Information content of stepped wedge designs with unequal cluster-period sizes in linear mixed models: Informing incomplete designs

Reconsidering stepped wedge cluster randomized trial designs with implementation periods: Fewer sequences or the parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods are potentially more efficient

BACKGROUND/AIMS

When designing a cluster randomized trial, advantages and disadvantages of tentative designs must be weighed. The stepped wedge design is popular for multiple reasons, including its potential to increase power via improved efficiency relative to a parallel-group design. In many realistic settings, it will take time for clusters to fully implement the intervention. When designing the HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM) Communities Study, implementation time was a major consideration, and we examined the efficiency and practicality of three designs. Specifically, a three-sequence stepped wedge design with implementation periods, a corresponding two-sequence modified design that is created by removing the middle sequence, and a parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods. In this article, we study the relative efficiencies of these specific designs. More generally, we study the relative efficiencies of modified designs when the stepped wedge design with implementation periods has three or more sequences. We also consider different correlation structures.

METHODS

We compare efficiencies of stepped wedge designs with implementation periods consisting of three to nine sequences with a variety of corresponding designs. The three-sequence design is compared to the two-sequence modified design and to the parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods analysed via analysis of covariance. Stepped wedge designs with implementation periods consisting of four or more sequences are compared to modified designs that remove all or a subset of 'middle' sequences. Efficiencies are based on the use of linear mixed effects models.

RESULTS

In the studied settings, the modified design is more efficient than the three-sequence stepped wedge design with implementation periods. The parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods with analysis of covariance-based analysis is often more efficient than the three-sequence design. With respect to stepped wedge designs with implementation periods that are comprised of more sequences, there are often corresponding modified designs that improve efficiency. However, use of only the first and last sequences has the potential to be either relatively efficient or inefficient. Relative efficiency is impacted by the strength of the statistical correlation among outcomes from the same cluster; for example, the relative efficiencies of modified designs tend to be greater for smaller cluster auto-correlation values.

CONCLUSION

If a three-sequence stepped wedge design with implementation periods is being considered for a future cluster randomized trial, then a corresponding modified design using only the first and last sequences should be considered if sole focus is on efficiency. However, a parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods and analysis of covariance-based analysis can be a practical, efficient alternative. For stepped wedge designs with implementation periods and a larger number of sequences, modified versions that remove 'middle' sequences should be considered. Due to the potential sensitivity of design efficiencies, statistical correlation should be carefully considered.

The staircase cluster randomised trial design: A pragmatic alternative to the stepped wedge

This article introduces the 'staircase' design, derived from the zigzag pattern of steps along the diagonal of a stepped wedge design schematic where clusters switch from control to intervention conditions. Unlike a complete stepped wedge design where all participating clusters must collect and provide data for the entire trial duration, clusters in a staircase design are only required to be involved and collect data for a limited number of pre- and post-switch periods. This could alleviate some of the burden on participating clusters, encouraging involvement in the trial and reducing the likelihood of attrition. Staircase designs are already being implemented, although in the absence of a dedicated methodology, approaches to sample size and power calculations have been inconsistent. We provide expressions for the variance of the treatment effect estimator when a linear mixed model for an outcome is assumed for the analysis of staircase designs in order to enable appropriate sample size and power calculations. These include explicit variance expressions for basic staircase designs with one pre- and one post-switch measurement period. We show how the variance of the treatment effect estimator is related to key design parameters and demonstrate power calculations for examples based on a real trial.

Generalizing the information content for stepped wedge designs: A marginal modeling approach

Stepped wedge trials are increasingly adopted because practical constraints necessitate staggered roll-out. While a complete design requires clusters to collect data in all periods, resource and patient-centered considerations may call for an incomplete stepped wedge design to minimize data collection burden. To study incomplete designs, we expand the metric of information content to discrete outcomes. We operate under a marginal model with general link and variance functions, and derive information content expressions when data elements (cells, sequences, periods) are omitted. We show that the centrosymmetric patterns of information content can hold for discrete outcomes with the variance-stabilizing link function. We perform numerical studies under the canonical link function, and find that while the patterns of information content for cells are approximately centrosymmetric for all examined underlying secular trends, the patterns of information content for sequences or periods are more sensitive to the secular trend, and may be far from centrosymmetric.

The impact of iterative removal of low-information cluster-period cells from a stepped wedge design

BACKGROUND

Standard stepped wedge trials, where clusters switch from the control to the intervention condition in a staggered manner, can be costly and burdensome. Recent work has shown that the amount of information contributed by each cluster in each period differs, with some cluster-periods contributing a relatively small amount of information. We investigate the patterns of the information content of cluster-period cells upon iterative removal of low-information cells, assuming a model for continuous outcomes with constant cluster-period size, categorical time period effects, and exchangeable and discrete-time decay intracluster correlation structures.

METHODS

We sequentially remove pairs of "centrosymmetric" cluster-period cells from an initially complete stepped wedge design which contribute the least amount of information to the estimation of the treatment effect. At each iteration, we update the information content of the remaining cells, determine the pair of cells with the lowest information content, and repeat this process until the treatment effect cannot be estimated.

RESULTS

We demonstrate that as more cells are removed, more information is concentrated in the cells near the time of the treatment switch, and in "hot-spots" in the corners of the design. For the exchangeable correlation structure, removing the cells from these hot-spots leads to a marked reduction in study precision and power, however the impact of this is lessened for the discrete-time decay structure.

CONCLUSIONS

Removing cluster-period cells distant from the time of the treatment switch may not lead to large reductions in precision or power, implying that certain incomplete designs may be almost as powerful as complete designs.

