1
|
Pfledderer CD, von Klinggraeff L, Burkart S, da Silva Bandeira A, Lubans DR, Jago R, Okely AD, van Sluijs EMF, Ioannidis JPA, Thrasher JF, Li X, Beets MW. Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2024; 10:57. [PMID: 38582840 PMCID: PMC10998328 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-024-01485-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/08/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences. METHODS To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences. RESULTS A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading. CONCLUSION We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher D Pfledderer
- Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health in Austin, Austin, TX, 78701, USA.
- Michael and Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health in Austin, Austin, TX, 78701, USA.
| | | | - Sarah Burkart
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | | | - David R Lubans
- College of Human and Social Futures, The University of Newcastle Australia, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia
| | - Russell Jago
- Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1QU, UK
| | - Anthony D Okely
- Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia
| | | | - John P A Ioannidis
- Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - James F Thrasher
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | - Xiaoming Li
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | - Michael W Beets
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pfledderer CD, von Klinggraeff L, Burkart S, da Silva Bandeira A, Lubans DR, Jago R, Okely AD, van Sluijs EM, Ioannidis JP, Thrasher JF, Li X, Beets MW. Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions. RESEARCH SQUARE 2023:rs.3.rs-3370077. [PMID: 38168263 PMCID: PMC10760234 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3370077/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2024]
Abstract
Background In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences. Methods To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences. Results A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading. Conclusion We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Sarah Burkart
- University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health
| | | | | | - Russ Jago
- University of Bristol Population Health Sciences
| | | | | | | | | | - Xiaoming Li
- University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Swindle T, Baloh J, Landes SJ, Lovelady NN, Vincenzo JL, Hamilton AB, Zielinski MJ, Teeter BS, Gorvine MM, Curran GM. Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) in the pre-implementation phase: key steps and activities. FRONTIERS IN HEALTH SERVICES 2023; 3:1155693. [PMID: 37292120 PMCID: PMC10244502 DOI: 10.3389/frhs.2023.1155693] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 05/04/2023] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Background Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) involves researchers and local partners working collaboratively to support the uptake of an evidence-based intervention (EBI). To date, EBQI has not been consistently included in community-engaged dissemination and implementation literature. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the steps, activities, and outputs of EBQI in the pre-implementation phase. Methods The research team applied comparative case study methods to describe key steps, activities, and outputs of EBQI across seven projects. Our approach included: (1) specification of research questions, (2) selection of cases, (3) construction of a case codebook, (4) coding of cases using the codebook, and (5) comparison of cases. Results The cases selected included five distinct settings (e.g., correction facilities, community pharmacies), seven EBIs (e.g., nutrition promotion curriculum, cognitive processing therapy) and five unique lead authors. Case examples include both community-embedded and clinically-oriented projects. Key steps in the EBQI process included: (1) forming a local team of partners and experts, (2) prioritizing implementation determinants based on existing literature/data, (3) selecting strategies and/or adaptations in the context of key determinants, (4) specifying selected strategies/adaptations, and (5) refining strategies/adaptations. Examples of activities are included to illustrate how each step was achieved. Outputs included prioritized determinants, EBI adaptations, and implementation strategies. Conclusions A primary contribution of our comparative case study is the delineation of various steps and activities of EBQI, which may contribute to the replicability of the EBQI process across other implementation research projects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Taren Swindle
- Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
- Center for Implementation Research, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
| | - Jure Baloh
- Center for Implementation Research, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
- Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
| | - Sara J. Landes
- Center for Implementation Research, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
- Behavioral Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock, AR, United States
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
| | - Nakita N. Lovelady
- Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
| | - Jennifer L. Vincenzo
- Department of Physical Therapy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Fayetteville, AR, United States
| | - Alison B. Hamilton
- Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation, & Policy; VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Melissa J. Zielinski
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
- Department of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
| | - Benjamin S. Teeter
- Center for Implementation Research, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
- Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
| | - Margaret M. Gorvine
- Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
| | - Geoffrey M. Curran
- Center for Implementation Research, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
- Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
- Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock, AR, United States
| |
Collapse
|