A data-driven examination of which patients follow trial protocol

Maren K Olsen, Karen M Stechuchak, Anna Hung, Eugene Z Oddone, Laura J Damschroder, David Edelman, Matthew L Maciejewski, Maren K Olsen, Karen M Stechuchak, Anna Hung, Eugene Z Oddone, Laura J Damschroder, David Edelman, Matthew L Maciejewski

Abstract

Protocol adherence in behavioral intervention clinical trials is critical to trial success. There is increasing interest in understanding which patients are more likely to adhere to trial protocols. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the use of a data-driven approach to explore patient characteristics associated with the lowest and highest rates of adherence in three trials assessing interventions targeting behaviors related to lifestyle and risk for cardiovascular disease. Each trial included a common set of baseline variables. Model-based recursive partitioning (MoB) was applied in each trial to identify participant characteristics of subgroups characterized by these baseline variables with differences in protocol adherence. Bootstrap resampling was conducted to provide optimism-corrected c-statistics of the final solutions. In the three trials, rates of protocol adherence varied from 56.9% to 87.5%. Evaluation of heterogeneity of protocol adherence via MoB in each trial resulted in trees with 2-4 subgroups based on splits of 1-3 variables. In two of the three trials, the first split was based on pain in the past week, and those reporting lower pain were less likely to be adherent. In one of these trials, the second and third splits were based on education and employment, where those with lower education levels and who were employed were less likely to be adherent. In the third trial, the two splits were based on smoking status and then marriage status, where smokers who were married were least likely to be adherent. Optimism-corrected c-statistics ranged from 0.54 to 0.63. Model-based recursive partitioning can be a useful approach to explore heterogeneity in protocol adherence in behavioral intervention trials. An important next step would be to assess whether patterns hold in other similar studies and samples. Identifying subgroups who are less likely to be adherent to an intervention can help inform modifications to the intervention to help tailor the intervention to these subgroups and increase future uptake and impact.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01828567, NCT02360293, and NCT01838226.

Keywords: Model-based recursive partitioning; Protocol adherence; Subgroup; Veterans.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors concur with this submission. This manuscript has not been submitted to another journal nor published elsewhere. Apart from Dr. Maciejewski, no authors have financial or commercial conflicts of interest. Dr. Maciejewski owns Amgen stock due to his spouse's employment.

© 2020 The Authors.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
ACTIVATE trial: MoB final solution. We used the default value of statistical significance for the fluctuation tests (alpha = 0.05). Instead of specifying a Bonferroni correction (which would have altered the statistical significance to 0.05/15), we chose to post prune by Akaike's Information Criteria fit index and set the minimum node sample size as 30. Finally, we specified maxLM-type test as the fluctuation test for ordered factor variables. All other control parameters were kept at their default values. The final sample size was 207 due to missing data on candidate baseline characteristics.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
GPS trial: MoB final solution. We used the default value of statistical significance for the fluctuation tests (alpha = 0.05). Instead of specifying a Bonferroni correction (which would have altered the statistical significance to 0.05/15), we chose to post prune by Akaike's Information Criteria fit index and set the minimum node sample size as 30. Finally, we specified maxLM-type test as the fluctuation test for ordered factor variables. All other control parameters were kept at their default values. The final sample size was 192 due to missing data on candidate baseline characteristics.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Stay Strong trial: MoB final solution. We used the default value of statistical significance for the fluctuation tests (alpha = 0.05). Instead of specifying a Bonferroni correction (which would have altered the statistical significance to 0.05/15), we chose to post prune by Akaike's Information Criteria fit index and set the minimum node sample size as 30. Finally, we specified maxLM-type test as the fluctuation test for ordered factor variables. All other control parameters were kept at their default values. The final sample size was 173 due to missing data on candidate baseline characteristics.

