assess trial feasibility; and investigators reported advantages to the phased award mechanism, such as leverage to secure commitments from stakeholders and collaborators, help with task prioritization, and earlier consultation with key members of the trial team. Conclusions Implementing systematic approaches to identify milestones and track metrics can strengthen the evidence base regarding time and effort to plan and conduct pragmatic clinical trials. Investigators were unaccustomed to producing evidence of performance, and it was challenging to determine what documentation to provide. Efforts to standardize expectations regarding milestones that mark a significant change or stage in trial development or that represent minimum success criteria may provide guidance for more effective and efficient trial management. A framework with clearly specified metrics is especially critical for transparency, particularly when funding decisions are contingent on both merit and feasibility.

Background Lack of data integrity is a common problem in randomized clinical trials and is more serious in economic evaluations conducted alongside explanatory clinical trials. Despite pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) becoming recognized as the best design for economic evaluations, information on the proportion, handling approaches, and reporting quality of missing data in pRCTs-based economic evaluations remains limited. This study aimed to investigate the quantity and reporting quality of missing data in economic evaluations conducted alongside pragmatic clinical trials. Methods In this cross-sectional survey, data were extracted from PubMed and OVID (Embase, CENTRAL, HTA database, and NHS EED) from January 1, 2010, to April 24, 2022. Economic evaluations conducted alongside pRCTs were included. Two independent reviewer groups identified relevant articles, and data were extracted by three groups comprising two reviewers each. Descriptive analyses were performed to assess the characteristics of the included studies, missingness in the included studies, and handling of missing data. Results Overall, 715 studies were identified, of which 152 met the inclusion criteria. In total, 113, 119, and 132 articles reported missing data, costs, and effects, respectively. More than 50% (58/113) of the articles reported the proportion or quantity of overall missingness, and 64.71% and 54.55% reported missing costs and effects, respectively. The proportion of missingness of < 5% in the overall group was 3.45%, whereas the proportions of missing costs and effects were both < 10% (5.26% vs. 8.45%, respectively). In terms of the proportion of missing data, the overall missingness rate was 30.22% in 58 studies, whereas the median proportion of missing data was slightly higher than that of missing effects (30.92% vs. 27.78%). Of the included studies, 56 (36.84%) conducted a sensitivity analysis on handling missing data. Of these, 12.50% reported missing mechanisms, and 83.93% examined handling methods. Conclusions Insufficient description and reporting of missing data, along with a high proportion of missing data in pRCT-based economic evaluations, could decrease the reliability and extrapolation of conclusions, leading to misleading decision-making.

Economic evaluations based on well-designed and -conducted pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) can provide valuable evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions, enhancing the relevance and applicability of findings to healthcare decision-making. However, economic evaluation outcomes are seldom taken into consideration during the process of sample size calculation in pragmatic trials. The reporting quality of sample size and information on its calculation in economic evaluations that are well-suited to pRCTs remain unknown. This study aims to assess the reporting quality of sample size and estimate the power values of economic evaluations in pRCTs. We conducted a cross-sectional survey using data of pRCTs available from PubMed and OVID from 1 January 2010 to 24 April 2022. Two groups of independent reviewers identified articles; three groups of reviewers each extracted the data. Descriptive statistics presented the general characteristics of included studies. Statistical power analyses were performed on clinical and economic outcomes with sufficient data. The electronic search identified 715 studies and 152 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 26 were available for power analysis. Only 9 out of 152 trials (5.9%) considered economic outcomes when estimating sample size, and only one adjusted the sample size accordingly. Power values for trial-based economic evaluations and clinical trials ranged from 2.56% to 100% and 3.21%–100%, respectively. Regardless of the perspectives, in 14 out of the 26 studies (53.8%), the power values of economic evaluations for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were lower than those of clinical trials for primary endpoints (PEs). In 11 out of the 24 (45.8%) and in 8 out of the 13 (61.5%) studies, power values of economic evaluations for QALYs were lower than those of clinical trials for PEs from the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. Power values of economic evaluations for non-QALYs from the healthcare and societal perspectives were potentially higher than those of clinical trials in 3 out of the 4 studies (75%). The power values for economic outcomes in Q1 were not higher than those for other journal impact factor quartile categories. Theoretically, pragmatic trials with concurrent economic evaluations can provide real-world evidence for healthcare decision makers. However, in pRCT-based economic evaluations, limited consideration, and inadequate reporting of sample-size calculations for economic outcomes could negatively affect the results’ reliability and generalisability. We thus recommend that future pragmatic trials with economic evaluations should report how sample sizes are determined or adjusted based on the economic outcomes in their protocols to enhance their transparency and evidence quality.

Registry-based trials have emerged as a potentially cost-saving study methodology. Early estimates of cost savings, however, conflated the benefits associated with registry utilisation and those associated with other aspects of pragmatic trial designs, which might not all be as broadly applicable. In this study, we sought to build a practical tool that investigators could use across disciplines to estimate the ranges of potential cost differences associated with implementing registry-based trials versus standard clinical trials. We built simulation Markov models to compare unique costs associated with data acquisition, cleaning, and linkage under a registry-based trial design versus a standard clinical trial. We conducted one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, varying study characteristics over broad ranges, to determine thresholds at which investigators might optimally select each trial design. Registry-based trials were more cost effective than standard clinical trials 98.6% of the time. Data-related cost savings ranged from $4300 to $600,000 with variation in study characteristics. Cost differences were most reactive to the number of patients in a study, the number of data elements per patient available in a registry, and the speed with which research coordinators could manually abstract data. Registry incorporation resulted in cost savings when as few as 3768 independent data elements were available and when manual data abstraction took as little as 3.4 seconds per data field. Registries offer important resources for investigators. When available, their broad incorporation may help the scientific community reduce the costs of clinical investigation. We offer here a practical tool for investigators to assess potential costs savings.

Background Pragmatic randomized trials aim to examine the effects of interventions in the full spectrum of patients seen by clinicians who receive routine care. Such trials should be employed in parallel with efforts to implement many interventions which appear promising but where evidence of effectiveness is limited. We illustrate this need taking the case of essential interventions to reduce inpatient neonatal mortality in low and middle income countries (LMIC) but suggest the arguments are applicable in most clinical areas. Discussion A set of basic interventions have been defined, based on available evidence, that could substantially reduce early neonatal deaths if successfully implemented at scale within district and sub-district hospitals in LMIC. However, we illustrate that there remain many gaps in the evidence available to guide delivery of many inpatient neonatal interventions, that existing evidence is often from high income settings and that it frequently indicates uncertainty in the magnitude or even direction of estimates of effect. Furthermore generalizing results to LMIC where conditions include very high patient staff ratios, absence of even basic technologies, and a reliance on largely empiric management is problematic. Where there is such uncertainty over the effectiveness of interventions in different contexts or in the broad populations who might receive the intervention in routine care settings pragmatic trials that preserve internal validity while promoting external validity should be increasingly employed. Summary Many interventions are introduced without adequate evidence of their effectiveness in the routine settings to which they are introduced. Global efforts are needed to support pragmatic research to establish the effectiveness in routine care of many interventions intended to reduce mortality or morbidity in LMIC. Such research should be seen as complementary to efforts to optimize implementation.

Background There is a pressing need for greater attention to patient-centered health behavior and psychosocial issues in primary care, and for practical tools, study designs and results of clinical and policy relevance. Our goal is to design a scientifically rigorous and valid pragmatic trial to test whether primary care practices can systematically implement the collection of patient-reported information and provide patients needed advice, goal setting, and counseling in response. Methods This manuscript reports on the iterative design of the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, a cluster randomized delayed intervention trial. Nine pairs of diverse primary care practices will be randomized to early or delayed intervention four months later. The intervention consists of fielding the MOHR assessment – addresses 10 domains of health behaviors and psychosocial issues – and subsequent provision of needed counseling and support for patients presenting for wellness or chronic care. As a pragmatic participatory trial, stakeholder groups including practice partners and patients have been engaged throughout the study design to account for local resources and characteristics. Participatory tasks include identifying MOHR assessment content, refining the study design, providing input on outcomes measures, and designing the implementation workflow. Study outcomes include the intervention reach (percent of patients offered and completing the MOHR assessment), effectiveness (patients reporting being asked about topics, setting change goals, and receiving assistance in early versus delayed intervention practices), contextual factors influencing outcomes, and intervention costs. Discussion The MOHR study shows how a participatory design can be used to promote the consistent collection and use of patient-reported health behavior and psychosocial assessments in a broad range of primary care settings. While pragmatic in nature, the study design will allow valid comparisons to answer the posed research question, and findings will be broadly generalizable to a range of primary care settings. Per the pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) framework, the study design is substantially more pragmatic than other published trials. The methods and findings should be of interest to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers attempting to make healthcare more patient-centered and relevant. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01825746

Background In the UK, routinely recorded data may benefit prospective studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In an on-going study, we aim to assess the feasibility of access and agreement of routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data compared to data collected during a RCT using standard prospective methods. This paper will summarise available UK routinely recorded data sources and discuss our experience with the feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data for participants of a RCT before finally proposing recommendations for improving the access and implementation of routinely recorded data in RCTs. Methods Setting: the case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK, multicentre, phase IV RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatments for newly diagnosed epilepsy. Participants: 98 participants have provided written consent to permit the request of routinely recorded data. Study procedures: routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data were identified and data requested through formal applications from available data holders for the duration that participants have been recruited into SANAD II. The feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data during a RCT is assessed and recommendations for improving access proposed. Results Secondary-care clinical and socioeconomic data is recorded on a national basis and can be accessed, although there are limitations in the application process. Primary-care data are recorded by a number of organisations on a de-identified basis but access for specific individuals has not been feasible. Access to data recorded by non-clinical sources, including The Department for Work and Pensions and The Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency, was not successful. Conclusions Recommendations discussed include further research to assess the attributes of routinely recorded data, an assessment of public perceptions and the development of strategies to collaboratively improve access to routinely recorded data for research. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN30294119 . Registered on 3 July 2012. EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64. Registered on 9 May 2012.