How can clinical practices pragmatically increase physical activity for patients with type 2 diabetes? A systematic review

Effectiveness of a digital health and financial incentive intervention to promote physical activity in patients with type 2 diabetes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with a nested qualitative study-ACTIVATE trial

BACKGROUND

The prevention of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is recognised as a health care priority in the UK. In people living with T2DM, lifestyle changes (e.g. increasing physical activity) have been shown to slow disease progression and protect from the development of associated comorbidities. The use of digital health technologies provides a strategy to increase physical activity in patients with chronic disease. Furthermore, behaviour economics suggests that financial incentives may be a useful strategy for increasing the maintenance and effectiveness of behaviour change intervention, including physical activity intervention using digital health technologies. The Milton Keynes Activity Rewards Programme (MKARP) is a 24-month intervention which combines the use of a mobile health app, smartwatch (Fitbit or Apple watch) and financial incentives to encourage people living with T2DM to increase physical activity to improve health. Therefore, this randomised controlled trial aims to examine the long-term acceptability, health effects and cost-effectiveness of the MKARP on HbA1c in patients living with T2DM versus a waitlist usual care comparator.

METHODS

A two-arm, single-centre, randomised controlled trial aiming to recruit 1018 participants with follow-up at 12 and 24 months. The primary outcome is the change in HbA1c at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in markers of metabolic, cardiovascular, anthropometric, and psychological health along with cost-effectiveness. Recruitment will be via annual diabetes review in general practices, retinal screening services and social media. Participants aged 18 or over, with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and a valid HbA1c measurement in the last 2 months are invited to take part in the trial. Participants will be individually randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either the Milton Keynes Activity Rewards Programme or usual care. The intervention will last for 24 months with assessment for outcomes at baseline, 12 and 24 months.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide new evidence of the long-term effectiveness of an activity rewards scheme focused on increasing physical activity conducted within routine care in patients living with type 2 diabetes in Milton Keynes, UK. It will also investigate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 14925701. Registered on 30 October 2023.

Using PRECIS-2 in Chinese herbal medicine randomized controlled trials for irritable bowel syndrome: A methodological exploration based on literature

Background

The pragmatism levels of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) mean how similar the interventions delivered in the trial setting match those in the setting where the results will be applied. We aimed to investigate the association between the consistency of pragmatism among the characteristics of RCT design and its effect size of results in Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Methods

Eight English and Chinese language databases were searched for RCTs on CHM for IBS. Six reviewers independently assessed the pragmatism of trials using the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary 2 (PRECIS-2) tool. The consistency of pragmatism levels among the characteristics of RCT design was calculated using the coefficient of variation. Linear regression models were adopted to explore influence factors of the pragmatism of RCTs.

Results

78 RCTs were included. The level of consistency in the pragmatism for RCT's design was significantly correlated with the effect size of the results (binary outcome, r = -0.413; P = 0.005; continuous outcome, r = -0.779, P < 0.001). PRECIS-2 score was higher in trials with individualized interventions than fixed interventions (3.29 [0.32] vs 2.90 [0.32]; Cohen's d relative effect size, 0.52; P < 0.001) and in standard or usual-treatment-controlled trials than placebo-controlled (3.05 [0.37] vs 2.83 [0.28]; Cohen's d relative effect size, 0.32; P = 0.048).

Conclusion

The consistency of pragmatism level across the 9 domains of the PRECIS-2 tool in CHM IBS RCTs was positively correlated with the effect size of the results.

Reducing asthma attacks in disadvantaged school children with asthma: study protocol for a type 2 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial (Better Asthma Control for Kids, BACK)

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a leading cause of children's hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and missed school days. Our school-based asthma intervention has reduced asthma exacerbations for children experiencing health disparities in the Denver Metropolitan Area, due partly to addressing care coordination for asthma and social determinants of health (SDOH), such as access to healthcare and medications. Limited dissemination of school-based asthma programs has occurred in other metropolitan and rural areas of Colorado. We formed and engaged community advisory boards in socioeconomically diverse regions of Colorado to develop two implementation strategy packages for delivering our school-based asthma intervention - now termed "Better Asthma Control for Kids (BACK)" - with tailoring to regional priorities, needs and resources.

METHODS

In this proposed type 2 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial, where the primary goal is equitable reach to families to reduce asthma disparities, we will compare two different packages of implementation strategies to deliver BACK across four Colorado regions. The two implementation packages to be compared are: 1) standard set of implementation strategies including Tailor and Adapt to context, Facilitation and Training termed, BACK-Standard (BACK-S); 2) BACK-S plus an enhanced implementation strategy, that incorporates network weaving with community partners and consumer engagement with school families, termed BACK-Enhanced (BACK-E). Our evaluation will be guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, including its Pragmatic Robust Implementation Sustainability Model (PRISM) determinants of implementation outcomes. Our central hypothesis is that our BACK-E implementation strategy will have significantly greater reach to eligible children/families than BACK-S (primary outcome) and that both BACK-E and BACK-S groups will have significantly reduced asthma exacerbation rates ("attacks") and improved asthma control as compared to usual care.

DISCUSSION

We expect both the BACK-S and BACK-E strategy packages will accelerate dissemination of our BACK program across the state - the comparative impact of BACK-S vs. BACK-E on reach and other RE-AIM outcomes may inform strategy selection for scaling BACK and other effective school-based programs to address chronic illness disparities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT06003569, registered on August 22, 2023, https://classic.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ct2/show/NCT06003569 .

Analysis of the characteristics and the degree of pragmatism exhibited by pragmatic-labelled trials of antineoplastic treatments

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to reflect how an investigational treatment would be applied in clinical practice. As such, unlike their explanatory counterparts, they measure therapeutic effectiveness and are capable of generating high-quality real-world evidence. However, the conduct of PCTs remains extremely rare. The scarcity of such studies has contributed to the emergence of the efficacy-effectiveness gap and has led to calls for launching more of them, including in the field of oncology. This analysis aimed to identify self-labelled pragmatic trials of antineoplastic interventions and to evaluate whether their use of this label was justified.

METHODS

We searched PubMed® and Embase® for publications corresponding with studies that investigated antitumor therapies and that were tagged as pragmatic in their titles, abstracts and/or index terms. Subsequently, we consulted all available source documents for the included trials and extracted relevant information from them. The data collected were then used to appraise the degree of pragmatism displayed by the PCTs with the help of the validated PRECIS-2 tool.

RESULTS

The literature search returned 803 unique records, of which 46 were retained upon conclusion of the screening process. This ultimately resulted in the identification of 42 distinct trials that carried the 'pragmatic' label. These studies examined eight different categories of neoplasms and were mostly randomized, open-label, multicentric, single-country trials sponsored by non-commercial parties. On a scale of one (very explanatory) to five (very pragmatic), the median PCT had a PRECIS-2 score per domain of 3.13 (interquartile range: 2.57-3.53). The most and least pragmatic studies in the sample had a score of 4.44 and 1.57, respectively. Only a minority of trials were described in sufficient detail to allow them to be graded across all domains of the PRECIS-2 instrument. Many of the studies examined also had features that arguably precluded them from being pragmatic altogether, such as being monocentric or placebo-controlled in nature.

CONCLUSION

PCTs of antineoplastic treatments are generally no more pragmatic than they are explanatory.

mHealth intervention delivered in general practice to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour of patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (ENERGISED): rationale and study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The growing number of patients with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes is a major public health concern. Physical activity is a cornerstone of diabetes management and may prevent its onset in prediabetes patients. Despite this, many patients with (pre)diabetes remain physically inactive. Primary care physicians are well-situated to deliver interventions to increase their patients' physical activity levels. However, effective and sustainable physical activity interventions for (pre)diabetes patients that can be translated into routine primary care are lacking.