References

    1. Segar M. AMACOM div american mgmt assn; 2015. No Sweat: How the Simple Science of Motivation Can Bring You a Lifetime of Fitness: 506.
    1. McGee D., Lorencatto F., Matvienko-Sikar K., Toomey E. Surveying knowledge, practice and attitudes towards intervention fidelity within trials of complex healthcare interventions. Trials. 2018;19(1):504–506. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2838-6. [doi]
    1. Walton H., Spector A., Tombor I., Michie S. Measures of fidelity of delivery of, and engagement with, complex, face-to-face health behaviour change interventions: a systematic review of measure quality. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2017;22(4):872–903. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12260. [doi]
    1. McNamara K.P., O'Reilly S.L., George J. Intervention fidelity for a complex behaviour change intervention in community pharmacy addressing cardiovascular disease risk. Health Educ. Res. 2015;30(6):897–909. doi: 10.1093/her/cyv050. [doi]
    1. Toomey E., Matthews J., Hurley D.A. Using mixed methods to assess fidelity of delivery and its influencing factors in a complex self-management intervention for people with osteoarthritis and low back pain. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8) doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015452. e015452-015452. [doi]
    1. Swindle T., Selig J.P., Rutledge J.M., Whiteside-Mansell L., Curran G. Fidelity monitoring in complex interventions: a case study of the WISE intervention. Arch. Publ. Health. 2018;76 doi: 10.1186/s13690-018-0292-2. 53-2. eCollection 2018. ([doi])
    1. Fukuoka Y., Haskell W., Lin F., Vittinghoff E. Short- and long-term effects of a mobile phone app in conjunction with brief in-person counseling on physical activity among physically inactive women: the mPED randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5) doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.4281.
    1. Balducci S., D'Errico V., Haxhi J. Effect of a behavioral intervention strategy on sustained change in physical activity and sedentary behavior in patients with type 2 diabetes: the IDES_2 randomized clinical trial. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2019;321(9):880–890. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.0922. [doi]
    1. Borrelli B. The assessment, monitoring, and enhancement of treatment fidelity in public health clinical trials. J. Publ. Health Dent. 2011;71(s1):S52–S63. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00233.x. ([doi])
    1. O'Shea O., McCormick R., Bradley J.M., O'Neill B. Fidelity review: a scoping review of the methods used to evaluate treatment fidelity in behavioural change interventions. Phys. Ther. Rev. 2016;21(3–6):207–214. doi: 10.1080/10833196.2016.1261237. doi: 10.1080/10833196.2016.1261237.
    1. Bellg A.J., Borrelli B., Resnick B. Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: best practices and recommendations from the NIH behavior change consortium. Health Psychol. 2004;23(5):443–451. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.443. ([doi])
    1. Oddone E.Z., Damschroder L.J., Gierisch J. A coaching by telephone intervention for veterans and care team engagement (ACTIVATE): a study protocol for a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial. Contemp. Clin. Trials. 2017;55:1–9. doi: S1551-7144(16)30350-0 [pii]
    1. Buis L.R., McCant F.A., Gierisch J.M. Understanding the effect of adding automated and human coaching to a mobile health physical activity app for Afghanistan and Iraq veterans: protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the stay strong intervention. JMIR Res Protoc. 2019;8(1) doi: 10.2196/12526. ([doi])
    1. Nieuwsma J.A., Wray L.O., Voils C.I. A problem-solving intervention for cardiovascular disease risk reduction in veterans: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Contemp. Clin. Trials. 2017;60:42–50. doi: S1551-7144(16)30179-3 [pii]
    1. Nelson D.E., Holtzman D., Bolen J., Stanwyck C.A., Mack K.A. Reliability and validity of measures from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system (BRFSS) Sozial- Präventivmed. 2001;46(Suppl 1):3.
    1. Ware J., Jr., Kosinski M., Keller S.D. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med. Care. 1996;34(3):220–233. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003. [doi]
    1. Hibbard J.H., Mahoney E.R., Stockard J., Tusler M. Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure. Health Serv. Res. 2005;40(6 Pt 1):1918–1930. doi: HESR438 [pii]
    1. Hibbard J.H., Mahoney E.R., Stock R., Tusler M. Do increases in patient activation result in improved self-management behaviors? Health Serv. Res. 2007;42(4):1443–1463. doi: HESR669 [pii]
    1. Kroenke K., Strine T.W., Spitzer R.L., Williams J.B., Berry J.T., Mokdad A.H. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J. Affect. Disord. 2009;114(1–3):163–173. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.026. ([doi])
    1. Hays R.D., Martin S.A., Sesti A.M., Spritzer K.L. Psychometric properties of the medical outcomes study sleep measure. Sleep Med. 2005;6(1):41–44. doi: S1389-9457(04)00129-7 [pii]
    1. Bush K., Kivlahan D.R., McDonell M.B., Fihn S.D., Bradley K.A. 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. [doi]
    1. Pickard A.S., De Leon M.C., Kohlmann T., Cella D., Rosenbloom S. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med. Care. 2007;45(3):259–263. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81. [doi]
    1. Lipkovich I., Dmitrienko A., D'Agostino S B.R. Tutorial in biostatistics: data-driven subgroup identification and analysis in clinical trials. Stat. Med. 2017;36(1):136–196. doi: 10.1002/sim.7064. [doi]
    1. Strobl C., Malley J., Tutz G. An introduction to recursive partitioning: rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychol. Methods. 2009;14(4):323–348. doi: 10.1037/a0016973. [doi]
    1. Seibold H., Zeileis A., Hothorn T. Model-based recursive partitioning for subgroup analyses. Int. J. Biostat. 2016;12(1):45–63. doi: 10.1515/ijb-2015-0032. [doi]
    1. Zeileis A., Hothorn T., Hornik K. Model-based recursive partitioning. J. Comput. Graph Stat. 2008;17(2):492–514. doi: 10.1198/106186008X319331. doi: 10.1198/106186008X319331.
    1. Hothorn T., zeileis A. partykit: a modular toolkit for recursive partytioning in R. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2015;16:3905–3909.
    1. Harrell F.E., Jr., Lee K.L., Mark D.B. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat. Med. 1996;15(4):361–387. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:;2-4 [pii]
    1. Wallert J., Gustafson E., Held C. Predicting adherence to internet-delivered psychotherapy for symptoms of depression and anxiety after myocardial infarction: machine learning insights from the U-CARE heart randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018;20(10) doi: 10.2196/10754. [doi]

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel