Clinical trials during pandemic in primary care: Low number and low validity after one-year experience

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.

Health outcomes in primary care: a 20-year evidence map of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the different types of health outcomes assessed as primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the primary care (PC) setting during the last 20 years and identify whether potential gaps exist in specific types of health care and types of intervention.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from January 2000 to September 2020 for published RCTs in PC. We recorded characteristics of eligible studies and mapped evidence by health outcome category (patient health outcomes, health services outcomes); and for each outcome category, by types of health care (preventive, acute, chronic, palliative), and by types of intervention (drug, behavioural, on structure, and on process). For RCTs assessing patient health outcomes as primary outcomes, we further mapped using the quality-of-care dimensions, that is, effectiveness, safety, and patient-centredness.

RESULTS

Of the 518 eligible RCTs in PC, 357 (68.9%) evaluated a patient health outcome as the primary outcome, and 161 (31.1%) evaluated only health services outcomes as primary outcomes. Many focused on population with chronic illness (224 trials; 43.2%) and evaluated interventions on processes of health care (239 trials; 46.1%). Research gaps identified include preventive and palliative care, behavioural interventions, and safety and patient-centredness outcomes as primary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our evidence map showed research gaps in certain types of health care and interventions. It also showed research gaps in assessing safety and measures to place patient at the centre of health care delivery as primary outcomes.