Influence of cluster-period cells in stepped wedge cluster randomized trials

Stepped wedge cluster randomized trials (SWCRT) are increasingly used for the evaluation of complex interventions in health services research. They randomly allocate treatments to clusters that switch to intervention under investigation at variable time points without returning to control condition. The resulting unbalanced allocation over time periods and the uncertainty about the underlying correlation structures at cluster-level renders designing and analyzing SWCRTs a challenge. Adjusting for time trends is recommended, appropriate parameterizations depend on the particular context. For sample size calculation, the covariance structure and covariance parameters are usually assumed to be known. These assumptions greatly affect the influence single cluster-period cells have on the effect estimate. Thus, it is important to understand how cluster-period cells contribute to the treatment effect estimate. We therefore discuss two measures of cell influence. These are functions of the design characteristics and covariance structure only and can thus be calculated at the planning stage: the coefficient matrix as discussed by Matthews and Forbes and information content (IC) as introduced by Kasza and Forbes. The main result is a new formula for IC that is more general and computationally more efficient. The formula applies to any generalized least squares estimator, especially for any type of time trend adjustment or nonblock diagonal matrices. We further show a functional relationship between IC and the coefficient matrix. We give two examples that tie in with current literature. All discussed tools and methods are implemented in the R package SteppedPower.

The batched stepped wedge design: A design robust to delays in cluster recruitment

Stepped wedge designs are an increasingly popular variant of longitudinal cluster randomized trial designs, and roll out interventions across clusters in a randomized, but step-wise fashion. In the standard stepped wedge design, assumptions regarding the effect of time on outcomes may require that all clusters start and end trial participation at the same time. This would require ethics approvals and data collection procedures to be in place in all clusters before a stepped wedge trial can start in any cluster. Hence, although stepped wedge designs are useful for testing the impacts of many cluster-based interventions on outcomes, there can be lengthy delays before a trial can commence. In this article, we introduce "batched" stepped wedge designs. Batched stepped wedge designs allow clusters to commence the study in batches, instead of all at once, allowing for staggered cluster recruitment. Like the stepped wedge, the batched stepped wedge rolls out the intervention to all clusters in a randomized and step-wise fashion: a series of self-contained stepped wedge designs. Provided that separate period effects are included for each batch, software for standard stepped wedge sample size calculations can be used. With this time parameterization, in many situations including when linear models are assumed, sample size calculations reduce to the setting of a single stepped wedge design with multiple clusters per sequence. In these situations, sample size calculations will not depend on the delays between the commencement of batches. Hence, the power of batched stepped wedge designs is robust to unexpected delays between batches.

Power calculation for analyses of cross-sectional stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes via generalized estimating equations

Power calculation for stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) presents unique challenges, beyond those of standard parallel cluster randomized trials, due to the need to consider temporal within cluster correlations and background period effects. To date, power calculation methods specific to SW-CRTs have primarily been developed under a linear model. When the outcome is binary, the use of a linear model corresponds to assessing a prevalence difference; yet trial analysis often employs a nonlinear link function. We propose power calculation methods for cross-sectional SW-CRTs under a logistic model fitted by generalized estimating equations. Firstly, under an exchangeable correlation structure, we show the power based on a logistic model is lower than that from assuming a linear model in the absence of period effects. We then evaluate the impact of background prevalence changes over time on power. To allow the correlation among outcomes in the same cluster to change over time and with treatment status, we generalize the methods to more complex correlation structures. Our simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed power calculation methods perform well with the model-based variance under the true correlation structure and reveal that a working independence structure can result in substantial efficiency loss, while a working exchangeable structure performs well even when the underlying correlation structure deviates from exchangeable. An extension to our methods accounts for variable cluster sizes and reveals that unequal cluster sizes have a modest impact on power. We illustrate the approaches by application to a quality of care improvement trial for acute coronary syndrome.

Methods for dealing with unequal cluster sizes in cluster randomized trials: A scoping review

In a cluster-randomized trial (CRT), the number of participants enrolled often varies across clusters. This variation should be considered during both trial design and data analysis to ensure statistical performance goals are achieved. Most methodological literature on the CRT design has assumed equal cluster sizes. This scoping review focuses on methodology for unequal cluster size CRTs. EMBASE, Medline, Google Scholar, MathSciNet and Web of Science databases were searched to identify English-language articles reporting on methodology for unequal cluster size CRTs published until March 2021. We extracted data on the focus of the paper (power calculation, Type I error etc.), the type of CRT, the type and the range of parameter values investigated (number of clusters, mean cluster size, cluster size coefficient of variation, intra-cluster correlation coefficient, etc.), and the main conclusions. Seventy-nine of 5032 identified papers met the inclusion criteria. Papers primarily focused on the parallel-arm CRT (p-CRT, n = 60, 76%) and the stepped-wedge CRT (n = 14, 18%). Roughly 75% of the papers addressed trial design issues (sample size/power calculation) while 25% focused on analysis considerations (Type I error, bias, etc.). The ranges of parameter values explored varied substantially across different studies. Methods for accounting for unequal cluster sizes in the p-CRT have been investigated extensively for Gaussian and binary outcomes. Synthesizing the findings of these works is difficult as the magnitude of impact of the unequal cluster sizes varies substantially across the combinations and ranges of input parameters. Limited investigations have been done for other combinations of a CRT design by outcome type, particularly methodology involving binary outcomes-the most commonly used type of primary outcome in trials. The paucity of methodological papers outside of the p-CRT with Gaussian or binary outcomes highlights the need for further methodological development to fill the gaps.