Engineering practice variation through provider agreement: a cluster-randomized feasibility trial
Authors McCarren M, Twedt E, Mansuri F, Nelson P, Peek B
Received 24 June 2014
Accepted for publication 14 July 2014
Published 28 October 2014 Volume 2014:10 Pages 905—912
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Madeline McCarren,1 Elaine L Twedt,1 Faizmohamed M Mansuri,2 Philip R Nelson,3 Brian T Peek3
1Pharmacy Benefits Management Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Hines, IL, 2Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 3Charles George VA Medical Center, Asheville, NC, USA
Purpose: Minimal-risk randomized trials that can be embedded in practice could facilitate learning health-care systems. A cluster-randomized design was proposed to compare treatment strategies by assigning clusters (eg, providers) to “favor” a particular drug, with providers retaining autonomy for specific patients. Patient informed consent might be waived, broadening inclusion. However, it is not known if providers will adhere to the assignment or whether institutional review boards will waive consent. We evaluated the feasibility of this trial design.
Subjects and methods: Agreeable providers were randomized to “favor” either hydrochlorothiazide or chlorthalidone when starting patients on thiazide-type therapy for hypertension. The assignment applied when the provider had already decided to start a thiazide, and providers could deviate from the strategy as needed. Prescriptions were aggregated to produce a provider strategy-adherence rate.
Results: All four institutional review boards waived documentation of patient consent. Providers (n=18) followed their assigned strategy for most of their new thiazide prescriptions (n=138 patients). In the “favor hydrochlorothiazide” group, there was 99% adherence to that strategy. In the “favor chlorthalidone” group, chlorthalidone comprised 77% of new thiazide starts, up from 1% in the pre-study period. When the assigned strategy was followed, dosing in the recommended range was 48% for hydrochlorothiazide (25–50 mg/day) and 100% for chlorthalidone (12.5–25.0 mg/day). Providers were motivated to participate by a desire to contribute to a comparative effectiveness study. A study promotional mug, provider information letter, and interactions with the site investigator were identified as most helpful in reminding providers of their study drug strategy.
Conclusion: Providers prescribed according to an assigned drug-choice strategy most of the time for the purpose of a comparative effectiveness study. This simple design could facilitate research participation and behavior change in non-research clinicians. Waiver of patient consent can broaden the representation of patients, providers, and settings.
Keywords: policy trial, pragmatic trial, comparative effectiveness research, thiazides, informed consent, provider behavior
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]