Search results

In randomized controlled trials, or RCTs, researchers assign patients by chance to different treatments to compare the benefits and harms. In RCTs, researchers have a high level of control over how patients receive treatment. RCTs often take place in research clinics with staff who monitor how patients follow treatment plans.

Pragmatic RCTs, or pRCTs, take place where patients typically receive treatment, such as a regular clinic. pRCTs can help capture the real-world effects of treatment but determining whether a treatment works can be hard in pRCTs. Also, no clear guidance exists about how to collect and analyze data from pRCTs. Some kinds of analysis are better for helping researchers focus on what's important to patients.

In this study, the research team created guidance for collecting and analyzing data in pRCTs so that results reflect what matters to patients and researchers.

To access the methods and software, please visit the following Github repositories:

• CDP-analysis-2018
• GFORMULA-RCT-SAS
• IV-Bounds
• CHARM_reanalysis
• Adherence_LRCCPPT

Researchers can use data from patient registries to look at which medicines or other treatments work best. Registries store data about people with a specific health problem. The data may include the health care and medicines patients receive over time and patient reports of their health status.

To find out patients' health status, registries ask patients to fill out surveys at different times during treatment. Researchers can compare survey results from when patients first take the survey with results from surveys taken after treatment. They can then find out how well a medicine works. But patients may not always take the first survey before they start a new medicine. Sometimes, they don't take the first survey until after starting treatment. When this happens, it is hard to know how well the medicine works.

In this study, the research team looked at different ways to use data from patient surveys in registries. The team wanted to learn which way would give the most accurate understanding of the effects of a new medicine. The study also looked at patients' views on taking part in registries.

In the United States, tobacco smoking is associated with significant morbidity and premature mortality for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) (e.g., schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder). While many smokers with SMI wish to quit smoking, few are offered advice or treatments with demonstrated effectiveness in reducing tobacco dependence, primarily medication-assisted treatments. The overall aim of this randomized controlled trial was to test the effects of provider education (PE) (i.e. provider-level educational intervention focused on evidence-based smoking cessation treatment for those with SMI) and community health worker (CHW) support on the provision and utilization of smoking cessation treatment to those with SMI, and cessation rates for adults with SMI who smoke or use tobacco over a 2-year period. The objectives of this trial were to:

1. Examine whether an intervention combining PE and CHW support would increase prescriber provision of advice and assistance to quit smoking, and improve tobacco cessation rates in smokers with SMI compared to usual care/treatment as usual (TAU) and compared to PE-only treatment
2. Determine the effect of the combined PE+CHW intervention on patient-reported overall health compared to TAU and PE-only treatment

Eligible individuals were recruited from two outpatient psychiatric service providers in the Boston, Massachusetts metropolitan area. Clinics where individuals received services were randomized into either the TAU condition or into the PE condition, where health care providers would receive additional education on first-line medications used to treat tobacco use disorder. Within clinics in the PE arm, individuals were further randomized into the community health worker (CHW) support condition (PE+CHW), where CHWs would assist participants with smoking cessation care access and provide community outreach and education, or no CHW support (PE-only). Enrolled participants (n=1,010) completed surveys on smoking/tobacco use at 3 timepoints: study baseline, 1 year post-randomization, and 2 years post-randomization.

A mixed-methods evaluation of the trial was also conducted post-intervention, using an interactive convergent design. The aims of the evaluation were to identify barriers and facilitators to effective implementation; examine how primary care providers differed by performance and engagement level, and how experiences with the intervention compared across these groups; and identify anticipated barriers to implementing the intervention as discussed by stakeholders. Quantitative outcome and visit data from the trial were used in the evaluation. For the evaluation's qualitative component, interviews were conducted with purposively sampled community health workers, smoker participants, primary care providers, and other stakeholders in policy, payor, and clinical administration. Please note that the qualitative evaluation data are not available for this collection.

The TARGET (Targeted Interventions to Prevent Chronic Low Back Pain in High-Risk Patients) Trial was a primary care-based, multisite, cluster randomized, pragmatic trial comparing guideline-based care (GBC) to GBC + referral to Psychologically Informed Physical Therapy (PIPT) for patients presenting with acute lower back pain (LBP) and identified as high risk for persistent disabling symptoms. Chronic lower back pain (LBP) is defined as a response of "more than three months" to question 1, and a response of "half the days or more than half the days" in the past 6 months to question 2. See Appendix 1 for the LBP Questionnaire in the Protocol report.

Study sites included primary care clinics within each of four geographical regions in the United States, with clinics randomized to either GBC or GBC+PIPT. Acute LBP patients at all clinics were risk stratified (high, medium, low) using the STarT Back Tool. The primary outcomes were the presence of chronic LBP and LBP-related functional disability determined by the Oswestry Disability Index at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were LBP-related processes of health care and utilization of services over 12 months, determined through electronic medical records.

Study enrollment began in May 2016 and concluded in June 2018. The trial was powered to include at least 1,860 high-risk patients in the cluster-randomized controlled trial cohort. A prospective observational cohort of approximately 6,900 low and medium-risk acute LBP patients was enrolled concurrently.

This data collection contains a single data file with 223 variables and 9,730 cases. The number of respondents at each of the study locations were:

• Boston Medical Center: 997 respondents
• Intermountain Health (Salt Lake City): 2,094 respondents
• Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore): 1,615 respondents
• University of Pittsburg Medical Center: 5,024 respondents