Suppr超能文献

阶梯楔形设计的拟议变体可用于适应多种干预措施。

Proposed variations of the stepped-wedge design can be used to accommodate multiple interventions.

作者信息

Lyons Vivian H, Li Lingyu, Hughes James P, Rowhani-Rahbar Ali

机构信息

Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Box 357236, Seattle, WA 98195-7236, USA; Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center, 401 Broadway Avenue, 4th Floor, Seattle, WA 98122, USA.

Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Box 357232, Seattle, WA 98195-7232, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jun;86:160-167. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.004. Epub 2017 Apr 13.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Stepped-wedge design (SWD) cluster-randomized trials have traditionally been used for evaluating a single intervention. We aimed to explore design variants suitable for evaluating multiple interventions in an SWD trial.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We identified four specific variants of the traditional SWD that would allow two interventions to be conducted within a single cluster-randomized trial: concurrent, replacement, supplementation, and factorial SWDs. These variants were chosen to flexibly accommodate study characteristics that limit a one-size-fits-all approach for multiple interventions.

RESULTS

In the concurrent SWD, each cluster receives only one intervention, unlike the other variants. The replacement SWD supports two interventions that will not or cannot be used at the same time. The supplementation SWD is appropriate when the second intervention requires the presence of the first intervention, and the factorial SWD supports the evaluation of intervention interactions. The precision for estimating intervention effects varies across the four variants.

CONCLUSION

Selection of the appropriate design variant should be driven by the research question while considering the trade-off between the number of steps, number of clusters, restrictions for concurrent implementation of the interventions, lingering effects of each intervention, and precision of the intervention effect estimates.

摘要

目的

阶梯楔形设计(SWD)整群随机试验传统上用于评估单一干预措施。我们旨在探索适用于在SWD试验中评估多种干预措施的设计变体。

研究设计与设置

我们确定了传统SWD的四种特定变体,它们能够在单一整群随机试验中实施两种干预措施:并行、替代、补充和析因SWD。选择这些变体是为了灵活适应研究特征,这些特征限制了对多种干预措施采用一刀切的方法。

结果

与其他变体不同,在并行SWD中,每个整群仅接受一种干预措施。替代SWD支持两种不会或不能同时使用的干预措施。当第二种干预措施需要第一种干预措施存在时,补充SWD是合适的,而析因SWD支持对干预措施相互作用的评估。四种变体在估计干预效果方面的精度各不相同。

结论

合适的设计变体的选择应根据研究问题来驱动,同时要考虑步骤数、整群数、干预措施并行实施的限制、每种干预措施的残留效应以及干预效果估计的精度之间的权衡。

相似文献

2
6
Multilevel Intervention Stepped Wedge Designs (MLI-SWDs).多层次干预阶梯式楔形设计(MLI-SWD)。
Prev Sci. 2024 Jul;25(Suppl 3):371-383. doi: 10.1007/s11121-024-01657-y. Epub 2024 May 15.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

8
Current issues in the design and analysis of stepped wedge trials.阶梯楔形试验设计与分析中的当前问题
Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 Nov;45(Pt A):55-60. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.07.006. Epub 2015 Aug 3.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验