Study protocol of a mixed-methods evaluation of a cluster randomized trial to improve the safety of NSAID and antiplatelet prescribing: data-driven quality improvement in primary care

Aileen Grant, Tobias Dreischulte, Shaun Treweek, Bruce Guthrie, Aileen Grant, Tobias Dreischulte, Shaun Treweek, Bruce Guthrie

Abstract

Background: Trials of complex interventions are criticized for being 'black box', so the UK Medical Research Council recommends carrying out a process evaluation to explain the trial findings. We believe it is good practice to pre-specify and publish process evaluation protocols to set standards and minimize bias. Unlike protocols for trials, little guidance or standards exist for the reporting of process evaluations. This paper presents the mixed-method process evaluation protocol of a cluster randomized trial, drawing on a framework designed by the authors.

Methods/design: This mixed-method evaluation is based on four research questions and maps data collection to a logic model of how the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention is expected to work. Data collection will be predominately by qualitative case studies in eight to ten of the trial practices, focus groups with patients affected by the intervention and quantitative analysis of routine practice data, trial outcome and questionnaire data and data from the DQIP intervention.

Discussion: We believe that pre-specifying the intentions of a process evaluation can help to minimize bias arising from potentially misleading post-hoc analysis. We recognize it is also important to retain flexibility to examine the unexpected and the unintended. From that perspective, a mixed-methods evaluation allows the combination of exploratory and flexible qualitative work, and more pre-specified quantitative analysis, with each method contributing to the design, implementation and interpretation of the other.As well as strengthening the study the authors hope to stimulate discussion among their academic colleagues about publishing protocols for evaluations of randomized trials of complex interventions. DATA-DRIVEN QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN PRIMARY CARE TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01425502.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) trial hypothesized pathway of change and process evaluation model.

References

    1. Medical Research Council. Developing and evaluating complex interventions; new guidance. London: Medical Research Council; 2008.
    1. Dreischulte T, Grant A, Donnan P, McCowan C, Davey P, Petrie D, Treweek S, Guthrie B. A cluster randomised stepped wedge trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted information technology-based intervention in reducing high-risk prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antiplatelets in primary care: the DQIP study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012;7:24. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-24.
    1. Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials, in press.
    1. Pirmohamed MJ, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley T, Farrar K, Park BK, Breckenridge AM. Adverse drug reactions as a cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329:15–19. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7456.15.
    1. Howard RL, Avery AJ, Slavenburg S, Royal S, Pipe G, Lucassen P, Pirmohamed M. Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63:136–147. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02698.x.
    1. Brown C, Lilford R. The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:54. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-54.
    1. Hussey MA, Hughes JP. Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:182–191. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.05.007.
    1. Nazareth I, Freemantle N, Duggan C, Mason J, Haines A. Evaluation of a complex intervention for changing professional behaviour: The evidence based out reach (EBOR) trial. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:230–238. doi: 10.1258/135581902320432769.
    1. Mason J. Sampling and selection in qualitative research. In Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2002. pp. 120–144.
    1. Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ. 2009;339:b3496. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b3496.
    1. Hoddinott P, Britten J, Pill R. Why do interventions work in some places and not others: a breastfeeding support group trial. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:769–778. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.067.
    1. May C, Finch T. Implementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of Normalisation Process Theory. Sociology. 2009;43:535. doi: 10.1177/0038038509103208.
    1. Stake R. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Ltd; 1995.
    1. Denzin NK. Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualtiative Inquiry. 2010;16:416.
    1. Cresswell JW, Plano CVL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd; 2007.
    1. Silverman D. Interpreting qualitative data. 3. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2006.
    1. Ritchie J, Spencer L, O’Connor W. In: Qualitative Research Practice: A guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Ritchie J, Lewis J, editor. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2003. Carrying out Qualitative Analysis.
    1. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:45–53. doi: 10.1258/1355819052801804.
    1. Francis J, Eccles M, Johnston M, Whitty P, Grimshaw J, Kaner E, Smith L, Walker A. Explaining the effects of an intervention designed to promote evidence-based diabetes care: a theory-based process evaluation of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. Implement Sci. 2008;3:50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-3-50.
    1. Protheroe J, Bower P, Chew-Graham C, Protheroe J, Bower P, Chew-Graham C. The use of mixed methodology in evaluating complex interventions: identifying patient factors that moderate the effects of a decision aid. Fam Pract. 2007;24:594–600. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmm066.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner