Conceptualizing patient-level adverse effects in implementation trials

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Charles W. Goss , Lindsey M. Filiatreau , Lisa R. Hirschhorn , Mark D. Huffman , Aaloke Mody , Byron J. Powell , Emmanuel Tetteh , Elvin H. Geng , Mosepele Mosepele
{"title":"Conceptualizing patient-level adverse effects in implementation trials","authors":"Charles W. Goss ,&nbsp;Lindsey M. Filiatreau ,&nbsp;Lisa R. Hirschhorn ,&nbsp;Mark D. Huffman ,&nbsp;Aaloke Mody ,&nbsp;Byron J. Powell ,&nbsp;Emmanuel Tetteh ,&nbsp;Elvin H. Geng ,&nbsp;Mosepele Mosepele","doi":"10.1016/j.annepidem.2024.12.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Identifying and monitoring adverse effects (AEs) are integral to ensuring patient safety in clinical trials. Research sponsors and regulatory bodies have put into place a variety of policies and procedures to guide researchers in protecting patient safety during clinical trials. However, it remains unclear how these policies and procedures should be adapted for trials in implementation science. As a starting point, we develop a conceptual model that traces causal pathways leading from implementation strategies to AEs, propose a definition and classification of such effects, and provide recommendations for monitoring and oversight.</div></div><div><h3>Main text</h3><div>We propose four major types of adverse effects for implementation trials. First, we characterize implementation strategies that lead to “proper use” of an intervention that align with AEs as conceptualized and reported in clinical trials. Second, we characterize a strategy’s AEs mediated through “misuse” which involves inappropriate utilization of an evidence-based intervention (EBI). Third, we characterize a strategy which focuses on one EBI and may inadvertently cause the inappropriate discontinuation or “disuse” of other EBIs already in place, thus inducing AEs. Finally, we characterize strategies that may cause AEs by reducing the use of an EBI in the target population (i.e., “nonuse”). Based on these considerations, we propose an extended definition of adverse effects that includes harms that are causally related to implementation strategies, termed Implementation strategy Adverse Effects (IAEs). We recommend researchers, oversight committees, sponsors, and other stakeholders work together prior to trials to determine the best approaches for identifying, monitoring, and reporting IAEs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In this paper, we develop a conceptual model to identify four types of AEs in implementation trials clarifying the mechanisms linking implementation strategies to patterns of use of the EBI and potential patient-level harms. We propose a new definition that links implementation strategies to AEs that can be used to guide conceptualization, monitoring, and oversight of potential harms in future implementation trials. Our work represents an important step towards understanding adverse effects in implementation trials and lays the groundwork for future advancement in the conceptualization of other types of adverse effects (e.g., harms to providers) encountered in implementation trials.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50767,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Epidemiology","volume":"102 ","pages":"Pages 55-61"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279724002849","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Identifying and monitoring adverse effects (AEs) are integral to ensuring patient safety in clinical trials. Research sponsors and regulatory bodies have put into place a variety of policies and procedures to guide researchers in protecting patient safety during clinical trials. However, it remains unclear how these policies and procedures should be adapted for trials in implementation science. As a starting point, we develop a conceptual model that traces causal pathways leading from implementation strategies to AEs, propose a definition and classification of such effects, and provide recommendations for monitoring and oversight.

Main text

We propose four major types of adverse effects for implementation trials. First, we characterize implementation strategies that lead to “proper use” of an intervention that align with AEs as conceptualized and reported in clinical trials. Second, we characterize a strategy’s AEs mediated through “misuse” which involves inappropriate utilization of an evidence-based intervention (EBI). Third, we characterize a strategy which focuses on one EBI and may inadvertently cause the inappropriate discontinuation or “disuse” of other EBIs already in place, thus inducing AEs. Finally, we characterize strategies that may cause AEs by reducing the use of an EBI in the target population (i.e., “nonuse”). Based on these considerations, we propose an extended definition of adverse effects that includes harms that are causally related to implementation strategies, termed Implementation strategy Adverse Effects (IAEs). We recommend researchers, oversight committees, sponsors, and other stakeholders work together prior to trials to determine the best approaches for identifying, monitoring, and reporting IAEs.

Conclusions

In this paper, we develop a conceptual model to identify four types of AEs in implementation trials clarifying the mechanisms linking implementation strategies to patterns of use of the EBI and potential patient-level harms. We propose a new definition that links implementation strategies to AEs that can be used to guide conceptualization, monitoring, and oversight of potential harms in future implementation trials. Our work represents an important step towards understanding adverse effects in implementation trials and lays the groundwork for future advancement in the conceptualization of other types of adverse effects (e.g., harms to providers) encountered in implementation trials.
概念化实施试验中患者层面的不良反应。
背景:识别和监测不良反应(ae)是确保临床试验患者安全不可或缺的一部分。研究发起人和监管机构已经制定了各种政策和程序,以指导研究人员在临床试验期间保护患者安全。然而,目前尚不清楚这些政策和程序应如何适应实施科学的试验。作为起点,我们开发了一个概念模型,该模型追溯了从实施战略到ae的因果路径,提出了此类影响的定义和分类,并为监测和监督提供了建议。我们提出了实施试验的四种主要不利影响类型。首先,我们描述了导致“正确使用”干预措施的实施策略,这些干预措施与临床试验中概念化和报告的ae一致。其次,我们描述了通过“误用”介导的策略ae的特征,误用涉及不适当地使用循证干预(EBI)。第三,我们描述了一种专注于一个EBI的策略,可能无意中导致其他EBI的不当终止或“废弃”,从而诱发ae。最后,我们描述了可能通过减少目标人群中EBI的使用(即“不使用”)来导致ae的策略。基于这些考虑,我们提出了一个扩展的不利影响的定义,包括与实施策略有因果关系的危害,称为实施策略不利影响(iae)。我们建议研究人员、监督委员会、赞助方和其他利益攸关方在试验前共同努力,确定识别、监测和报告iae的最佳方法。在本文中,我们建立了一个概念模型来识别实施试验中的四种类型的ae,阐明了将实施策略与EBI使用模式和潜在患者层面危害联系起来的机制。我们提出了一个新的定义,将实施策略与ae联系起来,用于指导未来实施试验中潜在危害的概念化、监测和监督。我们的工作代表了理解实施试验中不利影响的重要一步,并为未来进一步概念化实施试验中遇到的其他类型的不利影响(例如,对提供者的伤害)奠定了基础。
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
Annals of Epidemiology
Annals of Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
1.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The journal emphasizes the application of epidemiologic methods to issues that affect the distribution and determinants of human illness in diverse contexts. Its primary focus is on chronic and acute conditions of diverse etiologies and of major importance to clinical medicine, public health, and health care delivery.
×
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