Study Design, Data Collection, and Analysis in Implementation Science

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marisa Sklar ◽  
Joanna C. Moullin ◽  
Gregory A. Aarons
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Cluster Randomized Control Trial ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Implementation Studies ◽  
Cluster Randomized

This chapter provides an introduction to study design, data collection, and analysis in implementation science. Although the randomized controlled trial is frequently employed in implementation science, a number of alternatives are relied on for addressing the unique challenges present. Alternatives include the cluster randomized control trial, roll-out designs such as the stepped wedge, cumulative trial, and effectiveness–implementation hybrid designs. Data collection and data analytic techniques must also address the unique challenges present in implementation science. Often, implementation occurs over time, often, across complex, multilevel contexts. Implementation scientists frequently utilize mixed, qualitative, and quantitative methodologies for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. Data represent the outer context of service systems and the inner context of organizations such that the data are often nested and hierarchical in nature. This chapter highlights the previously mentioned topics, particularly as they relate to currently funded implementation studies focused on the cancer control continuum.

scholarly journals Correction to: M1 macrophage dependent-p53 regulates the intracellular survival of mycobacteria

APOPTOSIS ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 56-56
Author(s):  
Yun-Ji Lim ◽  
Junghwan Lee ◽  
Ji-Ae Choi ◽  
Soo-Na Cho ◽  
Sang-Hun Son ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Original Version ◽  
Research Fund ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
M1 Macrophage ◽  
National University ◽  
The Brain

The original version of this article unfortunately contains an error in the acknowledgement section. The text “Brain Korea 21 PLUS Project for Medical Science, Chungnam National University” was omitted by mistake. The correct and complete acknowledgment is given below: Acknowledgments This work was supported by the research fund of Chungnam National University and the Brain Korea 21 PLUS Project for Medical Science, Chungnam National University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

scholarly journals Group versus individual antenatal and first year postpartum care: Study protocol for a multi-country cluster randomized controlled trial in Kenya and Nigeria

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark M. Kabue ◽  
Lindsay Grenier ◽  
Stephanie Suhowatsky ◽  
Jaiyeola Oyetunji ◽  
Emmanuel Ugwa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
First Year ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cluster Randomized

Background: Antenatal care (ANC) in many low- and middle-income countries is under-utilized and of sub-optimal quality. Group ANC (G-ANC) is an intervention designed to improve the experience and provision of ANC for groups of women (cohorts) at similar stages of pregnancy. Methods: A two-arm, two-phase, cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) (non-blinded) is being conducted in Kenya and Nigeria. Public health facilities were matched and randomized to either standard individual ANC (control) or G-ANC (intervention) prior to enrollment. Participants include pregnant women attending first ANC at gestational age <24 weeks, health care providers, and sub-national health managers. Enrollment ended in June 2017 for both countries. In the intervention arm, pregnant women are assigned to cohorts at first ANC visit and receive subsequent care together during five meetings facilitated by a health care provider (Phase 1). After birth, the same cohorts meet four times over 12 months with their babies (Phase 2). Data collection was performed through surveys, clinical data extraction, focus group discussions, and in-depth interviews. Phase 1 data collection ended in January 2018 and Phase 2 concludes in November 2018. Intention-to-treat analysis will be used to evaluate primary outcomes for Phases 1 and 2: health facility delivery and use of a modern method of family planning at 12 months postpartum, respectively. Data analysis and reporting of results will be consistent with norms for cRCTs. General estimating equation models that account for clustering will be employed for primary outcome analyzes. Results: Overall 1,075 and 1,013 pregnant women were enrolled in Nigeria and Kenya, respectively. Final study results will be available in February 2019. Conclusions: This is the first cRCT on G-ANC in Africa. It is among the first to examine the effects of continuing group care through the first year postpartum. Registration: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201706002254227 May 02, 2017

scholarly journals Tackling rare diseases: Clinical trials on chips

2020 ◽  
Vol 245 (13) ◽  
pp. 1155-1162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra H Blumenrath ◽  
Bo Y Lee ◽  
Lucie Low ◽  
Ranjini Prithviraj ◽  
Danilo Tagle
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Rare Disease ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Chip Technology ◽  
Microphysiological Systems

Technological advances with organs-on-chips and induced pluripotent stem cells promise to overcome hurdles associated with developing medical products, especially for rare diseases. Organs-on-chips—bioengineered “microphysiological systems” that mimic human tissue and organ functionality—may overcome clinical trial challenges with real-world patients by offering ways to conduct “clinical trials-on-chips” (CToCs) to inform the design and implementation of rare disease clinical studies in ways not possible with other culture systems. If applied properly, CToCs can substantially impact clinical trial design with regard to anticipated key outcomes, assessment of clinical benefit and risk, safety and tolerability profiles, population stratification, value and efficiency, and scalability. To discuss how tissue chips are best used to move the development of rare disease therapies forward, a working group of experts from industry, academia, and FDA as well as patient representatives addressed questions related to disease setting, test agents for microphysiological systems, study design and feasibility, data collection and use, the benefits and risks associated with this approach, and how to engage stakeholders. While rare diseases with no current therapies were considered the ultimate target, participants cautioned against stepping onto too many unknown territories when using rare disease as initial test beds. Among the disease categories considered ideal for initial CToC tests were well-defined diseases with known clinical outcomes; diseases where tissues on chips can serve as an alternative to risky first-in-human studies, such as in pediatric oncology; and diseases that lend itself to immuno-engineering or genome editing. Participants also considered important challenges, such as hosting the chip technology in-house, the high variability of cell batches and the resulting regulatory concerns, as well as the financial risk associated with the new technology. To make progress in this area and increase confidence with the use of tissue chips, the re-purposing of approved drugs ought to be the very first step. Impact statement Designing and conducting clinical trials are extremely difficult in rare diseases. Adapting tissue chips for rare disease therapy development is pivotal in assuring that treatments are available, especially for severe diseases that are difficult to treat. Thus far, the NCATS-led National Institutes of Health (NIH) Tissue Chip program has focused on deploying the technology towards in vitro tools for safety and efficacy assessments of therapeutics. However, exploring the feasibility and best possible approach to expanding this focus towards the development phase of therapeutics is critical to moving the field of CToCs forward and increasing confidence with the use of tissue chips. The working group of stakeholders and experts convened by NCATS and the Drug Information Association (DIA) addresses important questions related to disease setting, test agents, study design, data collection, benefit/risk, and stakeholder engagement—exploring both current and future best use cases and important prerequisites for progress in this area.

scholarly journals A framework for clinical and translational research in the era of rigor and reproducibility

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Chris Wichman ◽  
Lynette M. Smith ◽  
Fang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Clinical Translation ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Scientific Practices ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Anaplastic Lymphoma ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

Abstract Introduction: Rigor and reproducibility are two important cornerstones of medical and scientific advancement. Clinical and translational research (CTR) contains four phases (T1–T4), involving the translation of basic research to humans, then to clinical settings, practice, and the population, with the ultimate goal of improving public health. Here we provide a framework for rigorous and reproducible CTR. Methods: In this paper we define CTR, provide general and phase-specific recommendations for improving quality and reproducibility of CTR with emphases on study design, data collection and management, analyses and reporting. We present and discuss aspects of rigor and reproducibility following published examples of CTR from the literature, including one example that shows the development path of different treatments that address anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Results: It is particularly important to consider robust and unbiased experimental design and methodology for analysis and interpretation for clinical translation studies to ensure reproducibility before taking the next translational step. There are both commonality and differences along the clinical translation research phases in terms of research focuses and considerations regarding study design, implementation, and data analysis approaches. Conclusions: Sound scientific practices, starting with rigorous study design, transparency, and team efforts can greatly enhance CTR. Investigators from multidisciplinary teams should work along the spectrum of CTR phases, and identify optimal practices for study design, data collection, data analysis, and results reporting to allow timely advances in the relevant field of research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document