METHODS

We describe the rationale and protocol for a 12-month pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of an mHealth intervention delivered in general practice to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour of patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (ENERGISED). Twenty-one general practices will recruit 340 patients with (pre)diabetes during routine health check-ups. Patients allocated to the active control arm will receive a Fitbit activity tracker to self-monitor their daily steps and try to achieve the recommended step goal. Patients allocated to the intervention arm will additionally receive the mHealth intervention, including the delivery of several text messages per week, with some of them delivered just in time, based on data continuously collected by the Fitbit tracker. The trial consists of two phases, each lasting six months: the lead-in phase, when the mHealth intervention will be supported with human phone counselling, and the maintenance phase, when the intervention will be fully automated. The primary outcome, average ambulatory activity (steps/day) measured by a wrist-worn accelerometer, will be assessed at the end of the maintenance phase at 12 months.

DISCUSSION

The trial has several strengths, such as the choice of active control to isolate the net effect of the intervention beyond simple self-monitoring with an activity tracker, broad eligibility criteria allowing for the inclusion of patients without a smartphone, procedures to minimise selection bias, and involvement of a relatively large number of general practices. These design choices contribute to the trial's pragmatic character and ensure that the intervention, if effective, can be translated into routine primary care practice, allowing important public health benefits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05351359, 28/04/2022).

Generalizability of randomized controlled trials in primary health care: Applying the PRECIS-2 tool on published protocols

RATIONALE

Pragmatic design may facilitate the generalizability of effectiveness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in primary health care (PHC).

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate whether published protocols in PHC were designed pragmatically and to explore whether specific trial characteristics may be related to a pragmatic design.

METHODS

Using the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2), we assessed pragmatism for 123 published RCT protocols. For each domain, we calculated the mean score with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Interrater reliability was assessed by weighted κ-coefficient with 95% CI. We examined potential associations of published protocol characteristics with overall pragmatism by performing univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

We observed the highest score for primary analysis (4.66, 95% CI: 4.51, 4.82). The eligibility score was intermediate (3.16, 95% CI: 3.01, 3.32). Domains with scores towards the explanatory side included organization (2.50, 95% CI: 2.36, 2.63), flexibility of delivery (2.74, 95% CI: 2.60, 2.88) and flexibility of adherence (3.00, 95% CI: 2.83, 3.17). Interrater agreement was good (κ = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.80; p < 0.001). Higher sample sizes were correlated to a pragmatic design (odds ratio: 6.86, 95% CI: 1.64, 28.75; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Most RCT protocols were rated as intermediate in the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. Future research may guide all stakeholders on how best to incorporate the level of pragmatism in the interpretation of the results so that the trials are more likely to be applicable in real-world settings.

Using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate physical activity-based fall prevention interventions in older adults with chronic conditions: A systematic review

Falls are a serious public health problem, especially for older adults with chronic conditions. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the translational potential of physical activity-based balance interventions for older adults with common chronic conditions guided by the Reach, Effectiveness/Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Databases were searched (2011-2021) to identify studies with physical activity-based fall prevention interventions for older adults with chronic conditions. Data were collected using the RE-AIM coding guide and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for evidence quality. The search yielded 122 articles, of which 14 distinct studies were included. The most reported RE-AIM dimensions across the studies were Reach (46.2%) and Implementation (40.5%), with Effectiveness/Efficacy (29.4%), Adoption (2.0%), and Maintenance (5.4%) being the least reported. Studies were largely conducted in controlled research environments with minimal staff involvement and without long-term follow-up periods. While studies found that physical activity-based programs were effective in improving balance, information on representativeness and adoption/maintenance of programs was lacking. Studies included sufficient details about the intervention (content, dosage, progression). External validity RE-AIM indicators were reported less frequently than internal validity indicators. The studies were of moderate quality overall. Studies often lacked information on indicators critical for understanding how to implement these programs. This review signals the need to investigate the translation of these interventions from controlled research settings to clinical settings to improve the public impact of fall prevention for this population.

