Search

Background/Aims: The standard approach to designing stepped wedge trials that recruit participants in a continuous stream is to divide time into periods of equal length. But the choice of design in such cases is infinitely more flexible: each cluster could cross from the control to the intervention at any point on the continuous time-scale. We consider the case of a stepped wedge design with clusters randomised to just three sequences (designs with small numbers of sequences may be preferred for their simplicity and practicality) and investigate the choice of design that minimises the variance of the treatment effect estimator under different assumptions about the intra-cluster correlation. Methods: We make some simplifying assumptions in order to calculate the variance: in particular that we recruit the same number of participants, m , from each cluster over the course of the trial, and that participants present at regularly spaced intervals. We consider an intra-cluster correlation that decays exponentially with separation in time between the presentation of two individuals from the same cluster, from a value of ρ for two individuals who present at the same time, to a value of ρ τ for individuals presenting at the start and end of the trial recruitment interval. We restrict attention to three-sequence designs with centrosymmetry – the property that if we reverse time and swap the intervention and control conditions then the design looks the same. We obtain an expression for the variance of the treatment effect estimator adjusted for effects of time, using methods for generalised least squares estimation, and we evaluate this expression numerically for different designs, and for different parameter values. Results: There is a two-dimensional space of possible three-sequence, centrosymmetric stepped wedge designs with continuous recruitment. The variance of the treatment effect estimator for given ρ and τ can be plotted as a contour map over this space. The shape of this variance surface depends on τ and on the parameter m ρ / (1 − ρ) , but typically indicates a broad, flat region of close-to-optimal designs. The 'standard' design with equally spaced periods and 1:1:1 allocation rarely performs well, however. Conclusions: In many different settings, a relatively simple design can be found (e.g. one based on simple fractions) that offers close-to-optimal efficiency in that setting. There may also be designs that are robustly efficient over a wide range of settings. Contour maps of the kind we illustrate can help guide this choice. If efficiency is offered as one of the justifications for using a stepped wedge design, then it is worth designing with optimal efficiency in mind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]