» Articles » PMID: 29272994

What's the Uptake? Pragmatic RCTs May Be Used to Estimate Uptake, and Thereby Population Impact of Interventions, but Better Reporting of Trial Recruitment Processes is Needed

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2017 Dec 24
PMID 29272994
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Effectiveness of interventions in pragmatic trials may not translate directly into population impact, because of limited uptake by clinicians and/or the public. Uptake of an intervention is influenced by a number of factors.

Methods: We propose a method for calculating population impact of clinical interventions that accounts for the intervention uptake. We suggest that population impact may be estimated by multiplying the two key components: (1) the effectiveness of the intervention in pragmatic trials (trial effect); and, (2) its uptake in clinical practice. We argue that participation rates in trials may be a valid proxy for uptake in clinical practice and, in combination with trial effectiveness estimates, be used to rank interventions by their likely population impact. We illustrate the method using the example of four interventions to decrease antibiotic prescription for acute respiratory infections in primary care: delayed prescribing, procalcitonin test, C-Reactive Protein, shared decision making.

Results: In order to estimate uptake of interventions from trial data we need detailed reporting on the recruitment processes used for clinician participation in the trials. In the antibiotic prescribing example, between 75 and 91% of the population would still be prescribed or consume antibiotics because effective interventions were not taken up. Of the four interventions considered, we found that delayed prescribing would have the highest population impact and shared decision making the lowest.

Conclusion: Estimates of uptake and population impact of an intervention may be possible from pragmatic RCTs, provided the recruitment processes for these trials are adequately reported (which currently few of them are). Further validation of this method using empirical data on intervention uptake in the real world would support use of this method to decide on public funding of interventions.

Citing Articles

Information about the natural history of acute infections commonly seen in primary care: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

Boaitey K, Bakhit M, Krzyzaniak N, Hoffmann T BMC Infect Dis. 2022; 22(1):897.

PMID: 36456959 PMC: 9714117. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-022-07887-1.


Effectiveness of a Lifestyle Modification Program Delivered under Real-World Conditions in a Rural Setting.

Jennings C, Patterson E, Curtis R, Mazzacano A, Maher C Nutrients. 2021; 13(11).

PMID: 34836296 PMC: 8620632. DOI: 10.3390/nu13114040.


The ethical challenges raised in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: an interview study with key stakeholders.

Nicholls S, Carroll K, Zwarenstein M, Brehaut J, Weijer C, Hey S Trials. 2019; 20(1):765.

PMID: 31870433 PMC: 6929346. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3899-x.


Effectiveness and safety of electronically delivered prescribing feedback and decision support on antibiotic use for respiratory illness in primary care: REDUCE cluster randomised trial.

Gulliford M, Prevost A, Charlton J, Juszczyk D, Soames J, McDermott L BMJ. 2019; 364:l236.

PMID: 30755451 PMC: 6371944. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l236.

References
1.
Briel M, Langewitz W, Tschudi P, Young J, Hugenschmidt C, Bucher H . Communication training and antibiotic use in acute respiratory tract infections. A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practice. Swiss Med Wkly. 2006; 136(15-16):241-7. DOI: 10.4414/smw.2006.11342. View

2.
Dowell J, Pitkethly M, Bain J, Martin S . A randomised controlled trial of delayed antibiotic prescribing as a strategy for managing uncomplicated respiratory tract infection in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2001; 51(464):200-5. PMC: 1313951. View

3.
Glasziou P, Altman D, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S . Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014; 383(9913):267-76. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X. View

4.
Glasgow R, Lichtenstein E, Marcus A . Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93(8):1261-7. PMC: 1447950. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.93.8.1261. View

5.
Glasziou P, Haynes B . The paths from research to improved health outcomes. Evid Based Nurs. 2005; 8(2):36-8. DOI: 10.1136/ebn.8.2.36. View