Methods to improve the translation of evidence-based interventions: A primer on dissemination and implementation science for occupational safety and health researchers and practitioners

Objective

A limited focus on dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has hindered the uptake of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that reduce workplace morbidity and mortality. D&I science methods can be used in the occupational safety and health (OSH) field to advance the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of EBIs for complex workplaces. These approaches should be responsive to contextual factors, including the needs of partners and beneficiaries (such as employers, employees, and intermediaries).

Methods

By synthesizing seminal literature and texts and leveraging our collective knowledge as D&I science and/or OSH researchers, we developed a D&I science primer for OSH. First, we provide an overview of common D&I terminology and concepts. Second, we describe several key and evolving issues in D&I science: balancing adaptation with intervention fidelity and specifying implementation outcomes and strategies. Next, we review D&I theories, models, and frameworks and offer examples for applying these to OSH research. We also discuss widely used D&I research designs, methods, and measures. Finally, we discuss future directions for D&I science application to OSH and provide resources for further exploration.

Results

We compiled a D&I science primer for OSH appropriate for practitioners and evaluators, especially those newer to the field.

Conclusion

This article fills a gap in the OSH research by providing an overview of D&I science to enhance understanding of key concepts, issues, models, designs, methods and measures for the translation into practice of effective OSH interventions to advance the safety, health and well-being of workers.

Integrating a physical activity coaching intervention into diabetes care: a mixed-methods evaluation of a pilot pragmatic trial

Physical activity (PA) counseling is under-utilized in primary care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), despite improving important health outcomes, including physical function. We adapted evidence-based PA counseling programs to primary care patients, staff, and leader's needs, resulting in "Be ACTIVE" comprised of shared PA tracker data (FitBit©), six theory-informed PA coaching calls, and three in-person clinician visits. In a pilot randomized pragmatic trial, we evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of Be ACTIVE. Sedentary patients with T2D were randomized to Be ACTIVE versus an enhanced control condition. Mixed methods assessments of feasibility and acceptability included costs. Objective pilot effectiveness outcomes included PA (primary outcome, accelerometer steps/week), the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) physical function measure, and behavioral PA predictors. Fifty patients were randomized to Be ACTIVE or control condition. Acceptability was >90% for patients and clinic staff. Coaching and PA tracking costs of ~$90/patient met Medicare reimbursement criteria. Pre-post PA increased by ~11% (Be ACTIVE) and ~6% in controls (group difference: 1574 ± 4391 steps/week, p = .72). As compared to controls, Be ACTIVE participants significantly improved SPPB (0.9 ± 0.3 vs. -0.1 ± 0.3, p = .01, changes >0.5 points prevent falls clinically), and PA predictors of self-efficacy (p = .02) and social-environmental support (p < .01). In this pilot trial, Be ACTIVE was feasible and highly acceptable to stakeholders and yielded significant improvements in objective physical function consistent with lower fall risk, whereas PA changes were less than anticipated. Be ACTIVE may need additional adaptation or a longer duration to improve PA outcomes.

Physical Activity Participation in People With an Active Diabetic Foot Ulceration: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Being physically active on a regular basis has a favourable impact on diabetes-related complications. With the exception of evidence advising individuals with an active diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) to avoid weight-bearing activity, no physical activity (PA) recommendations are currently provided for this population.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this scoping review was to examine and map the existing research evidence of PA participation for individuals with an active DFU.

DESIGN

A scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework was conducted in electronic databases and grey literature from inception to June 2020 to identify publications that investigated individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and an active DFU at enrolment in relation to a PA intervention. Reported outcomes had to inform on effects of PA on any health or wound parameters.

