Lessons learned from the conduct of a multisite cluster randomized practical trial of decision aids in rural and suburban primary care practices

Kari L Ruud, Annie Leblanc, Rebecca J Mullan, Laurie J Pencille, Kristina Tiedje, Megan E Branda, Holly K Van Houten, Sara R Heim, Margary Kurland, Nilay D Shah, Barbara P Yawn, Victor M Montori, Kari L Ruud, Annie Leblanc, Rebecca J Mullan, Laurie J Pencille, Kristina Tiedje, Megan E Branda, Holly K Van Houten, Sara R Heim, Margary Kurland, Nilay D Shah, Barbara P Yawn, Victor M Montori

Abstract

Background: The decision aids for diabetes (DAD) trial explored the feasibility of testing the effectiveness of decision aids (DAs) about coronary prevention and diabetes medications in community-based primary care practices, including rural clinics that care for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods: As originally designed, we invited clinicians in eight practices to participate in the trial, reviewed the patient panel of clinicians who accepted our invitation for potentially eligible patients, and contacted these patients by phone, enrolling those who accepted our invitation. As enrollment failed to meet targets, we recruited four new practices. After discussing the study with the clinicians and receiving their support, we reviewed all clinic panels for potentially eligible patients. Clinicians were approached to confirm participation and patient eligibility, and patients were approached before their visit to provide written informed consent. This in-clinic approach required study coordinators to travel and stay longer at the clinics as well as to screen more patient records for eligibility. The in-clinic approach was associated with better recruitment rates, lower patient retention and outcome completion rates, and a better intervention effect.

Results: We drew four lessons: 1) difficulties identifying potentially eligible patients threaten the viability of practical trials of DAs; 2) to improve the recruitment yield, recruit clinicians and patients for the study at the clinic, just before their visit; 3) approaches that improve recruitment may be associated with reduced retention and survey response; and 4) procedures that involve working closely with the practice may improve recruitment and may also affect the quality of the implementation of the interventions.

Conclusion: Success in practice-based trials in usual primary care including rural clinics may require the smallest possible research footprint on the practice while implementing a streamlined protocol favoring in-clinic, in-person interactions with clinicians and patients.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01029288.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Enrollment flow associated with the recruitment approaches used during the DAD trial. Left, original design; right, in-clinic modified approach. DAD, decision aids for diabetes.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Eligibility and enrollment of patients over time in the DAD trial. Left, original design; right, in-clinic modified approach. DAD, decision aids for diabetes.

References

    1. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Légaré F, Thomson R. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;10 CD001431.
    1. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. HR 3590 111th Congress of the United States of America, at the Second Session. 2012. (Section 936; 2010). .
    1. O’Donnell S, Cranney A, Jacobsen MJ, Graham ID, O’Connor AM, Tugwell P. Understanding and overcoming the barriers of implementing patient decision aids in clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(2):174–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00613.x.
    1. King VJ, Davis MM, Gorman PN, Rugge JB, Fagnan LJ. Perceptions of shared decision making and decision aids among rural primary care clinicians. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(4):636–644. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11431961.
    1. Treweek S, Mitchell E, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Kjeldstrom M, Taskila T, Johansen M, Sullivan F, Wilson S, Jackson C, Jones R. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;1 MR000013.
    1. Chang BH, Hendricks AM, Slawsky MT, Locastro JS. Patient recruitment to a randomized clinical trial of behavioral therapy for chronic heart failure. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004;4(1):8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-4-8.
    1. Blanton S, Morris DM, Prettyman MG, McCulloch K, Redmond S, Light KE, Wolf SL. Lessons learned in participant recruitment and retention: the EXCITE trial. Phys Ther. 2006;86(11):1520–1533. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20060091.
    1. Gul RB, Ali PA. Clinical trials: the challenge of recruitment and retention of participants. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19(1–2):227–233.
    1. Mapstone J, Elbourne D, Roberts I. Strategies to improve recruitment to research studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2 MR000013.
    1. van der Wouden JC, Blankenstein AH, Huibers M, Van der Windt D, Stalman W, Verhagen AP. Survey among 78 studies showed that Lasagna’s law holds in Dutch primary care research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(8):819–824. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.010.
    1. Foy R, Parry J, Duggan A, Delaney B, Wilson S, Lewin-van den Broek N, Lassen A, Vickers L, Myres P. How evidence based are recruitment strategies to randomized controlled trials in primary care? Experience from seven studies. Fam Pract. 2003;20(1):83–92. doi: 10.1093/fampra/20.1.83.
    1. LeBlanc A, Ruud KL, Branda ME, Tiedje K, Boehmer KR, Pencille LJ, Van Houten H, Matthews M, Shah ND, May CR, Yawn BP, Montori VM. The impact of decision aids to enhance shared decision making for diabetes (the DAD study): protocol of a cluster randomized trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):130. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-130.
    1. Branda ME, LeBlanc A, Shah ND, Tiedje K, Ruud K, VanHouten H, Pencille L, Kurland M, Yawn B, Montori VM. Shared decision making for patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:301. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-301.
    1. Weymiller AJ, Montori VM, Jones LA, Gafni A, Guyatt GH, Bryant SC, Christianson TJ, Mullan RJ, Smith SA. Helping patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus make treatment decisions: statin choice randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(10):1076–1082. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.10.1076.
    1. Mullan RJ, Montori VM, Shah ND, Christianson TJ, Bryant SC, Guyatt GH, Perestelo-Perez LI, Stroebel RJ, Yawn BP, Yapuncich V, Breslin MA, Pencille L, Smith SA. The diabetes mellitus medication choice decision aid: a randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(17):1560–1568.
    1. O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25–30. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500105.
    1. Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, Rapport F, Wensing M, Cheung WY, Grol R. The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect. 2005;8(1):34–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00311.x.
    1. Caldwell PH, Hamilton S, Tan A, Craig JC. Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(11):e1000368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000368.
    1. Ngune I, Jiwa M, Dadich A, Lotriet J, Sriram D. Effective recruitment strategies in primary care research: a systematic review. Qual Prim Care. 2012;20(2):115–123.
    1. Cooley ME, Sarna L, Brown JK, Williams RD, Chernecky C, Padilla G, Danao LL. Challenges of recruitment and retention in multisite clinical research. Cancer Nurs. 2003;26(5):376–386. doi: 10.1097/00002820-200310000-00006.
    1. Felsen CB, Shaw EK, Ferrante JM, Lacroix LJ, Crabtree BF. Strategies for in-person recruitment: lessons learned from a New Jersey primary care research network (NJPCRN) study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23(4):523–533. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.04.090096.
    1. Claassen C, Kurian B, Trivedi MH, Grannemann BD, Tuli E, Pipes R, Preston AM, Flood A. Telephone-based assessments to minimize missing data in longitudinal depression trials: a project IMPACTS study report. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30(1):13–19. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.08.001.
    1. May CR, Mair F, Finch T, MacFarlane A, Dowrick C, Treweek S, Rapley T, Ballini L, Ong BN, Rogers A, Murray E, Elwyn G, Légaré F, Gunn J, Montori VM. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization Process Theory. Implement Sci. 2009;4(29):29.
    1. Karanicolas PJ, Montori VM, Devereaux P, Schünemann H, Guyatt GH. A new ‘mechanistic-practical’ framework for designing and interpreting randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):479–484. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.009.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