Designing a valid randomized pragmatic primary care implementation trial: the my own health report (MOHR) project

Alex H Krist, Beth A Glenn, Russell E Glasgow, Bijal A Balasubramanian, David A Chambers, Maria E Fernandez, Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts, Rodger Kessler, Marcia G Ory, Siobhan M Phillips, Debra P Ritzwoller, Dylan H Roby, Hector P Rodriguez, Roy T Sabo, Sherri N Sheinfeld Gorin, Kurt C Stange, MOHR Study Group, Janice Genervro, David Meyers, Robert M Kaplan, Holly Jimison, Richard Wood, Kayla Fair, Jennifer Leeman, Catherine L Rohweder, Alexis Moore, Maria E Fernandez, John Quillin, Melissa Hayes, Paul Estabrooks, Christine Nelson, John Heintzman, Alex H Krist, Beth A Glenn, Russell E Glasgow, Bijal A Balasubramanian, David A Chambers, Maria E Fernandez, Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts, Rodger Kessler, Marcia G Ory, Siobhan M Phillips, Debra P Ritzwoller, Dylan H Roby, Hector P Rodriguez, Roy T Sabo, Sherri N Sheinfeld Gorin, Kurt C Stange, MOHR Study Group, Janice Genervro, David Meyers, Robert M Kaplan, Holly Jimison, Richard Wood, Kayla Fair, Jennifer Leeman, Catherine L Rohweder, Alexis Moore, Maria E Fernandez, John Quillin, Melissa Hayes, Paul Estabrooks, Christine Nelson, John Heintzman

Abstract

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.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
MOHR study overview and timeline. The study started in January 2013. The approximate implementation date for the early implementation practices is March 2013 and July 2013 for the delayed implementation practices. (IRB = institutional review board, EIS = early implementation sites, DIS = delayed implementation sites).
Figure 2
Figure 2
MOHR study organization and coordination. The four general partners include funders, project coordination, local research teams, and study practices. The funders provide project coordinators general input into the study implementation and design. Overall project coordination includes the five working groups, MOHR planning committee, and the coordination center. The local research teams directly coordinate with the nine practice pairs to carry out and support the MOHR implementation and evaluation. (ACORN = Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network, UV = University of Vermont, UNC = University of North Carolina, UCLA = University of California, Los Angeles, and UTH = University of Texas Houston).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Patient summary and feedback from http://www.MyOwnHealthReport.org. The first page demonstrates the patient’s health behavior and psychosocial scores, level of concern, and whether the patient reported readiness to change and interest in talking with their doctor. The second page includes patient workspace for notes, creation of SMART health goals, and a follow-up plan.
Figure 4
Figure 4
MOHR study CONSORT flow diagram.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Depiction of the MOHR study PRECIS characteristics. The MOHR study design receives completely pragmatic scores for intervention flexibility, control flexibility, and practitioner expertise. The MOHR study design receives the next most pragmatic rating on the remaining seven dimensions.

