Implementation Science to Achieve Equity in Heart Failure Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Guideline-directed medical therapies and guideline-directed nonpharmacological therapies improve quality of life and survival in patients with heart failure (HF), but eligible patients, particularly women and individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, are often not treated with these therapies. Implementation science uses evidence-based theories and frameworks to identify strategies that facilitate uptake of evidence to improve health. In this scientific statement, we provide an overview of implementation trials in HF, assess their use of conceptual frameworks and health equity principles, and provide pragmatic guidance for equity in HF. Overall, behavioral nudges, multidisciplinary care, and digital health strategies increased uptake of therapies in HF effectively but did not include equity goals. Few HF studies focused on achieving equity in HF by engaging stakeholders, quantifying barriers and facilitators to HF therapies, developing strategies for equity informed by theory or frameworks, evaluating implementation measures for equity, and titrating strategies for equity. Among these HF equity studies, feasibility was established in using various educational strategies to promote organizational change and equitable care. A couple include ongoing randomized controlled pragmatic trials for HF equity. There is great need for additional HF implementation trials designed to promote delivery of equitable guideline-directed therapy.

Opportunistic Treatment of Hepatitis C Infection Among Hospitalized People Who Inject Drugs (OPPORTUNI-C): A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of opportunistic treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among hospitalized people who inject drugs (PWID). METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomized trial recruiting HCV RNA positive individuals admitted for inpatient care in departments of internal medicine, addiction medicine, and psychiatry at three hospitals in Oslo, Norway. Seven departments were sequentially randomized to change from control conditions (standard of care referral to outpatient care) to intervention conditions (immediate treatment initiation). The primary outcome was treatment completion, defined as dispensing the final package of the prescribed treatment within six months after enrolment. RESULTS: A total of 200 HCV RNA positive individuals were enrolled between 1 October 2019 and 31 December 2021 (mean age 47.4 years, 72.5% male, 60.5% injected past 3 months, 20.4% cirrhosis). Treatment completion was accomplished by 67 of 98 (68.4% [95% confidence interval {CI}: 58.2-77.4]) during intervention conditions and by 36 of 102 (35.3% [95% CI: 26.1-45.4]) during control conditions (risk difference 33.1% [95% CI: 20.0-46.2]; risk ratio 1.9 [95% CI: 1.4-2.6]). The intervention was superior in terms of treatment completion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.8 [95% CI: 1.8-12.8]; P = .002) and time to treatment initiation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 4.0 [95% CI: 2.5-6.3]; P < .001). Sustained virologic response was documented in 60 of 98 (61.2% [95% CI: 50.8-70.9]) during intervention and in 66 of 102 (64.7% [95% CI: 54.6-73.9]) during control conditions. CONCLUSIONS: An opportunistic test-and-treat approach to HCV infection was superior to standard of care among hospitalized PWID. The model of care should be considered for broader implementation. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04220645.

Remote Follow-up in a Heart Failure Pragmatic Trial: Insights From the CONNECT-HF.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials typically require study-specific visits, which can burden participants and sites. Remote follow-up, such as centralized call centers for participant-reported or site-reported, holds promise for reducing costs and enhancing the pragmatism of trials. In this secondary analysis of the CONNECT-HF (Care Optimization Through Patient and Hospital Engagement For HF) trial, we aimed to evaluate the completeness and validity of the remote follow-up process. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CONNECT-HF trial evaluated the effect of a post-discharge quality-improvement intervention for heart failure compared to usual care for up to 1 year. Suspected events were reported either by participants or by health care proxies through a centralized call center or by sites through medical-record queries. When potential hospitalization events were suspected, additional medical records were collected and adjudicated. Among 5942 potential hospitalizations, 18% were only participant-reported, 28% were reported by both participants and sites, and 50% were only site-reported. Concordance rates between the participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalization were high: 87% participant-reported, 86% both, and 86% site-reported. Rates of adjudicated heart failure hospitalization events among adjudicated all-cause hospitalization were lower but also consistent: 45% participant-reported, 50% both, and 50% site-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Participant-only and site-only reports missed a substantial number of hospitalization events. We observed similar concordance between participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalizations. Combining participant-reported and site-reported outcomes data is important to capture and validate hospitalizations effectively in pragmatic heart failure trials.

Similarities and Differences Between Pragmatic Trials and Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials.

Pragmatism in clinical trials is focused on increasing the generalizability of research findings for routine clinical care settings. Hybridism in clinical trials (i.e., assessing both clinical effectiveness and implementation success) is focused on speeding up the process by which evidence-based practices are developed and adopted into routine clinical care. Even though pragmatic trial methodologies and implementation science evolved from very different disciplines, Pragmatic Trials and Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials share many similar design features. In fact, these types of trials can easily be conflated, creating the potential for investigators to mislabel their trial type or mistakenly use the wrong trial type to answer their research question. Blurred boundaries between trial types can hamper the evaluation of grant applications, the scientific interpretation of findings, and policy-making. Acknowledging that most trials are not pure Pragmatic Trials nor pure Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials, there are key differences in these trial types and they answer very different research questions. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the similarities and differences of these trial types for funders, researchers, and policy-makers. In addition, recommendations are offered to help investigators choose, label, and operationalize the most appropriate trial type to answer their research question. These recommendations complement existing reporting guidelines for clinical effectiveness trials (TIDieR) and implementation trials (StaRI).

Comparative Effectiveness of Patient-Driven versus Standardized Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management education and support can be effectively and efficiently delivered in primary care in the form of shared medical appointments (SMAs). Comparative effectiveness of SMA delivery features such as topic choice, multi-disciplinary care teams, and peer mentor involvement is not known. OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of standardized and patient-driven models of diabetes SMAs on patient-level diabetes outcomes. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1060 adults with type 2 diabetes in 22 primary care practices. INTERVENTIONS: Practice personnel delivered the 6-session Targeted Training in Illness Management (TTIM) curriculum using either standardized (set content delivered by a health educator) or patient-driven SMAs (patient-selected topic order delivered by health educators, behavioral health providers [BHPs], and peer mentors). MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included self-reported diabetes distress and diabetes self-care behaviors from baseline and follow-up surveys (assessed at 1st and final SMA session), and HbA1c, BMI, and blood pressure from electronic health records. Analyses used descriptive statistics, linear regression, and linear mixed models. KEY RESULTS: Both standardized and patient-driven SMAs effectively improved diabetes distress, self-care behaviors, BMI (- 0.29 on average), and HbA1c (- 0.45% (mmol/mol) on average, 8.3 to 7.8%). Controlling for covariates, there was a small, significant effect of condition on overall diabetes distress in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,841) = 4.3, p = .04), attributable to significant effects of condition on emotion and regimen distress subscales. There was a small, significant effect of condition on diastolic blood pressure in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,5199) = 4.50, p = .03). There were no other differences between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Both SMA models using the TTIM curriculum yielded significant improvement in diabetes distress, self-care, and HbA1c. Patient-driven diabetes SMAs involving BHPs and peer mentors and topic selection did not lead to better clinical or patient-reported outcomes than standardized diabetes SMAs facilitated by a health educator following a set topic order. NIH TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT03590041.

Factors Affecting Post-trial Sustainment or De-implementation of Study Interventions: A Narrative Review.

In contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials, embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted within healthcare settings with real-world patient populations. ePCTs are intentionally designed to align with health system priorities leveraging existing healthcare system infrastructure and resources to ease intervention implementation and increase the likelihood that effective interventions translate into routine practice following the trial. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), supports the conduct of large-scale ePCT Demonstration Projects that address major public health issues within healthcare systems. The Collaboratory has a unique opportunity to draw on the Demonstration Project experiences to generate lessons learned related to ePCTs and the dissemination and implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs. In this article, we use case studies from six completed Demonstration Projects to summarize the Collaboratory's experience with post-trial interpretation of results, and implications for sustainment (or de-implementation) of tested interventions. We highlight three key lessons learned. First, ineffective interventions (i.e., ePCT is null for the primary outcome) may be sustained if they have other measured benefits (e.g., secondary outcome or subgroup) or even perceived benefits (e.g., staff like the intervention). Second, effective interventions-even those solicited by the health system and/or designed with significant health system partner buy-in-may not be sustained if they require significant resources. Third, alignment with policy incentives is essential for achieving sustainment and scale-up of effective interventions. Our experiences point to several recommendations to aid in considering post-trial sustainment or de-implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs: (1) include secondary outcome measures that are salient to health system partners; (2) collect all appropriate data to allow for post hoc analysis of subgroups; (3) collect experience data from clinicians and staff; (4) engage policy-makers before starting the trial.

Use of pragmatic randomized trials in multiple sclerosis: A systematic overview.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized for providing real-world evidence on treatment choices. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate the use and characteristics of pragmatic trials in multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: Systematic literature search and analysis of pragmatic trials on any intervention published up to 2022. The assessment of pragmatism with PRECIS-2 (PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2) is performed. RESULTS: We identified 48 pragmatic trials published 1967-2022 that included a median of 82 participants (interquartile range (IQR) = 42-160) to assess typically supportive care interventions (n = 41; 85%). Only seven trials assessed drugs (15%). Only three trials (6%) included >500 participants. Trials were mostly from the United Kingdom (n = 18; 38%), Italy (n = 6; 13%), the United States and Denmark (each n = 5; 10%). Primary outcomes were diverse, for example, quality-of-life, physical functioning, or disease activity. Only 1 trial (2%) used routinely collected data for outcome ascertainment. No trial was very pragmatic in all design aspects, but 14 trials (29%) were widely pragmatic (i.e. PRECIS-2 score ⩾ 4/5 in all domains). CONCLUSION: Only few and mostly small pragmatic trials exist in MS which rarely assess drugs. Despite the widely available routine data infrastructures, very few trials utilize them. There is an urgent need to leverage the potential of this pioneering study design to provide useful randomized real-world evidence.

Concurrent and longitudinal associations of developmental language disorder with peer victimization in adolescence: evidence from a co-twin study.

BACKGROUND: Children with developmental language disorder (DLD) experience higher levels of peer victimization than their peers. However, it is not known if such associations reflect genetic and environmental confounding. We used a co-twin control design to investigate the association of language difficulties (DLD and separately poor pragmatic language) with peer victimization and compare the developmental trajectories of peer victimization across adolescence for those with and without language difficulties. METHODS: Participants were 3,400 pairs of twins in the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS), a UK-based population birth cohort. Language abilities were assessed via online tests at age 11 and peer victimization was self-reported at ages 11, 14 and 16. Language difficulties were defined as language abilities at least -1.25 SD below the mean of the TEDS sample. We performed linear regressions and latent growth curve modeling at a population level and within monozygotic and same-sex dizygotic twin pairs. RESULTS: At population level, youth with DLD experienced higher levels of peer victimization at ages 11 (ß = 0.27, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.20-0.35), 14 (ß = 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.27) and 16 (ß = 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.32) and a sharper decline in peer victimization between ages 11 and 16 compared to their peers without DLD. The associations between DLD and peer victimization were reduced in strength and not statistically significant in within-twin models. Moreover, there was no difference in the rate of change in peer victimization between twin pairs discordant for DLD. Results were similar for the association of poor pragmatic language with peer victimization. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between language difficulties (DLD and separately, poor pragmatic language) and peer victimization were confounded by genetic and shared environmental factors. Identifying specific factors underlying these associations is important for guiding future work to reduce peer victimization among adolescents with language difficulties.

Effects of high-dose versus standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine among patients with diabetes: A post-hoc analysis of the DANFLU-1 trial.

AIM: High-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD) has been shown to be more effective than standard-dose (QIV-SD) in reducing influenza infection, but whether diabetes status affects relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) is unknown. We aimed to assess rVE on change in glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c (∆HbA1c)], incident diabetes, total all-cause hospitalizations (first + recurrent), and a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza. METHODS: DANFLU-1 was a pragmatic, open-label trial randomizing adults (65-79 years) 1:1 to QIV-HD or QIV-SD during the 2021/22 influenza season. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate rVE against incident diabetes and the composite endpoint, negative binomial regression to estimate rVE against all-cause hospitalizations, and ANCOVA when assessing rVE against ∆HbA1c. RESULTS: Of the 12 477 participants, 1162 (9.3%) had diabetes at baseline. QIV-HD, compared with QIV-SD, was associated with a reduction in the rate of all-cause hospitalizations irrespective of diabetes [overall: 647 vs. 742 events, incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.87, 95% CI (0.76-0.99); diabetes: 93 vs. 118 events, IRR: 0.80, 95% CI (0.55-1.15); without diabetes: 554 vs. 624 events, IRR: 0.88, 95% CI (0.76-1.01), pinteraction = 0.62]. Among those with diabetes, QIV-HD was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome [2 vs. 11 events, HR: 0.18, 95% CI (0.04-0.83)] but had no effect on ∆HbA1c; QIV-HD adjusted mean difference: ∆ + 0.2 mmol/mol, 95% CI (-0.9 to 1.2). QIV-HD did not affect the risk of incident diabetes [HR 1.18, 95% CI (0.94-1.47)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis, QIV-HD versus QIV-SD was associated with an increased rVE against the composite of all-cause death and hospitalization for pneumonia/influenza, and the all-cause hospitalization rate irrespective of diabetes status.

Neuropsychological Rehabilitation for Epilepsy in India: Looking Beyond the Basics.

BACKGROUND: Neuropsychological Rehabilitation (NR) helps manage cognitive deficits in epilepsy. As internationally developed programs have limited applicability to resource-limited countries, we developed a program to bridge this gap. This 6-week caregiver-assisted, culturally suitable program has components of (1) psychoeducation, (2) compensatory training, and, (3) cognitive retraining and is called EMPOWER (Indigenized Home Based Attention and Memory Rehabilitation Program for Adult Patients with Drug Refractory Epilepsy). Its efficacy needs to be determined. METHODS: We carried out an open-label parallel randomized controlled trial. Adults aged 18-45 years with Drug Refractory Epilepsy (DRE), fluency in Hindi and or English, with impaired attention or memory (n = 28) were randomized to Intervention Group (IG) and Control Group (CG). The primary outcomes were objective memory (Auditory Verbal Learning Test), patient and caregiver reported everyday memory difficulties (Everyday Memory Questionnaire-Revised), number of memory aids in use, depression (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale), anxiety (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale) and quality of life (Quality of Life in Epilepsy-31). Intention to treat was carried out for group analysis. In the absence of norms necessary for computing Reliable Change Indices (RCIs), a cut-off of +1.0 Standard Deviation (SD) was utilized to identify clinically meaningful changes in the individual analysis of objective memory. A cut-off of 11.8 points was used for quality of life. Feedback and program evaluation responses were noted. RESULTS: The majority of the sample comprised DRE patients with temporal lobe epilepsy who had undergone epilepsy surgery. Group analysis indicated improved learning (p = 0.013), immediate recall (p = 0.001), delayed recall (p < 0.001), long-term retention (p = 0.031), patient-reported everyday memory (p < 0.001), caregiver-reported everyday memory (p < 0.001), anxiety (p = 0.039) and total quality of life (p < 0.001). Individual analysis showed improvement in 50 %, 64 %, 71 %, 57 %, and 64 % of patients on learning, immediate recall, delayed recall, long-term retention, and total quality of life respectively. Despite improvements, themes indicative of a lack of awareness and understanding of cognitive deficits were identified. Overall, the program was rated favorably by patients and caregivers alike. CONCLUSION: NR shows promise for patients with DRE, however larger studies are warranted. The role of cognition in epilepsy needs to be introduced at the time of diagnosis to help lay the foundation for education and acceptance.

Strategies for secondary use of real-world clinical and administrative data for outcome ascertainment in pragmatic clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials are gaining popularity as a cost-effective way to examine treatment effectiveness and generate timely comparative evidence. Incorporating supplementary real-world data is recommended for robust outcome monitoring. However, detailed operational guidelines are needed to inform effective use and integration of heterogeneous databases. OBJECTIVE: Lessons learned from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) are reviewed, providing adaptable recommendations to capture clinical outcomes from real-world data. METHODS: Non-cancer deaths and major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes were determined using VA, Medicare, and National Death Index (NDI) data. Multiple ascertainment strategies were applied, including claims-based algorithms, natural language processing, and systematic chart review. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 2.4 (SD = 1.4) years, 907 CV events were identified within the VA healthcare system. Slight delays (∼1 year) were expected in obtaining Medicare data. An additional 298 patients were found having a CV event outside of the VA in 2016 - 2021, increasing the CV event rate from 3.5 % to 5.7 % (770 of 13,523 randomized). NDI data required âˆ¼2 years waiting period. Such inclusion did not increase the number of deaths identified (all 894 deaths were captured by VA data) but enhanced the accuracy in determining cause of death. CONCLUSION: Our experience supports the recommendation of integrating multiple data sources to improve clinical outcome ascertainment. While this approach is promising, hierarchical data aggregation is required when facing different acquisition timelines, information availability/completeness, coding practice, and system configurations. It may not be feasible to implement comparable applications and solutions to studies conducted under different constraints and practice. The recommendations provide guidance and possible action plans for researchers who are interested in applying cross-source data to ascertain all study outcomes.

Pragmatic clinical trials to advance research in children and adolescents with eating disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the utility of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) to help advance research in eating disorders (EDs). METHODS: We describe challenges associated with traditional explanatory research trials and examine PCTs as an alternative, including a review of the PRECIS-2 tool. RESULTS: There are many challenges associated with the design and completion of traditional RCTs within the field of EDs. Pragmatic clinical trials are studies that closely align with conditions available in everyday practice and focus on outcomes that are relevant to patients and clinicians. Results of PCTS maximize applicability and generalizability to clinical settings. DISCUSSION: Available therapies established for the treatment of EDs provide remission rates that rarely exceed 50%, implying a need for additional research on new or adjunctive treatments. In addition to a general overview of PCTs, we draw upon published literature and our own experiences involving adjunctive olanzapine for the treatment of children and youth with anorexia nervosa to help highlight challenges associated with randomized controlled trial (RCT) design and implementation, and offer pragmatic suggestions that would allow patients greater choice in treatment trials, while at the same time capturing outcomes that are most likely to advance treatment efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Pragmatic clinical trials provide alternatives to RCT design that can help bolster research in EDs that aims to explore real-world effects of interventions. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Available therapies established for the treatment of eating disorders (EDs) in children and adolescents provide remission rates that rarely exceed 50%, implying a need for additional research on new or adjunctive treatments. In this article, we discuss the utility of pragmatic trials to help promote research that can help advance knowledge that is relevant to clinical care settings.

The ethical value of consulting community members in non-emergency trials conducted with waivers of informed consent for research.

There is growing interest in using embedded research methods, particularly pragmatic clinical trials, to address well-known evidentiary shortcomings afflicting the health care system. Reviews of pragmatic clinical trials published between 2014 and 2019 found that 8.8% were conducted with waivers of informed consent; furthermore, the number of trials where consent is not obtained is increasing with time. From a regulatory perspective, waivers of informed consent are permissible when certain conditions are met, including that the study involves no more than minimal risk, that it could not practicably be carried out without a waiver, and that waiving consent does not violate participants' rights and welfare. Nevertheless, when research is conducted with a waiver of consent, several ethical challenges arise. We must consider how to: address empirical evidence showing that patients and members of the public generally prefer prospective consent, demonstrate respect for persons using tools other than consent, promote public trust and investigator integrity, and ensure an adequate level of participant protections. In this article, we use examples drawn from real pragmatic clinical trials to argue that prospective consultation with representatives of the target study population can address, or at least mitigate, many of the ethical challenges posed by waivers of informed consent. We also consider what consultation might involve to illustrate its feasibility and address potential objections.

Unresolved issues with noninferiority pragmatic trials: Results of a literature survey.

BACKGROUND: Issues with specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population can potentially bias results toward the alternative in randomized noninferiority pragmatic trials. To investigate this potential for bias, we conducted a targeted search of the medical literature to examine how noninferiority pragmatic trials address these issues. METHODS: An Ovid MEDLINE database search was performed identifying publications in New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, or British Medical Journal published between 2015 and 2021 that included the words "pragmatic" or "comparative effectiveness" and "noninferiority" or "non-inferiority." Our search identified 14 potential trials, 12 meeting our inclusion criteria (11 individually randomized, 1 cluster-randomized). RESULTS: Eleven trials had results that met the criteria established for noninferiority. Noninferiority margins were prespecified for all trials; all but two trials provided justification of the margin. Most trials did some monitoring of treatment adherence. All trials conducted intent-to-treat or modified intent-to-treat analyses along with per-protocol analyses and these analyses reached similar conclusions. Only two trials included all randomized participants in the primary analysis, one used multiple imputation for missing data. The percentage excluded from primary analyses ranged from ∼2% to 30%. Reasons for exclusion included randomization in error, nonadherence, not receiving assigned treatment, death, withdrawal, lost to follow-up, and incomplete data. CONCLUSION: Specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population require careful consideration to prevent bias toward the alternative in noninferiority pragmatic trials. Although separate guidance has been developed for noninferiority and pragmatic trials, it is not compatible with conducting a noninferiority pragmatic trial. Hence, these trials should probably not be done in their current format without developing new guidelines.

Multiply robust estimation of principal causal effects with noncompliance and survival outcomes.

Treatment noncompliance and censoring are two common complications in clinical trials. Motivated by the ADAPTABLE pragmatic clinical trial, we develop methods for assessing treatment effects in the presence of treatment noncompliance with a right-censored survival outcome. We classify the participants into principal strata, defined by their joint potential compliance status under treatment and control. We propose a multiply robust estimator for the causal effects on the survival probability scale within each principal stratum. This estimator is consistent even if one, sometimes two, of the four working models-on the treatment assignment, the principal strata, censoring, and the outcome-is misspecified. A sensitivity analysis strategy is developed to address violations of key identification assumptions, the principal ignorability and monotonicity. We apply the proposed approach to the ADAPTABLE trial to study the causal effect of taking low- versus high-dosage aspirin on all-cause mortality and hospitalization from cardiovascular diseases.

Optimizing accrual to a large-scale, clinically integrated randomized trial in anesthesiology: A 2-year analysis of recruitment.

BACKGROUND: Performing large randomized trials in anesthesiology is often challenging and costly. The clinically integrated randomized trial is characterized by simplified logistics embedded into routine clinical practice, enabling ease and efficiency of recruitment, offering an opportunity for clinicians to conduct large, high-quality randomized trials under low cost. Our aims were to (1) demonstrate the feasibility of the clinically integrated trial design in a high-volume anesthesiology practice and (2) assess whether trial quality improvement interventions led to more balanced accrual among study arms and improved trial compliance over time. METHODS: This is an interim analysis of recruitment to a cluster-randomized trial investigating three nerve block approaches for mastectomy with immediate implant-based reconstruction: paravertebral block (arm 1), paravertebral plus interpectoral plane blocks (arm 2), and serratus anterior plane plus interpectoral plane blocks (arm 3). We monitored accrual and consent rates, clinician compliance with the randomized treatment, and availability of outcome data. Assessment after the initial year of implementation showed a slight imbalance in study arms suggesting areas for improvement in trial compliance. Specific improvement interventions included increasing the frequency of communication with the consenting staff and providing direct feedback to clinician investigators about their individual recruitment patterns. We assessed overall accrual rates and tested for differences in accrual, consent, and compliance rates pre- and post-improvement interventions. RESULTS: Overall recruitment was extremely high, accruing close to 90% of the eligible population. In the pre-intervention period, there was evidence of bias in the proportion of patients being accrued and receiving the monthly block, with higher rates in arm 3 (90%) compared to arms 1 (81%) and 2 (79%, p = 0.021). In contrast, in the post-intervention period, there was no statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.8). Eligible for randomization rate increased from 89% in the pre-intervention period to 95% in the post-intervention period (difference 5.7%; 95% confidence interval = 2.2%-9.4%, p = 0.002). Consent rate increased from 95% to 98% (difference of 3.7%; 95% confidence interval = 1.1%-6.3%; p = 0.004). Compliance with the randomized nerve block approach was maintained at close to 100% and availability of primary outcome data was 100%. CONCLUSION: The clinically integrated randomized trial design enables rapid trial accrual with a high participant compliance rate in a high-volume anesthesiology practice. Continuous monitoring of accrual, consent, and compliance rates is necessary to maintain and improve trial conduct and reduce potential biases. This trial methodology serves as a template for the implementation of other large, low-cost randomized trials in anesthesiology.

Structured Mobilization for Critically Ill Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster-randomized Trial.

Rationale: Small trials and professional recommendations support mobilization interventions to improve recovery among critically ill patients, but their real-world effectiveness is unknown. Objective: To evaluate a low-cost, multifaceted mobilization intervention. Methods: We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial across 12 ICUs with diverse case mixes. The primary and secondary samples included patients mechanically ventilated for ⩾48 hours who were ambulatory before admission, and all patients with ICU stays ⩾48 hours, respectively. The mobilization intervention included 1) designation and posting of daily mobilization goals; 2) interprofessional closed-loop communication coordinated by each ICU's facilitator; and 3) performance feedback. Measurements and Main Results: From March 4, 2019 through March 15, 2020, 848 and 1,069 patients were enrolled in the usual care and intervention phases in the primary sample, respectively. The intervention did not increase the primary outcome, patient's maximal Intensive Care Mobility Scale (range, 0-10) score within 48 hours before ICU discharge (estimated mean difference, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, -0.31 to 0.63; P = 0.51). More patients in the intervention (37.2%) than usual care (30.7%) groups achieved the prespecified secondary outcome of ability to stand before ICU discharge (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 2.15; P = 0.04). Similar results were observed among the 7,115 patients in the secondary sample. The percentage of days on which patients received physical therapy mediated 90.1% of the intervention effect on standing. ICU mortality (31.5% vs. 29.0%), falls (0.7% vs. 0.4%), and unplanned extubations (2.0% vs. 1.8%) were similar between groups (all P > 0.3). Conclusions: A low-cost, multifaceted mobilization intervention did not improve overall mobility but improved patients' odds of standing and was safe. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03863470).

A patient activation intervention in primary care for patients with chronic pain on long term opioid therapy: results from a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Given significant risks associated with long-term prescription opioid use, there is a need for non-pharmacological interventions for treating chronic pain. Activating patients to manage chronic pain has the potential to improve health outcomes. The ACTIVATE study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 4-session patient activation intervention in primary care for patients on long-term opioid therapy. METHODS: The two-arm, pragmatic, randomized trial was conducted in two primary care clinics in an integrated health system from June 2015-August 2018. Consenting participants were randomized to the intervention (n = 189) or usual care (n = 187). Participants completed online and interviewer-administered surveys at baseline, 6- and 12- months follow-up. Prescription opioid use was extracted from the EHR. The primary outcome was patient activation assessed by the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Secondary outcomes included mood, function, overall health, non-pharmacologic pain management strategies, and patient portal use. We conducted a repeated measure analysis and reported between-group differences at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, the intervention and usual care arms had similar PAM scores. However, compared to usual care at 12 months, the intervention arm demonstrated: less moderate/severe depression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40, 95%CI 0.18-0.87); higher overall health (OR = 3.14, 95%CI 1.64-6.01); greater use of the patient portal's health/wellness resources (OR = 2.50, 95%CI 1.42-4.40) and lab/immunization history (OR = 2.70, 95%CI 1.29-5.65); and greater use of meditation (OR = 2.72; 95%CI 1.61-4.58) and exercise/physical therapy (OR = 2.24, 95%CI 1.29-3.88). At 12 months, the intervention arm had a higher physical health measure (mean difference 1.63; 95%CI: 0.27-2.98). CONCLUSION: This trial evaluated the effectiveness of a primary care intervention in improving patient activation and patient-reported outcomes among adults with chronic pain on long-term opioid therapy. Despite a lack of improvement in patient activation, a brief intervention in primary care can improve outcomes such as depression, overall health, non-pharmacologic pain management, and engagement with the health system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on 10/27/14 on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02290223).

Pragmatic patchwork ethnography, a call to action for health, nutrition and dietetic researchers.

Qualitative research methods are increasingly used in nutrition and dietetics research. Ethnography is an underexploited approach which seeks to explore the diversity of people and cultures in a given setting, providing a better understanding of the influences that determine their choices and behaviours. It is argued that traditional ethnography, that is, the methodology of living within participant communities, is a dated practice, with roots in colonialism, accessible to only researchers with the means, connections and status to conduct such research, typically white, privileged males. This paper proposes a formal interpretation of 'patchwork ethnography', whereby research is carried out in situ around existing modern-day commitments of the researcher, thus enabling more researchers within health, nutrition and dietetic practice to benefit from the rich data that can be discovered from communities. This review proposes the concept that pragmatic patchwork ethnography is required, proposing a framework for implementation, providing researchers, particularly within the fields of human nutrition, dietetics and health, the accessibility and means to deploy a meaningful client-centric methodology. We present pragmatic patchwork ethnography as a modern method for use within multiple healthcare settings, thus adding a progressive brick in the wall of qualitative research.

Weight Gain Prevention Outcomes From a Pragmatic Digital Health Intervention With Community Health Center Patients: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity and its associated comorbidities continue to rise in the United States. Populations who are uninsured and from racial and ethnic minority groups continue to be disproportionately affected. These populations also experience fewer clinically meaningful outcomes in most weight loss trials. Weight gain prevention presents a useful strategy for individuals who experience barriers to weight loss. Given the often-limited weight management resources available to patients in primary care settings serving vulnerable patients, evaluating interventions with pragmatic designs may help inform the design of comprehensive obesity care delivered in primary care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Balance, a 2-arm, 12-month pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a digital weight gain prevention intervention, delivered to patients receiving primary care within federally qualified community health centers. METHODS: Balance was a 2-arm, 12-month pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a digital weight gain prevention intervention delivered to individuals who had a BMI of 25-40 kg/m2, spoke English or Spanish, and were receiving primary care within a network of federally qualified community health centers in North Carolina. The Balance intervention was designed to encourage behavioral changes that result in a slight energy deficit. Intervention participants received tailored goal setting and tracking, skills training, self-monitoring, and responsive health coaching from registered dietitians. Weight was measured at regular primary care visits and documented in the electronic health record. We compared the percentage of ≤3% weight gain in each arm at 24 months after randomization-our primary outcome-using individual empirical best linear unbiased predictors from the linear mixed-effects model. We used individual empirical best linear unbiased predictors from participants with at least 1 electronic health record weight documented within a 6-month window centered on the 24-month time point. RESULTS: We randomized 443 participants, of which 223 (50.3%) participants were allocated to the intervention arm. At baseline, participants had a mean BMI of 32.6 kg/m2. Most participants were Latino or Hispanic (n=200, 45.1%) or non-Latino or Hispanic White (n=115, 26%). In total, 53% (n=235) of participants had at least 1 visit with weight measured in the primary time window. The intervention group had a higher proportion with ≤3% weight gain at 6 months (risk ratio=1.12, 95% CI 0.94-1.28; risk difference=9.5, 95% CI -4.5 to 16.4 percentage points). This difference attenuated to the null by 24 months (risk ratio=1.00, 95% CI 0.82-1.20; risk difference=0.2, 95% CI -12.1 to 11.0 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with overweight or obesity receiving primary care at a community health center, we did not find long-term evidence to support the dissemination of a digital health intervention for weight gain prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03003403; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03003403. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12889-019-6926-7.