RESULTS

Nineteen articles from 17 distinct studies met inclusion criteria. Fourteen of the included studies were published in the last 10 years. Types of exercises and materials used, duration of studies, offloading considerations and provision of wound care varied greatly between studies. Included studies are heterogenous in methodological designs and aims, and reporting was often lacking important components of wound care and PA interventions. A discussion based on descriptive statistics and narrative analysis is provided.

CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible from this scoping review to determine what would be the ideal components of a PA program for this specific population. Conclusions are limited by the quality and design of the included studies. No articles evaluated quality of life, mortality or cardiorespiratory capacity, nor were adverse effects routinely reported.

Pragmatic trials of pain therapies: a systematic review of methods

ABSTRACT

Pragmatic randomised clinical trials aim to directly inform clinical or health policy decision making. Here, we systematically review methods and design of pragmatic trials of pain therapies to examine methods, identify common challenges, and areas for improvement. Seven databases were searched for pragmatic randomised controlled clinical trials that assessed pain treatment in a clinical population of adults reporting pain. All screening steps and data extractions were performed twice. Data were synthesised descriptively, and correlation analyses between prespecified trial features and PRECIS-2 (PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2) ratings and attrition were performed. Protocol registration: PROSPERO-ID CRD42020178954. Of 57 included trials, only 21% assessed pharmacological interventions, the remainder physical, surgical, psychological, or self-management pain therapies. Three-quarters of the trials were comparative effectiveness designs, often conducted in multiple centres (median: 5; Q1/3: 1, 9.25) and with a median sample size of 234 patients at randomization (Q1/3: 135.5; 363.5). Although most trials recruited patients with chronic pain, reporting of pain duration was poor and not well described. Reporting was comprehensive for most general items, while often deficient for specific pragmatic aspects. Average ratings for pragmatism were highest for treatment adherence flexibility and clinical relevance of outcome measures. They were lowest for patient recruitment methods and extent of follow-up measurements and appointments. Current practice in pragmatic trials of pain treatments can be improved in areas such as patient recruitment and reporting of methods, analysis, and interpretation of data. These improvements will facilitate translatability to other real-world settings-the purpose of pragmatic trials.

Meta-analysis of Pragmatic and Explanatory Trials

Pooling studies with different clinical and methodological features may lead to statistical heterogeneity, particularly if heterogeneity remains unexplained. One potential source of heterogeneity may be how much the included trials tend toward a pragmatic or explanatory design. Many tools have been developed to aid researchers in quantifying pragmatism in clinical trials, at both the design and appraisal stages.In this chapter we review these tools, illustrate examples of their use, and discuss methods of including pragmatism in meta-analysis as a way of exploring heterogeneity.We suggest a stepwise approach to incorporating evidence from pragmatic and explanatory trials which includes planning to assess pragmatism at the protocol stage, collecting data on pragmatism, extracting data on treatment effects, incorporating pragmatism in meta-analysis using subgroup analysis or meta-regression techniques, and interpreting and reporting the findings transparently.

Protocol refinement for a diabetes pragmatic trial using the PRECIS-2 framework

Background

This report describes how we refined a protocol for a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study of two models of an evidence-based diabetes shared medical appointment intervention and used the PRECIS-2 rating system to evaluate these adaptations.

Methods

We report primary data collected between June and August 2019, and protocol refinements completed between 2018 and 2020. Twenty-two members of the study team collaborated in protocol refinement and completed the PRECIS-2 ratings of study pragmatism. We discuss study design refinements made to achieve the desired level of pragmatism vs. experimental control for each of the nine PRECIS-2 dimensions. Study team members received training on PRECIS-2 scoring and were asked to rate the study protocol on the nine PRECIS-2 dimensions. Ratings were compared using descriptive statistics.

Results

In general, the PRECIS-2 ratings revealed high levels of pragmatism, but somewhat less pragmatic ratings on the categories of Delivery and Organization (costs and resources). This variation was purposeful, and we provide the rationale for and steps taken to obtain the targeted level of pragmatism on each PRECIS-2 dimension, as well as detail design changes made to a) make the design more pragmatic and b) address COVID-19 issues. There was general agreement among team members and across different types of stakeholders on PRECIS-2 ratings.

Conclusions

We discuss lessons learned from use of PRECIS-2 and experiences in refining the study to be maximally pragmatic on some dimensions and less so on other dimensions. This paper expands on prior research by describing actions to achieve higher levels of pragmatism and revise our protocol fit to the changed context. We make recommendations for future use of PRECIS-2 to help address changing context and other strategies for the planning of and transparent reporting on pragmatic research and comparative effectiveness research.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov Registration ID: NCT03590041.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07084-x.

A Scoping Review and General User's Guide for Facilitating the Successful Use of eHealth Programs for Diabetes in Clinical Care

The vast eHealth literature in diabetes can provide a useful foundation to aid in the selection, adoption, and implementation of eHealth methodologies in clinical care. Despite clear potential to enhance reach, efficiency, and clinical effectiveness, research has yielded mixed and often contradictory results, and wide-spread adoption and maintenance of eHealth programs in clinical care has been limited. Furthermore, few reports have identified the unique challenges that clinicians and health systems face when attempting to incorporate eHealth systems into clinical care. To address these gaps, we address two goals in this report: first, to summarize and integrate the major findings of the diabetes-related eHealth literature based on currently available systematic and narrative reviews; and second, based on the review, to provide practical guidelines to assist clinicians and health systems in selecting and implementing eHealth programs into diabetes care using dissemination and implementation science principles and perspectives.

Trends in the Explanatory or Pragmatic Nature of Cardiovascular Clinical Trials Over 2 Decades

Importance

Pragmatic trials test interventions using designs that produce results that may be more applicable to the population in which the intervention will be eventually applied.

Objective

To investigate how pragmatic or explanatory cardiovascular (CV) randomized clinical trials (RCT) are, and if this has changed over time.

Data Source

Six major medical and CV journals, including New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, JAMA, Circulation, European Heart Journal, and Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Study Selection

All CV-related RCTs published during 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015 were identified and included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Included RCTs were assessed by 2 independent adjudicators with expertise in RCT and CV medicine.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcome measure was the level of pragmatism evaluated using the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Index Summary (PRECIS)-2 tool, which uses a 5-point ordinal scale (ranging from very pragmatic to very explanatory) across 9 domains of trial design, including eligibility, recruitment, setting, organization, intervention delivery, intervention adherence, follow-up, primary outcome, and analysis.

Results

Of 616 RCTs, the mean (SD) PRECIS-2 score was 3.26 (0.70). The level of pragmatism increased over time from a mean (SD) score of 3.07 (0.74) in 2000 to 3.46 (0.67) in 2015 (P < .001 for trend; Cohen d relative effect size, 0.56). The increase occurred mainly in the domains of eligibility, setting, intervention delivery, and primary end point. PRECIS-2 score was higher for neutral trials than those with positive results (P < .001) and in phase III/IV trials compared with phase I/II trials (P < .001) but similar between different sources of funding (public, industry, or both; P = .38). More pragmatic trials had more sites, larger sample sizes, longer follow-ups, and mortality as the primary end point.

Conclusions and Relevance

The level of pragmatism increased moderately over 2 decades of CV trials. Understanding the domains of current and future clinical trials will aid in the design and delivery of CV trials with broader application.

