Protocol refinement for a diabetes pragmatic trial using the PRECIS-2 framework

Russell E Glasgow, Dennis Gurfinkel, Jeanette Waxmonsky, Jenny Rementer, Natalie D Ritchie, Jennifer Dailey-Vail, Patrick Hosokawa, L Miriam Dickinson, Bethany M Kwan, Russell E Glasgow, Dennis Gurfinkel, Jeanette Waxmonsky, Jenny Rementer, Natalie D Ritchie, Jennifer Dailey-Vail, Patrick Hosokawa, L Miriam Dickinson, Bethany M Kwan

Abstract

Background: This report describes how we refined a protocol for a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study of two models of an evidence-based diabetes shared medical appointment intervention and used the PRECIS-2 rating system to evaluate these adaptations.

Methods: We report primary data collected between June and August 2019, and protocol refinements completed between 2018 and 2020. Twenty-two members of the study team collaborated in protocol refinement and completed the PRECIS-2 ratings of study pragmatism. We discuss study design refinements made to achieve the desired level of pragmatism vs. experimental control for each of the nine PRECIS-2 dimensions. Study team members received training on PRECIS-2 scoring and were asked to rate the study protocol on the nine PRECIS-2 dimensions. Ratings were compared using descriptive statistics.

Results: In general, the PRECIS-2 ratings revealed high levels of pragmatism, but somewhat less pragmatic ratings on the categories of Delivery and Organization (costs and resources). This variation was purposeful, and we provide the rationale for and steps taken to obtain the targeted level of pragmatism on each PRECIS-2 dimension, as well as detail design changes made to a) make the design more pragmatic and b) address COVID-19 issues. There was general agreement among team members and across different types of stakeholders on PRECIS-2 ratings.

Conclusions: We discuss lessons learned from use of PRECIS-2 and experiences in refining the study to be maximally pragmatic on some dimensions and less so on other dimensions. This paper expands on prior research by describing actions to achieve higher levels of pragmatism and revise our protocol fit to the changed context. We make recommendations for future use of PRECIS-2 to help address changing context and other strategies for the planning of and transparent reporting on pragmatic research and comparative effectiveness research.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Registration ID: NCT03590041 .

Keywords: Design; Implementation science; PRECIS-2; Planning; Pragmatic research; Shared medical appointments; Transparency; Type 2 diabetes.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRECIS-2 ratings of the study protocol by Invested in Diabetes study team. Radar plot showing average study protocol ratings by study team on the nine PRECIS-2 domains, with points closer to center representing explanatory ratings (1) and points closer to the edge representing pragmatic ratings (5). Legend: 1 = very explanatory. 5 = very pragmatic

