Search

Many stepped wedge trials (SWTs) are analysed by using a mixed-effect model with a random intercept and fixed effects for the intervention and time periods (referred to here as the standard model). However, it is not known whether this model is robust to misspecification. We simulated SWTs with three groups of clusters and two time periods; one group received the intervention during the first period and two groups in the second period. We simulated period and intervention effects that were either common-to-all or varied-between clusters. Data were analysed with the standard model or with additional random effects for period effect or intervention effect. In a second simulation study, we explored the weight given to within-cluster comparisons by simulating a larger intervention effect in the group of the trial that experienced both the control and intervention conditions and applying the three analysis models described previously. Across 500 simulations, we computed bias and confidence interval coverage of the estimated intervention effect. We found up to 50% bias in intervention effect estimates when period or intervention effects varied between clusters and were treated as fixed effects in the analysis. All misspecified models showed undercoverage of 95% confidence intervals, particularly the standard model. A large weight was given to within-cluster comparisons in the standard model. In the SWTs simulated here, mixed-effect models were highly sensitive to departures from the model assumptions, which can be explained by the high dependence on within-cluster comparisons. Trialists should consider including a random effect for time period in their SWT analysis model. © 2017 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Missing outcomes are a commonly occurring problem for cluster randomised trials, which can lead to biased and inefficient inference if ignored or handled inappropriately. Two approaches for analysing such trials are cluster-level analysis and individual-level analysis. In this study, we assessed the performance of unadjusted cluster-level analysis, baseline covariate-adjusted cluster-level analysis, random effects logistic regression and generalised estimating equations when binary outcomes are missing under a baseline covariate-dependent missingness mechanism. Missing outcomes were handled using complete records analysis and multilevel multiple imputation. We analytically show that cluster-level analyses for estimating risk ratio using complete records are valid if the true data generating model has log link and the intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effect in the outcome model. We performed a simulation study considering four different scenarios, depending on whether the missingness mechanisms are the same or different between the intervention groups and whether there is an interaction between intervention group and baseline covariate in the outcome model. On the basis of the simulation study and analytical results, we give guidance on the conditions under which each approach is valid. © 2017 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Missing observations are common in cluster randomised trials. The problem is exacerbated when modelling bivariate outcomes jointly, as the proportion of complete cases is often considerably smaller than the proportion having either of the outcomes fully observed. Approaches taken to handling such missing data include the following: complete case analysis, single-level multiple imputation that ignores the clustering, multiple imputation with a fixed effect for each cluster and multilevel multiple imputation. We contrasted the alternative approaches to handling missing data in a cost-effectiveness analysis that uses data from a cluster randomised trial to evaluate an exercise intervention for care home residents. We then conducted a simulation study to assess the performance of these approaches on bivariate continuous outcomes, in terms of confidence interval coverage and empirical bias in the estimated treatment effects. Missing-at-random clustered data scenarios were simulated following a full-factorial design. Across all the missing data mechanisms considered, the multiple imputation methods provided estimators with negligible bias, while complete case analysis resulted in biased treatment effect estimates in scenarios where the randomised treatment arm was associated with missingness. Confidence interval coverage was generally in excess of nominal levels (up to 99.8%) following fixed-effects multiple imputation and too low following single-level multiple imputation. Multilevel multiple imputation led to coverage levels of approximately 95% throughout. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SUMMARY Statistical methods have been developed for cost-effectiveness analyses of cluster randomised trials (CRTs) where baseline covariates are balanced. However, CRTs may show systematic differences in individual and cluster-level covariates between the treatment groups. This paper presents three methods to adjust for imbalances in observed covariates: seemingly unrelated regression with a robust standard error, a 'two-stage' bootstrap approach combined with seemingly unrelated regression and multilevel models. We consider the methods in a cost-effectiveness analysis of a CRT with covariate imbalance, unequal cluster sizes and a prognostic relationship that varied by treatment group. The cost-effectiveness results differed according to the approach for covariate adjustment. A simulation study then assessed the relative performance of methods for addressing systematic imbalance in baseline covariates. The simulations extended the case study and considered scenarios with different levels of confounding, cluster size variation and few clusters. Performance was reported as bias, root mean squared error and CI coverage of the incremental net benefit. Even with low levels of confounding, unadjusted methods were biased, but all adjusted methods were unbiased. Multilevel models performed well across all settings, and unlike the other methods, reported CI coverage close to nominal levels even with few clusters of unequal sizes. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractTrials of educational or organizational interventions to change clinical practice require cluster randomization, that is, randomization of units such as hospitals or clinical teams rather than individual patients. Cluster randomization is relatively novel in health care settings and raises new methodological challenges, in particular: are units willing to be randomized at an organizational level; and, what procedures should be followed to successfully enrol all of the clinicians in a unit rather than individual clinicians as in conventional multicentre trials. This is particularly problematic for trials of large units such as hospitals. The aim of this study was to develop and partially evaluate a strategy to recruit acute, secondary care NHS hospitals in the UK into cluster randomized trials. Literature search and interviews with senior staff in acute hospitals and relevant national organizations were used to develop a recruitment strategy. The strategy was evaluated by inviting 32 randomly selected clinical directorates to participate in a trial feasibility study. A seven step recruitment strategy was developed: (1) Identify stakeholders and gatekeepers; (2) Inform stakeholders and gatekeepers; (3) Approach gatekeepers; (4) Local negotiation; (5) Conduct the research; (6) Feedback to gatekeepers; (7) Feedback to stakeholders. Key problems were the possibility of multiple gatekeepers and identification of all possible stakeholders in varying organizational structures. The strategy was effective in two respects. First, 32 (100%) of the directorates approached agreed to participate. Second, baseline data collection was successfully achieved in all of the directorates. However, the strategy is costly in terms of time and resources. We conclude that NHS trusts are willing to participate in cluster randomized trials. This recruitment strategy is successful and could be widely adopted, but realistic time and financial cost estimates are required at the planning stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]