Sex Differences Across the Lifespan: A Focus on Cardiometabolism

Women's health and sex differences research remain understudied. In 2016, to address the topic of sex differences, the Center for Women' s Health Research (CWHR) at the University of Colorado (cwhr@ucdenver.edu) held its inaugural National Conference, "Sex Differences Across the Lifespan: A Focus on Metabolism" and published a report summarizing the presentations. Two years later, in 2018, CWHR organized the 2nd National Conference. The research presentations and discussions from the 2018 conference also addressed sex differences across the lifespan with a focus on cardiometabolism and expanded the focus by including circadian physiology and effects of sleep on cardiometabolic health. Over 100 participants, including basic scientists, clinicians, policymakers, advocacy group leaders, and federal agency leadership participated. The meeting proceedings reveal that although exciting advances in the area of sex differences have taken place, significant questions and gaps remain about women's health and sex differences in critical areas of health. Identifying these gaps and the subsequent research that will result may lead to important breakthroughs.

The importance of decision intent within descriptions of pragmatic trials

OBJECTIVE

It is now more than 50 years since the concepts of explanatory and pragmatic attitudes toward trials were first discussed by Schwartz and Lellouch in their influential 1967 paper. Since then, there has been increasing focus on design aspects that may be consistent with more pragmatic attitudes within clinical trials, and a number of tools developed to assist investigators prospectively think about their trial design. Researchers have subsequently expressed interest in using these tools retrospectively to characterize trials as pragmatic or explanatory.

RESULTS

We suggest that recent attempts to retrospectively dichotomize trials solely on the basis of quantitative scoring of trial design features are flawed. Instead, we argue that there is a need to consider both the intent and design when assessing the degree of pragmatism within a trial.

CONCLUSION

The practical implication of our suggestion for trial reporting is that investigators should explicitly state the intent of the trial through a clear articulation of the decision that they hope will be informed by the trial results. This should be coupled with a completed PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 assessment (or similar) with an explanation of study design choices to appropriately assess whether the study design is consistent with the study intent. We believe this will assist reviewers and knowledge users in making assessments of trials.

RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to New Science and Practice With a 20-Year Review

The RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework was conceptualized two decades ago. As one of the most frequently applied implementation frameworks, RE-AIM has now been cited in over 2,800 publications. This paper describes the application and evolution of RE-AIM as well as lessons learned from its use. RE-AIM has been applied most often in public health and health behavior change research, but increasingly in more diverse content areas and within clinical, community, and corporate settings. We discuss challenges of using RE-AIM while encouraging a more pragmatic use of key dimensions rather than comprehensive applications of all elements. Current foci of RE-AIM include increasing the emphasis on cost and adaptations to programs and expanding the use of qualitative methods to understand "how" and "why" results came about. The framework will continue to evolve to focus on contextual and explanatory factors related to RE-AIM outcomes, package RE-AIM for use by non-researchers, and integrate RE-AIM with other pragmatic and reporting frameworks.

Making Health Research Matter: A Call to Increase Attention to External Validity

Most of the clinical research conducted with the goal of improving health is not generalizable to nonresearch settings. In addition, scientists often fail to replicate each other's findings due, in part, to lack of attention to contextual factors accounting for their relative effectiveness or failure. To address these problems, we review the literature on assessment of external validity and summarize approaches to designing for generalizability. When investigators conduct systematic reviews, a critical need is often unmet: to evaluate the pragmatism and context of interventions, as well as their effectiveness. Researchers, editors, and grant reviewers can implement key changes in how they consider and report on external validity issues. For example, the recently published expanded CONSORT figure may aid scientists and potential program adopters in summarizing participation in and representativeness of a program across different settings, staff, and patients. Greater attention to external validity is needed to increase reporting transparency, improve program dissemination, and reduce failures to replicate research.

