Abstract

Researchers should consider five questions before starting a stepped wedge trial.Why are you planning one? Researchers sometimes think that stepped wedge trials are useful when there is little doubt about the benefit of the intervention being tested. However, if the primary reason for an intervention is to measure its effect, without equipoise there is no ethical justification for delaying implementation in some clusters. By contrast, if you are undertaking pragmatic research, where the primary reason for rolling out the intervention is for it to exert its benefits, and if phased implementation is inevitable, a stepped wedge trial is a valid option and provides better evidence than most non-randomized evaluations.What design will you use? Two common stepped wedge designs are based on the recruitment of a closed or open cohort. In both, individuals may experience both control and intervention conditions and you should be concerned about carry-over effects. In a third, continuous-recruitment, short-exposure design, individuals are recruited as they become eligible and experience either control or intervention condition, but not both.How will you conduct the primary analysis? In stepped wedge trials, control of confounding factors through secular variation is essential. ‘Vertical’ approaches preserve randomization and compare outcomes between randomized groups within periods. ‘Horizontal’ approaches compare outcomes before and after crossover to the intervention condition. Most analysis models used in practice combine both types of comparison. The appropriate analytic strategy should be considered on a case-by-case basis.How large will your trial be? Standard sample size calculations for cluster randomized trials do not accommodate the specific features of stepped wedge trials. Methods exist for many stepped wedge designs, but simulation-based calculations provide the greatest flexibility. In some scenarios, such as when the intracluster correlation coefficient is moderate or high, or the cluster size is large, a stepped wedge trial may require fewer clusters than a parallel cluster trial.How will you report your trial? Stepped wedge trials are currently challenging to report using CONSORT principles. Researchers should consider how to demonstrate balance achieved by randomization and how to describe trends for outcomes in both intervention and control clusters.

Highlights

  • In stepped wedge cluster randomized trials (SWTs), clusters are randomly allocated to crossover to the intervention at different time-points and all clusters receive the intervention eventually [1, 2]

  • Some researchers argued that a stepped wedge trial (SWT) should be used rather than a parallel trial, as this would be more appropriate to study the effectiveness of vaccines already tested for safety and immunogenicity in Phase I trials

  • Are you an explanatory researcher arguing that a SWT is appropriate, whereas a parallel cluster randomized trial is not, because the potential benefit of the interventions seems clear, at least in principle, and the research question turns on efficacy or effectiveness in a certain context? If so, you may need to think again

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In stepped wedge cluster randomized trials (SWTs), clusters are randomly allocated to crossover to the intervention at different time-points and all clusters receive the intervention eventually [1, 2]. Stepped wedge trials do offer a rigorous research option when phased implementation is planned, but they present challenges [5,6,7,8]. Other variants of the cluster randomized trial design can accommodate phased implementation and should be considered [6].

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call