Overcoming challenges in real-world evidence generation: An example from an Adult Medical Care Coordination program

IF 2.6 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Samuel T. Savitz, Michelle A. Lampman, Shealeigh A. Inselman, Ruchita Dholakia, Vicki L. Hunt, Angela B. Mattson, Robert J. Stroebel, Pamela J. McCabe, Stephanie G. Witwer, Bijan J. Borah
{"title":"Overcoming challenges in real-world evidence generation: An example from an Adult Medical Care Coordination program","authors":"Samuel T. Savitz,&nbsp;Michelle A. Lampman,&nbsp;Shealeigh A. Inselman,&nbsp;Ruchita Dholakia,&nbsp;Vicki L. Hunt,&nbsp;Angela B. Mattson,&nbsp;Robert J. Stroebel,&nbsp;Pamela J. McCabe,&nbsp;Stephanie G. Witwer,&nbsp;Bijan J. Borah","doi":"10.1002/lrh2.10430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Adult Medical Care Coordination program (“the program”) was implemented at Mayo Clinic to promote patient self-management and improve 30-day unplanned readmission for patients with high risk for readmission after hospital discharge. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the program compared to usual care using a pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomized trial (“stepped wedge trial”). However, several challenges arose including large differences between the study arms. Our goal is to describe the challenges and present lessons learned on how to overcome such challenges and generate evidence to support practice decisions. We describe the challenges encountered during the trial, the approach to addressing these challenges, and lessons learned for other learning health system researchers facing similar challenges. The trial experienced several challenges in implementation including several clinics dropping from the study and care disruptions due to COVID-19. Additionally, there were large differences in the patient population between the program and usual care arms. For example, the mean age was 76.8 for the program and 68.1 for usual care. Due to these differences, we adapted the methods using the propensity score matching approach that is traditionally applied to observational designs and adjusted for differences in observable characteristics. When conducting pragmatic research, researchers will encounter factors beyond their control that may introduce bias. The lessons learned include the need to weigh the tradeoffs of pragmatic design elements and the potential value of adaptive designs for pragmatic trials. Applying these lessons would promote the successful generation of evidence that informs practice decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":43916,"journal":{"name":"Learning Health Systems","volume":"8 S1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lrh2.10430","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lrh2.10430","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Adult Medical Care Coordination program (“the program”) was implemented at Mayo Clinic to promote patient self-management and improve 30-day unplanned readmission for patients with high risk for readmission after hospital discharge. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the program compared to usual care using a pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomized trial (“stepped wedge trial”). However, several challenges arose including large differences between the study arms. Our goal is to describe the challenges and present lessons learned on how to overcome such challenges and generate evidence to support practice decisions. We describe the challenges encountered during the trial, the approach to addressing these challenges, and lessons learned for other learning health system researchers facing similar challenges. The trial experienced several challenges in implementation including several clinics dropping from the study and care disruptions due to COVID-19. Additionally, there were large differences in the patient population between the program and usual care arms. For example, the mean age was 76.8 for the program and 68.1 for usual care. Due to these differences, we adapted the methods using the propensity score matching approach that is traditionally applied to observational designs and adjusted for differences in observable characteristics. When conducting pragmatic research, researchers will encounter factors beyond their control that may introduce bias. The lessons learned include the need to weigh the tradeoffs of pragmatic design elements and the potential value of adaptive designs for pragmatic trials. Applying these lessons would promote the successful generation of evidence that informs practice decisions.

Abstract Image

克服现实世界中证据生成的挑战:以成人医疗护理协调计划为例
梅奥诊所实施了成人医疗护理协调计划(以下简称 "该计划"),旨在促进患者自我管理,改善出院后再入院高风险患者的 30 天非计划再入院情况。这项研究旨在通过一项务实的阶梯式楔形分组随机试验("阶梯式楔形试验"),评估该计划与常规护理相比所产生的影响。然而,研究中也遇到了一些挑战,包括研究臂之间的巨大差异。我们的目标是描述这些挑战,并就如何克服这些挑战和生成支持实践决策的证据提出经验教训。我们描述了试验过程中遇到的挑战、应对这些挑战的方法,以及为面临类似挑战的其他学习型医疗系统研究人员提供的经验教训。试验在实施过程中遇到了一些挑战,包括一些诊所退出研究以及 COVID-19 导致的护理中断。此外,计划组和常规护理组的患者人群也存在很大差异。例如,该计划的平均年龄为 76.8 岁,而常规护理的平均年龄为 68.1 岁。鉴于这些差异,我们采用了传统上应用于观察性设计的倾向得分匹配方法,并根据可观察特征的差异进行了调整。在进行实用性研究时,研究人员会遇到一些无法控制的因素,这些因素可能会带来偏差。吸取的经验教训包括需要权衡实用性设计要素的利弊,以及适应性设计对实用性试验的潜在价值。应用这些经验教训将有助于成功地生成为实践决策提供依据的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Learning Health Systems
Learning Health Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
22.60%
发文量
55
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信