References

    1. Krist AH, Woolf SH. A vision for patient-centered health information systems. JAMA. 2011;305(3):300–301. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.2011.
    1. Finkelstein J, Knight A, Marinopoulos S, Gibbons C, Berger Z, Aboumatar H, Wilson R, Lau B, Sharma R, Bass E. Enabling patient-centered care through health information technology. Bethesda MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012. (Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 206). . Accessed Feb, 2013.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ambulatory safety and quality program: health IT portfolio. Enabling patient-centered care through health IT. Bethesda MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. . Accessed Feb, 2013.
    1. Glasgow RE, Kaplan RM, Ockene JK, Fisher EB, Emmons KM. Patient-reported measures of psychosocial issues and health behavior should be added to electronic health records. Health Aff (Millwood) 2012;31(3):497–504. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.1295.
    1. Rabin BA, Purcell P, Naveed S, Moser RP, Henton MD, Proctor EK, Brownson RC, Glasgow RE. Advancing the application, quality and harmonization of implementation science measures. Implementation science: IS. 2012;7:119. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-119.
    1. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Health, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Cancer Institute. Identifying core behavioral and psychosocial data elements for the electronic health record. Bethesda MD: Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Health, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Cancer Institute; 2011. . Accessed Jan, 2013.
    1. National Cancer Institute. Grid-enabled measures database. Bethesda MD: National Cancer Institute; 2011. . Accessed Jan, 2013.
    1. Estabrooks PA, Boyle M, Emmons KM, Glasgow RE, Hesse BW, Kaplan RM, Krist AH, Moser RP, Taylor MV. Harmonized patient-reported data elements in the electronic health record: supporting meaningful use by primary care action on health behaviors and key psychosocial factors. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(4):575–582. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000576.
    1. Brownson RC. Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice. 1. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.
    1. Glasgow RE. What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures and models to facilitate research translation. Health Educ Behav. 2013. In press.
    1. Glasgow RE, Chambers D. Developing robust, sustainable, implementation systems using rigorous, rapid and relevant science. Clin Transl Sci. 2012;5(1):48–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00383.x.
    1. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290(12):1624–1632. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.12.1624.
    1. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S. What kind of randomized trials do we need? CMAJ. 2009;180(10):998–1000. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.082007.
    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. CMAJ. 2009;180(10):E47–E57. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.090523.
    1. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.
    1. Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Estabrooks PA, Vogt TM. Evaluating the impact of health promotion programs: using the RE-AIM framework to form summary measures for decision making involving complex issues. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(5):688–694. doi: 10.1093/her/cyl081.
    1. Reach effectiveness adoption implementation maintenance (RE-AIM) Blacksburg VA: Virginia Tech; 2013. . Accessed August, 2013.
    1. Ritzwoller DP, Sukhanova A, Gaglio B, Glasgow RE. Costing behavioral interventions: a practical guide to enhance translation. Ann Behav Med. 2009;37(2):218–227. doi: 10.1007/s12160-009-9088-5.
    1. Krist AH, Cifuentes M, Dodoo MS, Green LA. Measuring primary care expenses. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23(3):376–383. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.03.090089.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) Bethesda MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. . Accessed Jan, 2013.
    1. National Cancer Institute. Cancer prevention and control research network (CPCRN) Bethesda MD: National Cancer Institute; 2013. . Accessed Jan, 2013.
    1. Allen JD, Linnan LA, Emmons KM. In: Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to pratcice. Brownson RC, Colditz G, Proctor E, editor. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. Fidelity and its relationship to implementation effectiveness, adaption, and dissemination; pp. 281–304.
    1. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–613. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.
    1. Swinson RP. The GAD-7 scale was accurate for diagnosing generalised anxiety disorder. Evid Based Med. 2006;11(6):184. doi: 10.1136/ebm.11.6.184.
    1. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Lowe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–1097. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.
    1. Bush K, Kivlahan DR, McDonell MB, Fihn SD, Bradley KA. The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP). Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(16):1789–1795. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.16.1789.
    1. Skinner HA. The drug abuse screening test. Addictive behaviors. 1982;7(4):363–371. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(82)90005-3.
    1. Whitlock EP, Orleans CT, Pender N, Allan J. Evaluating primary care behavioral counseling interventions: an evidence-based approach. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(4):267–284. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00415-4.
    1. Glasgow RE, Goldstein MG. In: Health promotion and disease prevention in clinical practice. 2. Woolf SH, Jonas S, Lawrence RS, editor. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams &Wilkin; 2008. Introduction to and principles of health behavior change.
    1. Krist AH, Woolf SH, Frazier CO, Johnson RE, Rothemich SF, Wilson DB, Devers KJ, Kerns JW. An electronic linkage system for health behavior counseling effect on delivery of the 5A's. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(5 Suppl):S350–S358.
    1. Glasgow RE, Davis CL, Funnell MM, Beck A. Implementing practical interventions to support chronic illness self-management. Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2003;29(11):563–574.
    1. Croteau J, Ryan D. Acheiving your SMART health goals. Stanford CA: Stanford University; 2013. (BeWell@stanford). . Accessed Jan, 2013.
    1. O'Neil J. SMART Goals, SMART Schools. Educational Leadership. 2000;Feb:46–50.
    1. Avorn J, Soumerai SB. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach. A randomized controlled trial of academically based "detailing". N Engl J Med. 1983;308(24):1457–1463. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198306163082406.
    1. Soumerai SB, Avorn J. Principles of educational outreach ('academic detailing') to improve clinical decision making. JAMA. 1990;263(4):549–556. doi: 10.1001/jama.1990.03440040088034.
    1. Hensley S. As drug bill soars, some doctors get an "unsales" pitch. Wall Street Journal. 2006. [ ]
    1. Simon SR, Majumdar SR, Prosser LA, Salem-Schatz S, Warner C, Kleinman K, Miroshnik I, Soumerai SB. Group versus individual academic detailing to improve the use of antihypertensive medications in primary care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Am J Med. 2005;118(5):521–528. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.12.023.
