↓ Skip to main content

Framing the conversation: use of PRECIS-2 ratings to advance understanding of pragmatic trial design domains

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Framing the conversation: use of PRECIS-2 ratings to advance understanding of pragmatic trial design domains
Published in
Trials, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2267-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paula Darby Lipman, Kirsty Loudon, Leanora Dluzak, Rachael Moloney, Donna Messner, Catherine M. Stoney

Abstract

There continues to be debate about what constitutes a pragmatic trial and how it is distinguished from more traditional explanatory trials. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project, which includes five trials and a coordinating unit, has adopted the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) instrument. The purpose of the study was to collect PRECIS-2 ratings at two points in time to assess whether the tool was sensitive to change in trial design, and to explore with investigators the rationale for rating shifts. A mixed-methods design included sequential collection and analysis of quantitative data (PRECIS-2 ratings) and qualitative data. Ratings were collected at two annual, in-person project meetings, and subsequent interviews conducted with investigators were recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo 11 Pro for Windows. Rating shifts were coded as either (1) actual change (reflects a change in procedure or protocol), (2) primarily a rating shift reflecting rater variability, or (3) themes that reflect important concepts about the tool and/or pragmatic trial design. Based on PRECIS-2 ratings, each trial was highly pragmatic at the planning phase and remained so 1 year later in the early phases of trial implementation. Over half of the 45 paired ratings for the nine PRECIS-2 domains indicated a rating change from Time 1 to Time 2 (N = 24, 53%). Of the 24 rating changes, only three represented a true change in the design of the trial. Analysis of rationales for rating shifts identified critical themes associated with the tool or pragmatic trial design more generally. Each trial contributed one or more relevant comments, with Eligibility, Flexibility of Adherence, and Follow-up each accounting for more than one. PRECIS-2 has proved useful for "framing the conversation" about trial design among members of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative Project. Our findings suggest that design elements assessed by the PRECIS-2 tool may represent mostly stable decisions. Overall, there has been a positive response to using PRECIS-2 to guide conversations around trial design, and the project's focus on the use of the tool by this group of early adopters has provided valuable feedback to inform future trainings on the tool.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 19%
Other 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Professor 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Psychology 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 12 25%