Informing real-world practice with real-world evidence: the value of PRECIS-2

Real-world evidence is needed to inform real-world practice. Pragmatic controlled trials are intended to provide such evidence by assessing the effectiveness of medicines and other interventions in real-world settings, as opposed to explanatory trials that assess efficacy in highly controlled settings. Dal-Ré and colleagues (BMC Med 16:49, 2018) recently performed a literature review of studies published between 2014 and 2017 to assess the degree to which studies that self-identified as pragmatic were truly so. The authors found that over one-third of randomized controlled trials of drugs and biologics that were self-labeled as pragmatic used placebo controls (as opposed to usual care), tested medicines before licensing, or were conducted in a single site. Further, they proposed that, in order to improve the reliability of the 'pragmatic' label, investigators should assess their trials using the PRECIS-2 tool upon submission to funders, ethics boards, or journals. We appreciate the value of PRECIS-2 as an indicator to assess the pragmatic versus explanatory features in a trial, and we herein highlight the potential challenges and opportunities that may arise with its systematic and widespread use.

Real-world evidence: How pragmatic are randomized controlled trials labeled as pragmatic?

INTRODUCTION

Pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) mimic usual clinical practice and they are critical to inform decision-making by patients, clinicians and policy-makers in real-world settings. Pragmatic RCTs assess effectiveness of available medicines, while explanatory RCTs assess efficacy of investigational medicines. Explanatory and pragmatic are the extremes of a continuum. This debate article seeks to evaluate and provide recommendation on how to characterize pragmatic RCTs in light of the current landscape of RCTs. It is supported by findings from a PubMed search conducted in August 2017, which retrieved 615 RCTs self-labeled in their titles as "pragmatic" or "naturalistic". We focused on 89 of these trials that assessed medicines (drugs or biologics).

DISCUSSION

36% of these 89 trials were placebo-controlled, performed before licensing of the medicine, or done in a single-center. In our opinion, such RCTs overtly deviate from usual care and pragmatism. It follows, that the use of the term 'pragmatic' to describe them, conveys a misleading message to patients and clinicians. Furthermore, many other trials among the 615 coined as 'pragmatic' and assessing other types of intervention are plausibly not very pragmatic; however, this is impossible for a reader to tell without access to the full protocol and insider knowledge of the trial conduct. The degree of pragmatism should be evaluated by the trial investigators themselves using the PRECIS-2 tool, a tool that comprises 9 domains, each scored from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic).

CONCLUSIONS

To allow for a more appropriate characterization of the degree of pragmatism in clinical research, submissions of RCTs to funders, research ethics committees and to peer-reviewed journals should include a PRECIS-2 tool assessment done by the trial investigators. Clarity and accuracy on the extent to which a RCT is pragmatic will help understand how much it is relevant to real-world practice.

A comparison of meta-analytic methods for synthesizing evidence from explanatory and pragmatic trials

BACKGROUND

The pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary version 2 (PRECIS-2) tool has recently been developed to classify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as pragmatic or explanatory based on their design characteristics. Given that treatment effects in explanatory trials may be greater than those obtained in pragmatic trials, conventional meta-analytic approaches may not accurately account for the heterogeneity among the studies and may result in biased treatment effect estimates. This study investigates if the incorporation of PRECIS-2 classification of published trials can improve the estimation of overall intervention effects in meta-analysis.

METHODS

Using data from 31 published trials of intervention aimed at reducing obesity in children, we evaluated the utility of incorporating PRECIS-2 ratings of published trials into meta-analysis of intervention effects in clinical trials. Specifically, we compared random-effects meta-analysis, stratified meta-analysis, random-effects meta-regression, and mixture random-effects meta-regression methods for estimating overall pooled intervention effects.

RESULTS

Our analyses revealed that mixture meta-regression models that incorporate PRECIS-2 classification as covariate resulted in a larger pooled effect size (ES) estimate (ES = - 1.01, 95%CI = [- 1.52, - 0.43]) than conventional random-effects meta-analysis (ES = - 0.15, 95%CI = [- 0.23, - 0.08]).

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to the original intent of PRECIS-2 tool of aiding researchers in their choice of trial design, PRECIS-2 tool is useful for explaining between study variations in systematic review and meta-analysis of published trials. We recommend that researchers adopt mixture meta-regression methods when synthesizing evidence from explanatory and pragmatic trials.