Background: A pragmatic, stepped wedge trial design can be an appealing design to evaluate complex interventions in real-life settings. However, there are certain pitfalls that need to be considered. This paper reports on the experiences and lessons learned from the conduct of a cluster randomized, stepped wedge trial evaluating the effect of the Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) in a Dutch hospital setting to prevent older patients from developing delirium. Methods: We evaluated our trial which was conducted in eight departments in two hospitals in hospitalized patients aged 70 years or older who were at risk for delirium by reflecting on the assumptions that we had and on what we intended to accomplish when we started, as compared to what we actually realized in the different phases of our study. Lessons learned on the design, the timeline, the enrollment of eligible patients and the use of routinely collected data are provided accompanied by recommendations to address challenges. Results: The start of the trial was delayed which caused subsequent time schedule problems. The requirement for individual informed consent for a quality improvement project made the inclusion more prone to selection bias. Most units experienced major difficulties in including patients, leading to excluding two of the eight units from participation. This resulted in failing to include a similar number of patients in the control condition versus the intervention condition. Data on outcomes routinely collected in the electronic patient records were not accessible during the study, and appeared to be often missing during analyses. Conclusions: The stepped wedge, cluster randomized trial poses specific risks in the design and execution of research in real-life settings of which researchers should be aware to prevent negative consequences impacting the validity of their results. Valid conclusions on the effectiveness of the HELP in the Dutch hospital setting are hampered by the limited quantity and quality of routine clinical data in our pragmatic trial. Executing a stepped wedge design in a daily practice setting using routinely collected data requires specific attention to ethical review, flexibility, a spacious time schedule, the availability of substantial capacity in the research team and early checks on the data availability and quality.
Background: Early childhood caries is considered one of the most prevalent diseases in childhood, affecting almost half of preschool-age children globally. In the Netherlands, approximately one-third of children aged 5 years already have dental caries, and dental care providers experience problems reaching out to these children. Objective: Within the proposed trial, we aim to test the hypothesis that, compared to children who receive usual care, children who receive the Toddler Oral Health Intervention as add-on care will have a reduced cumulative caries incidence and caries incidence density at the age of 48 months. Methods: This pragmatic, 2-arm, individually randomized controlled trial is being conducted in the Netherlands and has been approved by the Medical Ethics Research Board of University Medical Center Utrecht. Parents with children aged 6 to 12 months attending 1 of the 9 selected well-baby clinics are invited to participate. Only healthy children (ie, not requiring any form of specialized health care) with parents that have sufficient command of the Dutch language and have no plans to move outside the well-baby clinic region are eligible. Both groups receive conventional oral health education in well-baby clinics during regular well-baby clinic visits between the ages of 6 to 48 months. After concealed random allocation of interventions, the intervention group also receives the Toddler Oral Health Intervention from an oral health coach. The Toddler Oral Health Intervention combines behavioral interventions of proven effectiveness in caries prevention. Data are collected at baseline, at 24 months, and at 48 months. The primary study endpoint is cumulative caries incidence for children aged 48 months, and will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. For children aged 48 months, the balance between costs and effects of the Toddler Oral Health Intervention will be evaluated, and for children aged 24 months, the effects of the Toddler Oral Health Intervention on behavioral determinants, alongside cumulative caries incidence, will be compared. Results: The first parent-child dyads were enrolled in June 2017, and recruitment was finished in June 2019. We enrolled 402 parent-child dyads. Conclusions: All follow-up interventions and data collection will be completed by the end of 2022, and the trial results are expected soon thereafter. Results will be shared at international conferences and via peer-reviewed publication.
LINK
Severe mental illness (SMI) imposes a significant burden on individuals, resulting in long-lasting symptoms, lower social functioning and impaired physical health. Physical activity (PA) interventions can improve both mental and physical health and care workers can serve as healthy role models. Yet, individuals with SMI face barriers to PA participation. This study evaluated the effects of Muva, and assessed if mental health worker’s (MHW) characteristics were associated with clients’ change in social functioning. Muva, an intervention package primarily created to increase PA of people with SMI, places a special focus on MHWs as they might play a key role in overcoming barriers. Other PA barrier-decreasing elements of Muva were a serious game app, lifestyle education, and optimization of the medication regime. Method: This study is a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster controlled trial. Controls received care as usual. Mixedeffects linear regressions were performed to assess changes in the primary outcome social functioning, and secondary outcomes quality of life, psychiatric symptoms, PA, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure. Results: 84 people with SMI were included in three intervention clusters, and 38 people with SMI in the control cluster. Compared to the control condition, there was significant clinical improvement of social functioning in interpersonal communication (p=<0.01) and independent competence (p=<0.01) in people receiving Muva. These outcomes were not associated with MHW’s characteristics. There were no changes in the other outcome measures. Conclusions: Muva improved social functioning in people with SMI compared to care as usual.