    1. Simon SR, Smith DH, Feldstein AC, Perrin N, Yang X, Zhou Y, Platt R, Soumerai SB. Computerized prescribing alerts and group academic detailing to reduce the use of potentially inappropriate medications in older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(6):963–968. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00734.x.
    1. Dietrich AJ, Sox CH, Tosteson TD, Woodruff CB. Durability of improved physician early detection of cancer after conclusion of intervention support. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1994;3(4):335–340.
    1. Ashford A, Gemson D, Sheinfeld Gorin SN, Bloch S, Lantigua R, Ahsan H, Neugut AI. Cancer screening and prevention practices of inner-city physicians. Am J Prev Med. 2000;19(1):59–62. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00152-5.
    1. Sheinfeld Gorin S, Gemson D, Ashford A, Bloch S, Lantigua R, Ahsan H, Neugut A. Cancer education among primary care physicians in an underserved community. Am J Prev Med. 2000;19(1):53–58. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00153-7.
    1. Sheinfeld Gorin S, Ashford A, Lantigua R, Hossain A, Desai M, Troxel A, Gemson D. Effectiveness of academic detailing on breast cancer screening among primary care physicians in an underserved community. J of Am Board Fam Med. 2006;19:110–121. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.19.2.110.
    1. Shankaran V, Luu TH, Nonzee N, Richey E, McKoy JM, Graff Zivin J, Ashford A, Lantigua R, Frucht H, Scoppettone M, Bennett CL, Sheinfeld GS. Costs and cost effectiveness of a health care provider-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5370–5375. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.6458.
    1. Bouton ME. A learning theory perspective on lapse, relapse, and the maintenance of behavior change. Health Psychol. 2000;19(1 Suppl):57–63.
    1. Ranney L, Melvin C, Lux L, McClain E, Morgan L, Lohr K. Tobacco Use: prevention, cessation, and control. Rockville, MD: Prepared by the RTI International-University of North Carolina Evidence-Based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0016; 2006. (Evidence report/technology assessment No. 140).
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. CAHPS clinician & group surveys. Bethesda MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. . Accessed Mar, 2013.
    1. Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley Company; 1999.
    1. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ. 2002;324(7347):1183. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1183.
    1. Kessler RS, Purcell EP, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Benkeser RM, Peek CJ. What does It mean to "employ" the RE-AIM model? Eval Health Prof. 2013;36(1):44–66. doi: 10.1177/0163278712446066.
    1. Stange KC, Glasgow RE. In: Methods Brief for the AHRQ Initiative in Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, editor. Rockville: MDIn press; Considering and reporting important contextual factors.
    1. Kaplan HC, Brady PW, Dritz MC, Hooper DK, Linam WM, Froehle CM, Margolis P. The influence of context on quality improvement success in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2010;88(4):500–559. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00611.x.
    1. Kirsh SR, Lawrence RH, Aron DC. Tailoring an intervention to the context and system redesign related to the intervention: a case study of implementing shared medical appointments for diabetes. Implementation science :IS. 2008;3:34. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-3-34.
    1. Moos RH. Social contexts: transcending their power and their fragility. Am J Community Psychol. 2003;31(1–2):1–13.
    1. Frohlich KL, Potvin L, Chabot P, Corin E. A theoretical and empirical analysis of context: neighbourhoods, smoking and youth. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(9):1401–1417. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00122-8.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation science: IS. 2009;4:50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
    1. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. Bmj. 1996;313(7052):275–283. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275.
    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher GW, Torrance GL, Stoddart GW. Methods for the economic evaluation in health care programmes. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
    1. Carande-Kulis VG, Maciosek MV, Briss PA, Teutsch SM, Zaza S, Truman BI, Messonnier ML, Pappaioanou M, Harris JR, Fielding J. Methods for systematic reviews of economic evaluations for the guide to community preventive services. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med. Jan. 2000;18(1 Suppl):75–91.
    1. Boardman A, Greenberg D, Vining A, Weimer D. Cost benefit analysis: concepts and practice. 3. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2006.
    1. Glasgow RE, Gaglio B, Bennett G, Jerome GJ, Yeh HC, Sarwer DB, Appel L, Colditz G, Wadden TA, Wells B. Applying the PRECIS criteria to describe three effectiveness trials of weight loss in obese patients with comorbid conditions. Health Serv Res. 2012;47(3 Pt 1):1051–1067.
    1. Glasgow RE, Vinson C, Chambers D, Khoury MJ, Kaplan RM, Hunter C. National institutes of health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(7):1274–1281. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300755.
    1. Klesges LM, Estabrooks PA, Dzewaltowski DA, Bull SS, Glasgow RE. Beginning with the application in mind: designing and planning health behavior change interventions to enhance dissemination. Ann Behav Med. 2005;29(Suppl):66–75.
    1. Glasgow RE, Riley WT. Pragmatic measures: what are they and why do we need them. Am J Prev Med.
    1. Glasgow RE, Green LW, Taylor MV, Stange KC. An evidence integration triangle for aligning science with policy and practice. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(6):646–654. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.02.016.
    1. Green LW, Ottoson JM, Garcia C, Hiatt RA. Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:151–174. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100049.
    1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Preventive services. 2013. . Accessed June, 2013.
    1. Whitlock EP, Polen MR, Green CA, Orleans T, Klein J. Behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce risky/harmful alcohol use by adults: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(7):557–568. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00017.
    1. Krist AH, Woolf SH, Rothemich SF, Johnson RE, Peele JE, Cunningham TD, Longo DR, Bello GA, Matzke GR. Interactive preventive health record to enhance delivery of recommended care: a randomized trial. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(4):312–319. doi: 10.1370/afm.1383.
    1. Krist AH, Peele E, Woolf SH, Rothemich SF, Loomis JF, Longo DR, Kuzel AJ. Designing a patient-centered personal health record to promote preventive care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11:73. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-11-73.
    1. Chin MH, Drum ML, Guillen M, Rimington A, Levie JR, Kirchhoff AC, Quinn MT, Schaefer CT. Improving and sustaining diabetes care in community health centers with the health disparities collaboratives. Med Care. 2007;45(12):1135–1143. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31812da80e.
    1. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review–a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308530.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner