Measuring the effects of a personalized music intervention on agitated behaviors among nursing home residents with dementia: design features for cluster-randomized adaptive trial.

BACKGROUND: Agitated and aggressive behaviors (behaviors) are common in nursing home (NH) residents with dementia. Medications commonly used to manage behaviors have dangerous side effects. NHs are adopting non-pharmacological interventions to manage behaviors, despite a lack of effectiveness evidence and an understanding of optimal implementation strategies. We are conducting an adaptive trial to evaluate the effects of personalized music on behaviors. Adaptive trials may increase efficiency and reduce costs associated with traditional RCTs by learning and making modifications to the trial while it is ongoing. METHODS: We are conducting two consecutive parallel cluster-randomized trials with 54 NHs in each trial (27 treatment, 27 control). Participating NHs were recruited from 4 corporations which differ in size, ownership structure, geography, and residents' racial composition. After randomization, there were no significant differences between the NHs randomized to each trial with respect to baseline behaviors, number of eligible residents, degree of cognitive impairment, or antipsychotic use. Agitated behavior frequency is assessed via staff interviews (primary outcome), required nursing staff conducted resident assessments (secondary outcome), and direct observations of residents (secondary outcome). Between the two parallel trials, the adaptive design will be used to test alternative implementation strategies, increasingly enroll residents who are likely to benefit from the intervention, and seamlessly conduct a stage III/IV trial. DISCUSSION: This adaptive trial allows investigators to estimate the impact of a popular non-pharmaceutical intervention (personalized music) on residents' behaviors, under pragmatic, real-world conditions testing two implementation strategies. This design has the potential to reduce the research timeline by improving the likelihood of powered results, increasingly enrolling residents most likely to benefit from intervention, sequentially assessing the effectiveness of implementation strategies in the same trial, and creating a statistical model to reduce the future need for onsite data collection. The design may also increase research equity by enrolling and tailoring the intervention to populations otherwise excluded from research. Our design will inform pragmatic testing of other interventions with limited efficacy evidence but widespread stakeholder adoption because of the real-world need for non-pharmaceutical approaches. {2A} TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03821844 . Registered on January 30, 2019. This trial registration meets the World Health Organization (WHO) minimum standard.

A dynamic application of PRECIS-2 to evaluate implementation in a pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial in two nursing home systems.

BACKGROUND: PRECIS-2 (PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2) can assess how clinical trial design decisions (along the explanatory-pragmatic continuum) influence the applicability of trial results to intended stakeholders. The tool has been used to assess features of trials during the trial design phase and also upon completion. The ongoing PRagmatic trial Of Video Education in Nursing homes (PROVEN), which is evaluating the effectiveness of a suite of videos to improve advance care planning, is one of the first large pragmatic, cluster randomized trials within nursing home health care systems. While certain features of pragmatic trials remain static once designed (e.g., recruitment, outcomes), successful implementation of a system-wide program requires on-going evaluation and adaptation. This report's objectives were to apply PRECIS-2 in a novel manner during the actual conduct of the PROVEN trial to assess how dynamic adaptations shifted implementation to either a more explanatory or a more pragmatic approach. METHODS: We assessed PROVEN's protocol as initially designed according to the three PRECIS-2 domains pertinent to implementation: (1) Organization, (2) Flexibility-Delivery, and (3) Flexibility-Adherence. We then applied this framework to conduct a formative evaluation of decisions made while the trial was ongoing to adapt the implementation approach along the pragmatic versus the explanatory continuum in response to emergent challenges. RESULTS: Based on the PRECIS-2 rubric, the initial design of the PROVEN implementation approach reflected a hybrid of pragmatic and explanatory features. Most notably, within the Flexibility-Delivery, the trial had a relatively pragmatic approach to protocol delivery by front-line nursing home providers, balanced with a more explanatory approach to protocol monitoring enabled by the analytic capabilities of the research team. This more intensive monitoring proved critical in revealing implementation problems once the study began. Dynamic adaptations made in response to these challenges generally reflected shifts to more explanatory approaches within the Flexibility-Delivery and Flexibility-Adherence domains including ever more intensive compliance monitoring, as well as detailed coaching of front-line providers delivering the intervention by the research team. CONCLUSIONS: Pragmatic trials conducted in the nursing home setting may benefit from a more dynamic approach to implementation. Allowing fluidity between pragmatic and explanatory features may still preserve the trial's applicability to intended stakeholders' needs. PRECIS-2 provides a useful formative evaluation tool to assess these adaptations in "real-time." TRIAL REGISTRATION: US National Library of Medicine, ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02612688 . Registered on 19 November 2015.

A randomized trial of the impact of survey design characteristics on response rates among nursing home providers.

An experiment was conducted to maximize participation of both the Director of Nursing (DoN) and the Administrator (ADMIN) in long-term care facilities. Providers in each of the 224 randomly selected facilities were randomly assigned to 1 of 16 conditions based on the combination of data collection mode (web vs. mail), questionnaire length (short vs. long), and incentive structure. Incentive structures were determined by amount compensated if the individual completed and an additional amount per individual if the pair completed (a) $30 individual/$5 pair/$35 total; (b) $10 individual/$25 pair/$35 total; (c) $30 individual/$20 pair/$50 total; and (d) $10 individual/$40 pair/$50 total. Overall, 47.4% of eligible respondents participated; both respondents participated in 29.3% of facilities. In multivariable analyses, there were no differences in the likelihood of both respondents participating by mode, questionnaire length, or incentive structure. Providing incentives contingent on participation by both providers of a facility was an ineffective strategy for significantly increasing response rates.