Dataset Information

Accounting for external factors and early intervention adoption in the design and analysis of stepped-wedge designs: Application to a proposed study design to reduce opioid-related mortality.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Stepped-wedge designs (SWDs) are currently being used to investigate interventions to reduce opioid overdose deaths in communities located in several states. However, these interventions are competing with external factors such as newly initiated public policies limiting opioid prescriptions, media awareness campaigns, and social distancing orders due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, control communities may prematurely adopt components of the proposed intervention as they become widely available. These types of events induce confounding of the intervention effect by time. Such confounding is a well-known limitation of SWDs; a common approach to adjusting for it makes use of a mixed effects modeling framework that includes both fixed and random effects for time. However, these models have several shortcomings when multiple confounding factors are present. METHODS:We discuss the limitations of existing methods based on mixed effects models in the context of proposed SWDs to investigate interventions intended to reduce mortality associated with the opioid epidemic, and propose solutions to accommodate deviations from assumptions that underlie these models. We conduct an extensive simulation study of anticipated data from SWD trials targeting the current opioid epidemic in order to examine the performance of these models under different sources of confounding. We specifically examine the impact of factors external to the study and premature adoption of intervention components. RESULTS:When only external factors are present, our simulation studies show that commonly used mixed effects models can result in unbiased estimates of the intervention effect, but have inflated Type 1 error and result in under coverage of confidence intervals. These models are severely biased when confounding factors differentially impact intervention and control clusters; premature adoption of intervention components is an example of this scenario. In these scenarios, models that incorporate fixed intervention-by-time interaction terms and an unstructured covariance for the intervention-by-cluster-by-time random effects result in unbiased estimates of the intervention effect, reach nominal confidence interval coverage, and preserve Type 1 error, but may reduce power. CONCLUSIONS:The incorporation of fixed and random time effects in mixed effects models require certain assumptions about the impact of confounding by time in SWD. Violations of these assumptions can result in severe bias of the intervention effect estimate, under coverage of confidence intervals, and inflated Type 1 error. Since model choice has considerable impact on study power as well as validity of results, careful consideration needs to be given to choosing an appropriate model that takes into account potential confounding factors.

SUBMITTER: Rennert L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7402056 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accounting for external factors and early intervention adoption in the design and analysis of stepped-wedge designs: Application to a proposed study design to reduce opioid-related mortality.

Rennert Lior L Heo Moonseong M Litwin Alain H AH De Gruttola Victor V

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences 20200729

<h4>Background</h4>Stepped-wedge designs (SWDs) are currently being used to investigate interventions to reduce opioid overdose deaths in communities located in several states. However, these interventions are competing with external factors such as newly initiated public policies limiting opioid prescriptions, media awareness campaigns, and social distancing orders due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, control communities may prematurely adopt components of the proposed intervention as the ...[more]

PMID: 32766601

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Stepped-wedge designs (SWDs) are currently being used in the investigation of interventions to reduce opioid-related deaths in communities located in several states. However, these interventions are competing with external factors such as newly initiated public policies limiting opioid prescriptions, media awareness campaigns, and COVID-19 social distancing mandates. Furthermore, control communities may prematurely adopt components of the intervention as they become available. The presence of time-varying external factors that impact study outcomes is a well-known limitation of SWDs; common approaches to adjusting for them make use of a mixed effects modeling framework. However, these models have several shortcomings when external factors differentially impact intervention and control clusters. Methods: We discuss limitations of commonly used mixed effects models in the context of proposed SWDs to investigate interventions intended to reduce opioid-related mortality, and propose extensions of these models to address these limitations. We conduct an extensive simulation study of anticipated data from SWD trials targeting the current opioid epidemic in order to examine the performance of these models in the presence of external factors. We consider confounding by time, premature adoption of components of the intervention, and time-varying effect modificationâ€" in which external factors differentially impact intervention and control clusters. Results: In the presence of confounding by time, commonly used mixed effects models yield unbiased intervention effect estimates, but can have inflated Type 1 error and result in under coverage of confidence intervals. These models yield biased intervention effect estimates when premature intervention adoption or effect modification are present. In such scenarios, models incorporating fixed intervention-by-time interactions with an unstructured covariance for intervention-by-cluster-by-time random effects result in unbiased intervention effect estimates, reach nominal confidence interval coverage, and preserve Type 1 error. Conclusions: Mixed effects models can adjust for different combinations of external factors through correct specification of fixed and random time effects; misspecification can result in bias of the intervention effect estimate, under coverage of confidence intervals, and Type 1 error inflation. Since model choice has considerable impact on validity of results and study power, careful consideration must be given to choosing appropriate models that account for potential external factors.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Controlled implementation trials often randomize the intervention at the site level, enrolling relatively few sites (e.g., 6-20) compared to trials that randomize by subject. Trials with few sites carry a substantial risk of an imbalance between intervened (cases) and non-intervened (control) sites in important site characteristics, thereby threatening the internal validity of the primary comparison. A stepped wedge design (SWD) staggers the intervention at sites over a sequence of times or time waves until all sites eventually receive the intervention. We propose a new randomization method, sequential balance, to control time trend in site allocation by minimizing sequential imbalance across multiple characteristics. We illustrate the new method by applying it to a SWD implementation trial. METHODS:The trial investigated the impact of blended internal-external facilitation on the establishment of evidence-based teams in general mental health clinics in nine US Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. Prior to randomization to start time, an expert panel of implementation researchers and health system program leaders identified by consensus a series of eight facility-level characteristics judged relevant to the success of implementation. We characterized each of the nine sites according to these consensus features. Using a weighted sum of these characteristics, we calculated imbalance scores for each of 1680 possible site assignments to identify the most sequentially balanced assignment schemes. RESULTS:From 1680 possible site assignments, we identified 34 assignments with minimal imbalance scores, and then randomly selected one assignment by which to randomize start time. Initially, the mean imbalance score was 3.10, but restricted to the 34 assignments, it declined to 0.99. CONCLUSIONS:Sequential balancing of site characteristics across groups of sites in the time waves of a SWD strengthens the internal validity of study conclusions by minimizing potential confounding. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as clinical trials # NCT02543840 ; entered 9/4/2015.

