One size does not fit all: Insights for engaging front-line clinicians in pragmatic clinical trials

Are we being equitable enough? Lessons learned from sites lost in an implementation trial

Background

There is a growing interest in practice-based implementation research, yet too often research prioritizes and is most successful in academic settings. During a national implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Collaborative Care for co-occurring opioid use and mental health disorders, we lost three of our 11 participating implementation sites, all representing community sites.

Method

To better understand needed supports for implementation trial participation, we conducted exit interviews (n = 5) with key staff at these community sites. Interview transcripts were double-coded and analyzed using Rapid Assessment Process. Qualitative themes were iteratively reviewed by the study team.

Results

Three themes emerged characterizing challenges for community sites, including that: (1) research threatens sites' most precious resource-staff; (2) staff lack comfort with and skills for research; and (3) research participation in its current form does not offer a clear return on investment.

Conclusions

Learnings from this work illuminate some of the barriers community sites face when trying to participate in multisite implementation research. An undercurrent of participant perspectives was the belief that community sites like theirs are just not set up to successfully participate in clinical trial research, including population-based implementation trials. Future implementation trials should consider strategies that disrupt traditional approaches, increasing the equitable inclusion of diverse practice settings in implementation research.

Career development in pragmatic clinical trials to improve care for people living with dementia

The growing number of people living with dementia (PLWD) requires a coordinated clinical response to deliver pragmatic, evidence-based interventions in frontline care settings. However, infrastructure to support such a response is lacking. Moreover, there are too few researchers conducting rigorous embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) to make the vision of high quality, widely accessible dementia care a reality. National Institute on Aging (NIA) Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's disease and Related Dementias Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory seeks to improve the pipeline of early career researchers qualified to lead ePCTs by funding career development awards. Even with support from the Collaboratory, awardees face practical and methodological challenges to success, recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. We first describe the training opportunities and support network for the IMPACT CDA recipients. This report then describes the unique career development challenges faced by early-career researchers involved in ePCTs for dementia care. Topics addressed include challenges in establishing a laboratory, academic promotion, mentoring and professional development, and work-life balance. Concrete suggestions to address these challenges are offered for early-career investigators, their mentors, and their supporting institutions. While some of these challenges are faced by researchers in other fields, this report seeks to provide a roadmap for expanding the work of the IMPACT Collaboratory and initiating future efforts to recruit, train, and retain talented early-career researchers involved in ePCTs for dementia care.

"We bleed for our community:" A qualitative exploration of the implementation of a pragmatic weight gain prevention trial from the perspectives of community health center professionals

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial implementation continues to shift toward pragmatic design, with the goal of increasing future adoption in clinical practice. Yet, few pragmatic trials within clinical settings have qualitatively assessed stakeholder input, especially from those most impacted by research implementation and outcomes, i.e., providers and staff. Within this context, we conducted a qualitative study of the implementation of a pragmatic digital health obesity trial with employees at a Federally qualified health center (FQHC) network in central North Carolina.

METHODS

Participant recruitment was conducted through purposive sampling of FQHC employees from a variety of backgrounds. Two researchers conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews and collected demographic data. Interviews were digitally recorded, professionally transcribed and double-coded by two independent researchers using NVivo 12. Coding discrepancies were reviewed by a third researcher until intercoder consensus was reached. Responses were compared within and across participants to elucidate emergent themes.

RESULTS

Eighteen qualitative interviews were conducted, of whom 39% provided direct medical care to patients and 44% worked at the FQHC for at least seven years. Results illuminated the challenges and successes of a pragmatically designed obesity treatment intervention within the community that serves medically vulnerable patients. Although limited time and staffing shortages may have challenged recruitment processes, respondents described early buy-in from leadership; an alignment of organizational and research goals; and consideration of patient needs as facilitators to implementation. Respondents also described the need for personnel power to sustain novel research interventions and considerations of health center resource constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this study contribute to the limited literature on pragmatic trials utilizing qualitative methods, particularly in community-based obesity treatment. To continue to merge the gaps between research implementation and clinical care, qualitative assessments that solicit stakeholder input are needed within pragmatic trial design. For maximum impact, researchers may wish to solicit input from a variety of professionals at trial onset and ensure that shared common goals and open collaboration between all partners is maintained throughout the trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03003403) on December 28, 2016.

Tailoring Implementation Strategies for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator Adoption in Primary Care Clinics

INTRODUCTION

When implementing interventions in primary care, tailoring implementation strategies to practice barriers can be effective, but additional work is needed to understand how to best select these strategies. This study sought to identify clinicians' contributions to the process of tailoring implementation strategies to barriers in clinical settings.

METHODS

We conducted a modified nominal group exercise involving 8 implementation scientists and 26 primary care clinicians in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network. Each group identified implementation strategies it felt would best address barriers to using a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculator previously identified across 44 primary care clinics from the Healthy Hearts Northwest pragmatic trial (2015 to 2018). These barriers had been mapped beforehand to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains. We examined similarities and differences in the strategies that 30% or more of each group identified (agreed-on strategies) for each barrier and for barriers in each CFIR domain. We used the results to demonstrate how strategies might be tailored to individual clinics.

RESULTS

Clinicians selected 23 implementation strategies to address 1 or more of the 13 barriers; implementation scientists selected 35. The 2 groups agreed on at least 1 strategy for barriers in each CFIR domain: Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Intervention Characteristics, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process. Conducting local needs assessment and assessing for readiness/identifying barriers and facilitators were the 2 most common implementation strategies chosen only by clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinician stakeholders identified implementation strategies that augmented those chosen by implementation scientists, suggesting that codesign of implementation processes between implementation scientists and clinicians may strengthen the process of tailoring strategies to overcome implementation barriers.

Identification and management of pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings: A current understanding and directions for future research

While the embedded nature of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) can improve the efficiency and relevance of research for multiple stakeholders, embedding research into ongoing clinical care can also involve ethical and regulatory challenges. An emergent challenge is the management of pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings (PCT-CFs). While PCT-CFs share some features with incidental or secondary findings that are encountered in conventional clinical trials and clinical care, the PCT context differs in ethically relevant ways that complicate PCT-CF identification and management. We report on the results of a two-year multi-method investigation of PCT-CFs. Overall, five core themes emerged: 1) the liminal nature of PCTs and the implications of this for PCT-CFs; 2) the context-specific nature of PCT-CF management; 3) the centrality of institutions; 4) the importance of prospective planning; and 5) patient expectations. Among the central lessons of this work are that prior ethics guidance from other settings cannot easily be adapted to address PCT-CFs, nor can a single approach readily accommodate all PCT-CFs. Moving forward, stakeholders, including researchers, institutions, ethics oversight bodies, and funders, should anticipate and plan for PCT-CFs in the design, conduct, and analysis of PCTs. Future scholarship is needed to examine experiences with PCT-CFs, and the practical and conceptual issues they raise for the future conduct of PCTs.