Cargando…

Pragmatic trials in primary care. Methodological challenges and solutions demonstrated by the DIAMOND-study

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic randomised controlled trials are often used in primary care to evaluate the effect of a treatment strategy. In these trials it is difficult to achieve both high internal validity and high generalisability. This article will discuss several methodological challenges in designing...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fransen, Gerdine AJ, van Marrewijk, Corine J, Mujakovic, Suhreta, Muris, Jean WM, Laheij, Robert JF, Numans, Mattijs E, de Wit, Niek J, Samsom, Melvin, Jansen, Jan BMJ, Knottnerus, J André
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1865384/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17451599
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-16
_version_ 1782133224746516480
author Fransen, Gerdine AJ
van Marrewijk, Corine J
Mujakovic, Suhreta
Muris, Jean WM
Laheij, Robert JF
Numans, Mattijs E
de Wit, Niek J
Samsom, Melvin
Jansen, Jan BMJ
Knottnerus, J André
author_facet Fransen, Gerdine AJ
van Marrewijk, Corine J
Mujakovic, Suhreta
Muris, Jean WM
Laheij, Robert JF
Numans, Mattijs E
de Wit, Niek J
Samsom, Melvin
Jansen, Jan BMJ
Knottnerus, J André
author_sort Fransen, Gerdine AJ
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Pragmatic randomised controlled trials are often used in primary care to evaluate the effect of a treatment strategy. In these trials it is difficult to achieve both high internal validity and high generalisability. This article will discuss several methodological challenges in designing and conducting a pragmatic primary care based randomised controlled trial, based on our experiences in the DIAMOND-study and will discuss the rationale behind the choices we made. From the successes as well as the problems we experienced the quality of future pragmatic trials may benefit. DISCUSSION: The first challenge concerned choosing the clinically most relevant interventions to compare and enable blinded comparison, since two interventions had very different appearances. By adding treatment steps to one treatment arm and adding placebo to both treatment arms both internal and external validity were optimized. Nevertheless, although blinding is essential for a high internal validity, it should be warily considered in a pragmatic trial because it decreases external validity. Choosing and recruiting a representative selection of participants was the second challenge. We succeeded in retrieving a representative relatively large patient sample by carefully choosing (few) inclusion and exclusion criteria, by random selection, by paying much attention to participant recruitment and taking the participant's reasons to participate into account. Good and regular contact with the GPs and patients was to our opinion essential. The third challenge was to choose the primary outcome, which needed to reflect effectiveness of the treatment in every day practice. We also designed our protocol to follow every day practice as much as possible, although standardized treatment is usually preferred in trials. The aim of this was our fourth challenge: to limit the number of protocol deviations and increase external validity. SUMMARY: It is challenging to design and conduct a pragmatic trial. Thanks to thorough preparation, we were able to collect highly valid data. To our opinion, a critical deliberation of where on the pragmatic – explanatory spectrum you want your trial to be on forehand, in combination with consulting publications especially on patient recruitment procedures, has been helpful in conducting a successful trial.
format Text
id pubmed-1865384
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-18653842007-05-04 Pragmatic trials in primary care. Methodological challenges and solutions demonstrated by the DIAMOND-study Fransen, Gerdine AJ van Marrewijk, Corine J Mujakovic, Suhreta Muris, Jean WM Laheij, Robert JF Numans, Mattijs E de Wit, Niek J Samsom, Melvin Jansen, Jan BMJ Knottnerus, J André BMC Med Res Methodol Debate BACKGROUND: Pragmatic randomised controlled trials are often used in primary care to evaluate the effect of a treatment strategy. In these trials it is difficult to achieve both high internal validity and high generalisability. This article will discuss several methodological challenges in designing and conducting a pragmatic primary care based randomised controlled trial, based on our experiences in the DIAMOND-study and will discuss the rationale behind the choices we made. From the successes as well as the problems we experienced the quality of future pragmatic trials may benefit. DISCUSSION: The first challenge concerned choosing the clinically most relevant interventions to compare and enable blinded comparison, since two interventions had very different appearances. By adding treatment steps to one treatment arm and adding placebo to both treatment arms both internal and external validity were optimized. Nevertheless, although blinding is essential for a high internal validity, it should be warily considered in a pragmatic trial because it decreases external validity. Choosing and recruiting a representative selection of participants was the second challenge. We succeeded in retrieving a representative relatively large patient sample by carefully choosing (few) inclusion and exclusion criteria, by random selection, by paying much attention to participant recruitment and taking the participant's reasons to participate into account. Good and regular contact with the GPs and patients was to our opinion essential. The third challenge was to choose the primary outcome, which needed to reflect effectiveness of the treatment in every day practice. We also designed our protocol to follow every day practice as much as possible, although standardized treatment is usually preferred in trials. The aim of this was our fourth challenge: to limit the number of protocol deviations and increase external validity. SUMMARY: It is challenging to design and conduct a pragmatic trial. Thanks to thorough preparation, we were able to collect highly valid data. To our opinion, a critical deliberation of where on the pragmatic – explanatory spectrum you want your trial to be on forehand, in combination with consulting publications especially on patient recruitment procedures, has been helpful in conducting a successful trial. BioMed Central 2007-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC1865384/ /pubmed/17451599 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-16 Text en Copyright © 2007 Fransen et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Debate
Fransen, Gerdine AJ
van Marrewijk, Corine J
Mujakovic, Suhreta
Muris, Jean WM
Laheij, Robert JF
Numans, Mattijs E
de Wit, Niek J
Samsom, Melvin
Jansen, Jan BMJ
Knottnerus, J André
Pragmatic trials in primary care. Methodological challenges and solutions demonstrated by the DIAMOND-study
title Pragmatic trials in primary care. Methodological challenges and solutions demonstrated by the DIAMOND-study
title_full Pragmatic trials in primary care. Methodological challenges and solutions demonstrated by the DIAMOND-study
title_fullStr Pragmatic trials in primary care. Methodological challenges and solutions demonstrated by the DIAMOND-study
title_full_unstemmed Pragmatic trials in primary care. Methodological challenges and solutions demonstrated by the DIAMOND-study
title_short Pragmatic trials in primary care. Methodological challenges and solutions demonstrated by the DIAMOND-study
title_sort pragmatic trials in primary care. methodological challenges and solutions demonstrated by the diamond-study
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1865384/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17451599
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-16
work_keys_str_mv AT fransengerdineaj pragmatictrialsinprimarycaremethodologicalchallengesandsolutionsdemonstratedbythediamondstudy
AT vanmarrewijkcorinej pragmatictrialsinprimarycaremethodologicalchallengesandsolutionsdemonstratedbythediamondstudy
AT mujakovicsuhreta pragmatictrialsinprimarycaremethodologicalchallengesandsolutionsdemonstratedbythediamondstudy
AT murisjeanwm pragmatictrialsinprimarycaremethodologicalchallengesandsolutionsdemonstratedbythediamondstudy
AT laheijrobertjf pragmatictrialsinprimarycaremethodologicalchallengesandsolutionsdemonstratedbythediamondstudy
AT numansmattijse pragmatictrialsinprimarycaremethodologicalchallengesandsolutionsdemonstratedbythediamondstudy
AT dewitniekj pragmatictrialsinprimarycaremethodologicalchallengesandsolutionsdemonstratedbythediamondstudy
AT samsommelvin pragmatictrialsinprimarycaremethodologicalchallengesandsolutionsdemonstratedbythediamondstudy
AT jansenjanbmj pragmatictrialsinprimarycaremethodologicalchallengesandsolutionsdemonstratedbythediamondstudy
AT knottnerusjandre pragmatictrialsinprimarycaremethodologicalchallengesandsolutionsdemonstratedbythediamondstudy