提供者对嵌入式实用临床试验的经验和态度。

IF 2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Sarah M Leatherman, Britte Beaudette-Zlatanova, Gregory Robben, Peter A Glassman, Patricia Woods, Ryan E Ferguson, William C Cushman, Areef Ishani
{"title":"提供者对嵌入式实用临床试验的经验和态度。","authors":"Sarah M Leatherman, Britte Beaudette-Zlatanova, Gregory Robben, Peter A Glassman, Patricia Woods, Ryan E Ferguson, William C Cushman, Areef Ishani","doi":"10.1186/s12875-025-02799-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) was a pragmatic clinical trial comparing rates of cardiovascular events between hydrochlorothiazide or chlorthalidone. VA primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients were participants in the study. Veterans ≥ 65 years taking hydrochlorothiazide were randomized to continue on hydrochlorothiazide or switch to chlorthalidone. Participating providers could decline the randomization of their patients. Providers were surveyed about their experience with DCP, and to ascertain providers' understanding of and attitudes towards embedded pragmatic trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A questionnaire was emailed to PCPs that provided informed consent to participate in the study. The survey asked about provider experience with the trial including interest in the study question, awareness of the study and educational materials, impact on the provider-patient relationship, burden of study participation, and their attitudes towards pragmatic trials. Respondents could also add free text comments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 180 completed surveys. Of those, most found the trial question of interest (91%) and found the time required to participate in the trial was reasonable (67%). Only 2 (1%) felt the study had a negative impact on the provider-patient relationship. 97% of providers were as comfortable with (59%) or more comfortable with (32%) DCP compared to traditional randomized controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Responding providers' experience with DCP and their attitudes towards pragmatic trials were positive. Primary care providers indicated willingness to participate in future pragmatic trials if burden is low and it does not negatively impact patient care. Results support continued use of pragmatic embedded clinical trials in primary care.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>NCT02185417. Registered 9 July 2014. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02185417 .</p>","PeriodicalId":72428,"journal":{"name":"BMC primary care","volume":"26 1","pages":"121"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12016108/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Provider experiences with and attitudes about an embedded pragmatic clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah M Leatherman, Britte Beaudette-Zlatanova, Gregory Robben, Peter A Glassman, Patricia Woods, Ryan E Ferguson, William C Cushman, Areef Ishani\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12875-025-02799-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) was a pragmatic clinical trial comparing rates of cardiovascular events between hydrochlorothiazide or chlorthalidone. VA primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients were participants in the study. Veterans ≥ 65 years taking hydrochlorothiazide were randomized to continue on hydrochlorothiazide or switch to chlorthalidone. Participating providers could decline the randomization of their patients. Providers were surveyed about their experience with DCP, and to ascertain providers' understanding of and attitudes towards embedded pragmatic trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A questionnaire was emailed to PCPs that provided informed consent to participate in the study. The survey asked about provider experience with the trial including interest in the study question, awareness of the study and educational materials, impact on the provider-patient relationship, burden of study participation, and their attitudes towards pragmatic trials. Respondents could also add free text comments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 180 completed surveys. Of those, most found the trial question of interest (91%) and found the time required to participate in the trial was reasonable (67%). Only 2 (1%) felt the study had a negative impact on the provider-patient relationship. 97% of providers were as comfortable with (59%) or more comfortable with (32%) DCP compared to traditional randomized controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Responding providers' experience with DCP and their attitudes towards pragmatic trials were positive. Primary care providers indicated willingness to participate in future pragmatic trials if burden is low and it does not negatively impact patient care. Results support continued use of pragmatic embedded clinical trials in primary care.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>NCT02185417. Registered 9 July 2014. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02185417 .</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC primary care\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"121\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12016108/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC primary care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02799-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02799-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:利尿剂比较项目(DCP)是一项比较氢氯噻嗪或氯噻酮心血管事件发生率的实用临床试验。VA初级保健提供者(pcp)和他们的患者是研究的参与者。≥65岁服用氢氯噻嗪的退伍军人随机选择继续使用氢氯噻嗪或改用氯噻酮。参与的提供者可以拒绝病人的随机化。对提供者进行了调查,了解他们使用DCP的经验,并确定提供者对嵌入式实用试验的理解和态度。方法:通过电子邮件向提供知情同意参与研究的pcp发送调查问卷。调查询问了提供者在试验中的经验,包括对研究问题的兴趣,对研究和教育材料的认识,对提供者-患者关系的影响,研究参与的负担,以及他们对实用试验的态度。受访者还可以添加免费的文本评论。结果:共完成调查180份。其中,大多数人(91%)认为试验问题有趣,并且认为参加试验所需的时间是合理的(67%)。只有2%(1%)的人认为这项研究对医患关系产生了负面影响。与传统的随机对照试验相比,97%的提供者对DCP感到满意(59%)或更满意(32%)。结论:响应提供者对DCP的经验和对实用试验的态度是积极的。初级保健提供者表示,如果负担低且不会对患者护理产生负面影响,他们愿意参加未来的实用试验。结果支持在初级保健中继续使用实用的嵌入式临床试验。临床试验注册:NCT02185417。注册于2014年7月9日。https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02185417。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Provider experiences with and attitudes about an embedded pragmatic clinical trial.

Background/aims: The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) was a pragmatic clinical trial comparing rates of cardiovascular events between hydrochlorothiazide or chlorthalidone. VA primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients were participants in the study. Veterans ≥ 65 years taking hydrochlorothiazide were randomized to continue on hydrochlorothiazide or switch to chlorthalidone. Participating providers could decline the randomization of their patients. Providers were surveyed about their experience with DCP, and to ascertain providers' understanding of and attitudes towards embedded pragmatic trials.

Methods: A questionnaire was emailed to PCPs that provided informed consent to participate in the study. The survey asked about provider experience with the trial including interest in the study question, awareness of the study and educational materials, impact on the provider-patient relationship, burden of study participation, and their attitudes towards pragmatic trials. Respondents could also add free text comments.

Results: There were 180 completed surveys. Of those, most found the trial question of interest (91%) and found the time required to participate in the trial was reasonable (67%). Only 2 (1%) felt the study had a negative impact on the provider-patient relationship. 97% of providers were as comfortable with (59%) or more comfortable with (32%) DCP compared to traditional randomized controlled trials.

Conclusion: Responding providers' experience with DCP and their attitudes towards pragmatic trials were positive. Primary care providers indicated willingness to participate in future pragmatic trials if burden is low and it does not negatively impact patient care. Results support continued use of pragmatic embedded clinical trials in primary care.

Clinical trial registration: NCT02185417. Registered 9 July 2014. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02185417 .

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信