References

    1. Ioannidis JP. How to make more published research true. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED) 2015;26(2):187–200.
    1. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
    1. National Institutes of Health. Reviewer Guidance on Rigor and Transparency: Research Project Grant and Mentored Career Development Applications . Published 2019. Updated March 18, 2019. Accessed 23 Nov 2020.
    1. Glasgow RE, Huebschmann AG, Brownson RC. Expanding the CONSORT figure: increasing transparency in reporting on external validity. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(3):422–430. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.044.
    1. Green LW, Nasser M. Furthering dissemination and implementation research. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. 2017. p. 301.
    1. Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):637–644. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.02.023.
    1. Green LW, Glasgow RE. Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof. 2006;29(1):126–153. doi: 10.1177/0163278705284445.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(11):726–732. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232.
    1. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, Oxman AD, Moher D, CONSORT group. Pragmatic Trials in Healthcare (Practihc) group Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008;337(nov11 2):a2390. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2390.
    1. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Group C Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345(sep04 1):e5661. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5661.
    1. Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, et al. Standards for reporting implementation studies (StaRI) statement. BMJ. 2017;356:i6795. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6795.
    1. Loudon K, Treweek S, Sullivan F, Donnan P, Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M. The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ. 2015;350:h2147. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2147.
    1. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ, Chalkidou K. A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):464–475. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011.
    1. Norton WE, Loudon K, Chambers DA, Zwarenstein M. Designing provider-focused implementation trials with purpose and intent: introducing the PRECIS-2-PS tool. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01075-y.
    1. Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. PCORI Methodology Standards. . Published 2019. Updated Feb 26, 2019. Accessed 3 Dec 2020.
    1. Patsopoulos NA. A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(2):217–224. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2011.13.2/npatsopoulos.
    1. Pawson R. Pragmatic trials and implementation science: grounds for divorce? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):176. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0814-9.
    1. Gaglio B, Phillips SM, Heurtin-Roberts S, Sanchez MA, Glasgow RE. How pragmatic is it? Lessons learned using PRECIS and RE-AIM for determining pragmatic characteristics of research. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0096-x.
    1. University of Dundee Health Informatics Centre. PRECIS-2. . Published 2016. Accessed 25 Nov 2020.
    1. Johnson KE, Tachibana C, Coronado GD, Dember LM, Glasgow RE, Huang SS, Martin PJ, Richards J, Rosenthal G, Septimus E, Simon GE, Solberg L, Suls J, Thompson E, Larson EB. A guide to research partnerships for pragmatic clinical trials. BMJ. 2014;349(dec01 7):g6826. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6826.
    1. Glasgow RE. What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation. Health Educ Behav. 2013;40(3):257–265. doi: 10.1177/1090198113486805.
    1. Luoma KA, Leavitt IM, Marrs JC, Nederveld AL, Regensteiner JG, Dunn AL, Glasgow RE, Huebschmann AG. How can clinical practices pragmatically increase physical activity for patients with type 2 diabetes? A systematic review. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7(4):751–772. doi: 10.1007/s13142-017-0502-4.
    1. Neta G, Johnson KE. Informing real-world practice with real-world evidence: the value of PRECIS-2. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):1–3. doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1071-1.
    1. Kwan BM, Rementer J, Richie N, et al. Adapting diabetes shared medical appointments to fit context for practice-based research (PBR) J Am Board Fam Med. 2020;33(5):716–727. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2020.05.200049.
    1. Cooke NJ, Hilton ML. Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2015.
    1. Tebes JK. Team science, justice, and the co-production of knowledge. Am J Community Psychol. 2018;62(1–2):13–22. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12252.
    1. Sajatovic M, Gunzler DD, Kanuch SW, Cassidy KA, Tatsuoka C, McCormick R, Blixen CE, Perzynski AT, Einstadter D, Thomas CL, Lawless ME, Martin S, Falck-Ytter C, Seeholzer EL, McKibben CL, Bauer MS, Dawson NV. A 60-week prospective RCT of a self-management intervention for individuals with serious mental illness and diabetes mellitus. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;68(9):883–890. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201600377.
    1. Sajatovic M, Colon-Zimmermann K, Kahriman M, Fuentes-Casiano E, Liu H, Tatsuoka C, Cassidy KA, Lhatoo S, Einstadter D, Chen P. A 6-month prospective randomized controlled trial of remotely delivered group format epilepsy self-management versus waitlist control for high-risk people with epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2018;59(9):1684–1695. doi: 10.1111/epi.14527.
    1. Fisher L, Mullan JT, Arean P, Glasgow RE, Hessler D, Masharani U. Diabetes distress but not clinical depression or depressive symptoms is associated with glycemic control in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(1):23–28. doi: 10.2337/dc09-1238.
    1. Fisher L, Glasgow RE, Mullan JT, Skaff MM, Polonsky WH. Development of a brief diabetes distress screening instrument. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(3):246–252. doi: 10.1370/afm.842.
    1. Kwan BM, Dickinson LM, Glasgow RE, Sajatovic M, Gritz M, Holtrop JS, Nease DE, Jr, Ritchie N, Nederveld A, Gurfinkel D, Waxmonsky JA. The invested in diabetes study protocol: a cluster randomized pragmatic trial comparing standardized and patient-driven diabetes shared medical appointments. Trials. 2020;21(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3938-7.
    1. Johnson KE, Neta G, Dember LM, Coronado GD, Suls J, Chambers DA, Rundell S, Smith DH, Liu B, Taplin S, Stoney CM, Farrell MM, Glasgow RE. Use of PRECIS ratings in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) health care systems research Collaboratory. Trials. 2016;17(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1158-y.
    1. Williams GC, Freedman ZR, Deci EL. Supporting autonomy to motivate patients with diabetes for glucose control. Diabetes Care. 1998;21(10):1644–1651. doi: 10.2337/diacare.21.10.1644.
    1. Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):117. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-117.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren