Cargando…
Design of a dual randomized trial in a type 2 hybrid effectiveness—implementation study
BACKGROUND: Dual 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 i...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10666326/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37996884 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-023-01317-9 |
_version_ | 1785148924469706752 |
---|---|
author | Stevens, June Mills, Sarah Denton Millett, Thomas J. Lin, Feng-Chang Leeman, Jennifer |
author_facet | Stevens, June Mills, Sarah Denton Millett, Thomas J. Lin, Feng-Chang Leeman, Jennifer |
author_sort | Stevens, June |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Dual 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. CONCLUSIONS: On 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-023-01317-9. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10666326 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106663262023-11-23 Design of a dual randomized trial in a type 2 hybrid effectiveness—implementation study Stevens, June Mills, Sarah Denton Millett, Thomas J. Lin, Feng-Chang Leeman, Jennifer Implement Sci Debate BACKGROUND: Dual 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. CONCLUSIONS: On 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-023-01317-9. BioMed Central 2023-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10666326/ /pubmed/37996884 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-023-01317-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Debate Stevens, June Mills, Sarah Denton Millett, Thomas J. Lin, Feng-Chang Leeman, Jennifer Design of a dual randomized trial in a type 2 hybrid effectiveness—implementation study |
title | Design of a dual randomized trial in a type 2 hybrid effectiveness—implementation study |
title_full | Design of a dual randomized trial in a type 2 hybrid effectiveness—implementation study |
title_fullStr | Design of a dual randomized trial in a type 2 hybrid effectiveness—implementation study |
title_full_unstemmed | Design of a dual randomized trial in a type 2 hybrid effectiveness—implementation study |
title_short | Design of a dual randomized trial in a type 2 hybrid effectiveness—implementation study |
title_sort | design of a dual randomized trial in a type 2 hybrid effectiveness—implementation study |
topic | Debate |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10666326/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37996884 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-023-01317-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT stevensjune designofadualrandomizedtrialinatype2hybrideffectivenessimplementationstudy AT millssarahdenton designofadualrandomizedtrialinatype2hybrideffectivenessimplementationstudy AT millettthomasj designofadualrandomizedtrialinatype2hybrideffectivenessimplementationstudy AT linfengchang designofadualrandomizedtrialinatype2hybrideffectivenessimplementationstudy AT leemanjennifer designofadualrandomizedtrialinatype2hybrideffectivenessimplementationstudy |