Utility of the PICOTS framework to assess clinical trial disruptions: monitoring the impact of COVID-19 in the Pain Management Collaboratory.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1093/pm/pnae078
Peter Peduzzi, Cynthia Brandt, Christopher L Dearth, James Dziura, Shawn Farrokhi, Steven Z George, Tassos C Kyriakides, Cynthia R Long, Edward J Mascha, Charity G Patterson, Daniel I Rhon, Robert D Kerns
{"title":"Utility of the PICOTS framework to assess clinical trial disruptions: monitoring the impact of COVID-19 in the Pain Management Collaboratory.","authors":"Peter Peduzzi, Cynthia Brandt, Christopher L Dearth, James Dziura, Shawn Farrokhi, Steven Z George, Tassos C Kyriakides, Cynthia R Long, Edward J Mascha, Charity G Patterson, Daniel I Rhon, Robert D Kerns","doi":"10.1093/pm/pnae078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Despite careful design of clinical trials, unforeseen disruptions can arise. The PICOTS (Patient population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Timepoints, Setting) framework was used to assess disruptions in pain management research imposed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) within the Pain Management Collaboratory.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Rapid qualitative methods were employed to identify trial disruptions due to COVID-19 in 11 pragmatic clinical trials of nonpharmacological approaches for pain management. The PICOTS framework was applied by investigators of 4 Collaboratory trials selected to cover 4 types of trial designs (individually randomized, stepped-wedge, cluster, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial-SMART). Interviews with the lead investigators of these trials were completed, and findings were presented/discussed on video calls over a 6-month period (March-August 2021) from which themes/lessons learned were identified and consensus reached.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Investigators indicated that patient populations remained generally stable. A major COVID-19 trial disruption was moving from in-person to virtual care affecting delivery of interventions/comparators and outcome assessments. The resultant mixed-mode of care delivery created issues with intervention fidelity posing analytic challenges. COVID-19 also induced ongoing/intermittent delays and other barriers to accessing primary and specialty care at some facilities, creating research capacity issues affecting delivery of experimental interventions requiring sustained, reliable participation of clinical partners. Study designs most affected by COVID-19 were stepped-wedge (intervention/comparator changing over time), cluster (increased site variability inflating intracluster correlation), and SMART (second-stage randomizations disrupted); stratified individually-randomized trials were less vulnerable because of individual-level randomization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PICOTS provides a framework for assessing the impact of trial disruptions in a structured manner. Given the COVID-19 experience, it is important for researchers to consider the potential impact of future trial disruptions during study planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":19744,"journal":{"name":"Pain Medicine","volume":"25 Supplement_1","pages":"S34-S40"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11548861/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnae078","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Despite careful design of clinical trials, unforeseen disruptions can arise. The PICOTS (Patient population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Timepoints, Setting) framework was used to assess disruptions in pain management research imposed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) within the Pain Management Collaboratory.

Methods: Rapid qualitative methods were employed to identify trial disruptions due to COVID-19 in 11 pragmatic clinical trials of nonpharmacological approaches for pain management. The PICOTS framework was applied by investigators of 4 Collaboratory trials selected to cover 4 types of trial designs (individually randomized, stepped-wedge, cluster, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial-SMART). Interviews with the lead investigators of these trials were completed, and findings were presented/discussed on video calls over a 6-month period (March-August 2021) from which themes/lessons learned were identified and consensus reached.

Results: Investigators indicated that patient populations remained generally stable. A major COVID-19 trial disruption was moving from in-person to virtual care affecting delivery of interventions/comparators and outcome assessments. The resultant mixed-mode of care delivery created issues with intervention fidelity posing analytic challenges. COVID-19 also induced ongoing/intermittent delays and other barriers to accessing primary and specialty care at some facilities, creating research capacity issues affecting delivery of experimental interventions requiring sustained, reliable participation of clinical partners. Study designs most affected by COVID-19 were stepped-wedge (intervention/comparator changing over time), cluster (increased site variability inflating intracluster correlation), and SMART (second-stage randomizations disrupted); stratified individually-randomized trials were less vulnerable because of individual-level randomization.

Conclusions: PICOTS provides a framework for assessing the impact of trial disruptions in a structured manner. Given the COVID-19 experience, it is important for researchers to consider the potential impact of future trial disruptions during study planning.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估临床试验中断的 PICOTS 框架的实用性:监测 COVID-19 在疼痛管理合作组织中的影响。
目的:尽管对临床试验进行了精心设计,但仍可能出现不可预见的干扰。我们采用了 PICOTS(患者人群、干预措施、比较者、结果、时间点、环境)框架来评估疼痛管理合作组织内因冠状病毒病 2019(COVID-19)而对疼痛管理研究造成的干扰:采用快速定性方法确定了 11 项疼痛管理非药物疗法实用临床试验中因 COVID-19 导致的试验中断。4 项合作试验的研究人员采用了 PICOTS 框架,这些试验涵盖了 4 种类型的试验设计(单独随机试验、阶梯式楔形试验、群组试验、连续多次分配随机试验-SMART)。对这些试验的主要研究人员进行了访谈,并在 6 个月(2021 年 3 月至 8 月)的视频通话中介绍/讨论了研究结果,从中确定了主题/经验教训,并达成了共识:研究人员表示,患者群体总体保持稳定。COVID-19 试验的一个主要干扰是从面对面护理转变为虚拟护理,这影响了干预/比较指标和结果评估的提供。由此产生的混合护理模式造成了干预忠实性问题,给分析带来了挑战。COVID-19 还导致一些机构在提供初级和专科医疗服务时出现持续/间歇性延误和其他障碍,从而产生了研究能力问题,影响了需要临床合作伙伴持续、可靠参与的实验干预措施的实施。受 COVID-19 影响最大的研究设计是阶梯式楔形设计(干预/比较者随时间而变化)、群组设计(现场变异性增加导致群组内相关性增大)和 SMART 设计(第二阶段随机化中断);分层单独随机试验由于采用了个人层面的随机化,因此受影响较小:PICOTS为以结构化的方式评估试验中断的影响提供了一个框架。鉴于 COVID-19 的经验,研究人员在制定研究计划时必须考虑到未来试验中断的潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Medicine
Pain Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
3.20%
发文量
187
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Pain Medicine is a multi-disciplinary journal dedicated to pain clinicians, educators and researchers with an interest in pain from various medical specialties such as pain medicine, anaesthesiology, family practice, internal medicine, neurology, neurological surgery, orthopaedic spine surgery, psychiatry, and rehabilitation medicine as well as related health disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, nursing, nurse practitioner, physical therapy, and integrative health.
期刊最新文献
A Mendelian randomization study finds no evidence for causal effects of C-reactive protein (CRP) on chronic pain conditions. Pressure Pain Sensitivity is Independent of Structural Pathology in Patients with Subacromial Pain Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Association of Opioid Tapering with Pain-Related Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations, and Primary Care Visits: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Proinflammatory Diet is Associated with Higher Pain, Disease Severity and Biochemical Parameters Associated with Inflammation in Fibromyalgia. Identifying factors associated with persistent opioid use after total joint arthroplasty: A retrospective review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1