Project description:Background/Aims We sought to optimise the design of stepped wedge trials with an equal allocation of clusters to sequences and explored sample size comparisons with alternative trial designs. Methods We developed a new expression for the design effect for a stepped wedge trial, assuming that observations are equally correlated within clusters and an equal number of observations in each period between sequences switching to the intervention. We minimised the design effect with respect to (1) the fraction of observations before the first and after the final sequence switches (the periods with all clusters in the control or intervention condition, respectively) and (2) the number of sequences. We compared the design effect of this optimised stepped wedge trial to the design effects of a parallel cluster-randomised trial, a cluster-randomised trial with baseline observations, and a hybrid trial design (a mixture of cluster-randomised trial and stepped wedge trial) with the same total cluster size for all designs. Results We found that a stepped wedge trial with an equal allocation to sequences is optimised by obtaining all observations after the first sequence switches and before the final sequence switches to the intervention; this means that the first sequence remains in the control condition and the last sequence remains in the intervention condition for the duration of the trial. With this design, the optimal number of sequences is [Formula: see text], where [Formula: see text] is the cluster-mean correlation, [Formula: see text] is the intracluster correlation coefficient, and m is the total cluster size. The optimal number of sequences is small when the intracluster correlation coefficient and cluster size are small and large when the intracluster correlation coefficient or cluster size is large. A cluster-randomised trial remains more efficient than the optimised stepped wedge trial when the intracluster correlation coefficient or cluster size is small. A cluster-randomised trial with baseline observations always requires a larger sample size than the optimised stepped wedge trial. The hybrid design can always give an equally or more efficient design, but will be at most 5% more efficient. We provide a strategy for selecting a design if the optimal number of sequences is unfeasible. For a non-optimal number of sequences, the sample size may be reduced by allowing a proportion of observations before the first or after the final sequence has switched. Conclusion The standard stepped wedge trial is inefficient. To reduce sample sizes when a hybrid design is unfeasible, stepped wedge trial designs should have no observations before the first sequence switches or after the final sequence switches.

Project description:BackgroundStepped wedge randomised trial designs involve sequential roll-out of an intervention to participants (individuals or clusters) over a number of time periods. By the end of the study, all participants will have received the intervention, although the order in which participants receive the intervention is determined at random. The design is particularly relevant where it is predicted that the intervention will do more good than harm (making a parallel design, in which certain participants do not receive the intervention unethical) and/or where, for logistical, practical or financial reasons, it is impossible to deliver the intervention simultaneously to all participants. Stepped wedge designs offer a number of opportunities for data analysis, particularly for modelling the effect of time on the effectiveness of an intervention. This paper presents a review of 12 studies (or protocols) that use (or plan to use) a stepped wedge design. One aim of the review is to highlight the potential for the stepped wedge design, given its infrequent use to date.MethodsComprehensive literature review of studies or protocols using a stepped wedge design. Data were extracted from the studies in three categories for subsequent consideration: study information (epidemiology, intervention, number of participants), reasons for using a stepped wedge design and methods of data analysis.ResultsThe 12 studies included in this review describe evaluations of a wide range of interventions, across different diseases in different settings. However the stepped wedge design appears to have found a niche for evaluating interventions in developing countries, specifically those concerned with HIV. There were few consistent motivations for employing a stepped wedge design or methods of data analysis across studies. The methodological descriptions of stepped wedge studies, including methods of randomisation, sample size calculations and methods of analysis, are not always complete.ConclusionWhile the stepped wedge design offers a number of opportunities for use in future evaluations, a more consistent approach to reporting and data analysis is required.

Project description:IntroductionThere is an epidemic of opioid use related to adverse events and deaths in the USA. The rates of chronic pain, mental illness and substance use disorder are higher at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) compared with the general US population. The 2016 Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act requires the VHA to improve opioid therapy strategies in treating patients and to ensure responsible prescribing practices. The Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) is a web-based dashboard that prioritises review of VHA patients receiving opioids based on their risk. The VHA Partnered Evidence-based Policy Resource Center is coordinating a multiyear evaluation of STORM and aspects of the VHA policy that mandate case review of patients identified by STORM as very high risk.Methods and analysisThis stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial will test two hypotheses: (1) VHA medical centres randomised to facilitation for not meeting the targeted case review rate will achieve lower opioid-related serious adverse events (SAEs), relative to facilities not randomised to facilitation and (2) Patients whose cases are required to be reviewed will have a lower rate of opioid-related SAEs compared with comparable risk patients whose cases are not required to be reviewed. Patients who receive an opioid prescription at VHA medical centres will be followed for a minimum of 3 months after their first opioid prescription. Follow-up will continue until the last day of the project or death. The data will be analysed using an intention-to-treat approach with patient-month-level Cox proportional hazards models for both interventions.Ethics and disseminationEvaluation of the randomised roll-out was approved by the VA Boston Healthcare System Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Research & Development Committees (Protocol # 3069). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national conference meetings.Trial registration numberISRCTN16012111.

Dataset Information

Accounting for external factors and early intervention adoption in the design and analysis of stepped-wedge designs: Application to a proposed study design to reduce opioid-related mortality.

Publications

Accounting for external factors and early intervention adoption in the design and analysis of stepped-wedge designs: Application to a proposed study design to reduce opioid-related mortality.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets