BACKGROUND: Neurological disorders account for a large and increasing proportion of the global burden of disease. Therefore, it is important to strengthen the management of neurologic care, particularly in rural areas. The use of tele-neurology in primary care in rural areas is internationally considered to have the potential to increase access to health care services and improve the quality of care in these underserved areas. NeTKoH aims to address the existing knowledge gap regarding the effects of a tele-neurologic intervention in primary care under real-world conditions in a rural area in Germany.
METHODS: NeTKoH is a cluster-randomized controlled trial with a stepped-wedge design involving 33 outpatient general practitioner\'s (GP) offices (clusters) in a rural area in Northeast Germany. During 11 predetermined steps, all clusters are randomized before they cross over into groups from the control to the intervention arm. The targeted sample size is 1,089 patients with neurologic symptoms that are continuously being recruited. In the intervention arm, tele-neurologic consultations will be provided via a face-to-face video conferencing system with a neurologic expert at a university hospital. The control arm will receive usual care. The primary outcome is the proportion of neurologic problems being solved at the GP\'s office. Secondary outcomes will comprise hospital stays and days, time until neurologic specialist appointments and diagnostics, patients\' health status and quality of life, outpatient and inpatient referrals. A concurrent observational study, together with a process, implementation, and health economic evaluation, will also be conducted.
CONCLUSIONS: Using a stepped-wedge cluster design in a real-life situation can help with logistic challenges and enhance the motivation of the participating GPs, as all, at some point, will be in the intervention phase. With the additional implementation evaluation pertaining to external validity, an observational study, and a health economic evaluation, NeTKoH will be able to provide an extensive evaluation for health policy decision-makers regarding the uptake into standard care.
BACKGROUND: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00024492). Date registered: September 28, 2021. Date and protocol version: June 2023, version 1.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial evidence on the effect of palliative care models in reducing aggressive end-of-life care is inconclusive. We previously reported on an integrated inpatient palliative care and medical oncology co-rounding model that significantly reduced hospital bed-days and postulate additional effect on reducing care aggressiveness.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of a co-rounding model vs usual care in reducing receipt of aggressive treatment at end-of-life.
METHODS: Secondary analysis of an open-label stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial comparing two integrated palliative care models within the inpatient oncology setting. The co-rounding model involved pooling specialist palliative care and oncology into one team with daily review of admission issues, while usual care constituted discretionary specialist palliative care referrals by the oncology team. We compared odds of receiving aggressive care at end-of-life: acute healthcare utilization in last 30 days of life, death in hospital, and cancer treatment in last 14 days of life between patients in two trial arms.
RESULTS: 2145 patients were included in the analysis, and 1803 patients died by 4th April 2021. Median overall survival was 4.90 (4.07 - 5.72) months in co-rounding and 3.75 (3.22 - 4.21) months in usual care, with no difference in survival (P = .12). We found no significant differences between both models with respect to receipt of aggressive care at end-of-life. (Odds Ratio .67 - 1.27; all P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The co-rounding model within an inpatient setting did not reduce aggressiveness of care at end-of-life. This could be due in part to the overall focus on resolving episodic admission issues.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a structured goal-setting and tailored follow-up rehabilitation intervention with existing rehabilitation in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.
METHODS: A pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.
METHODS: Eight rehabilitation centers in secondary healthcare, Norway.
METHODS: A total of 374 adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases were included in either the experimental (168) or the control group (206).
METHODS: A new rehabilitation intervention which comprised structured goal setting, action planning, motivational interviewing, digital self-monitoring of goal progress, and individual follow-up support after discharge according to patients\' needs and available resources in primary healthcare (the BRIDGE-intervention), was compared to usual care.
METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes were collected electronically on admission and discharge from rehabilitation, and after 2, 7, and 12 months. The primary outcome was patients\' goal attainment measured by the Patient Specific Functional Scale (0-10, 10 best) at 7 months. Secondary outcome measures included physical function (30-s Sit-To-Stand test), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L-index), and self-assessed health (EQ-VAS). The main statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis using linear mixed models.
RESULTS: No significant treatment effects of the BRIDGE-intervention were found for either primary (Patient Specific Functional Scale mean difference 0.1 [95% CI: -0.5, 0.8], p = 0.70), or secondary outcomes 7 months after rehabilitation.
CONCLUSIONS: The BRIDGE-intervention was not shown to be more effective than existing rehabilitation for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. There is still a need for more knowledge about factors that can improve the quality, continuity, and long-term health effects of rehabilitation for this patient group.

OBJECTIVE: To explore challenges in recruitment and intervention implementation in recent stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs).
METHODS: We searched PubMed to identify primary reports of SW-CRTs (2019-2020). Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data from each report. A recruitment challenge was defined as a planned number of clusters or participants not achieved or any reported changes made to the design to address recruitment difficulties. An implementation challenge was defined as early, late, or no implementation of the intervention in at least one cluster.
RESULTS: Of 55 SW-CRTs, 18 (33%) had a recruitment challenge, 23 (42%) had none, and for 14 (26%) it was impossible to judge. At least one implementation challenge was present in 24 (44%), eight (15%) had none, and for 23 (42%) it was impossible to judge. Of the 35 (64%) trials with recruitment or implementation challenges, 18 (72%) had one or more modifications of their design, most often a modification of the trial duration.
CONCLUSIONS: Investigators must be aware of the risks of recruitment or implementation challenges when considering the use of an SW-CRT design. Mitigating strategies should be adopted when planning the trial. More transparent reporting of planned and actual design features is required.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, the main challenge of transplantation is the improvement of long-term care, aiming at reducing treatment-related complications and at decreasing rejection rates. Patients\' adherence to both treatment and hygienic-dietary measures is mandatory to achieve these objectives. Adherence to immunosuppressive drugs is estimated to be only 70%. We hypothesized that the implementation of a personalized pharmaceutical plan (PPP) would increase adherence and therefore graft survival.
METHODS: This study is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial with transplantation units defining clusters. Twelve clusters from 10 university hospitals were recruited. All centres started on the same day in the control phase. Every 7 weeks, one centre will switch to the intervention phase and remain there until the end of inclusions. We plan to recruit 1716 kidney and/or liver transplant patients. The intervention phase consists in setting up the PPP: development of the patient\'s hospital and community pharmaceutical follow-up. In the hospital, the pharmacist will carry out drug reconciliation upon admission, daily pharmaceutical follow-up of prescriptions and pharmaceutical interviews with the patient in order to explain the modalities of taking immunosuppressive drugs and hygienic-dietary measures. After hospitalization, during the post-transplantation year, pharmaceutical meetings will take place, prior to medical consultations in order to check the patient\'s understanding of the prescription, his adherence, to remind them of hygienic-dietary measures and to look for adverse effects. The hospital pharmacist will also be in charge of establishing a close link with the community pharmacist (CP) and general practitioner, especially providing discharge medication reconciliation, an e-learning and a checklist. Moreover, prior to each pharmaceutical consultation, the hospital pharmacist will contact the CP to discuss patient adherence. The primary outcome is adherence to immunosuppressive treatments 1 year post-transplantation assessed by using the BAASIS questionnaire and the health insurance data from the national health data system. A medico-economic study will measure the efficiency of this plan.
CONCLUSIONS: GRePH aims to increase adherence of liver and/or kidney transplant patients to their immunosuppressive therapies in order to reduce transplant rejections. To this end, a new clinical pharmacy model, the PPP, will be set up in 10 university hospitals.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04295928 . Registered on 5 March 2020.

Power calculation for stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) presents unique challenges, beyond those of standard parallel cluster randomized trials, due to the need to consider temporal within cluster correlations and background period effects. To date, power calculation methods specific to SW-CRTs have primarily been developed under a linear model. When the outcome is binary, the use of a linear model corresponds to assessing a prevalence difference; yet trial analysis often employs a nonlinear link function. We propose power calculation methods for cross-sectional SW-CRTs under a logistic model fitted by generalized estimating equations. Firstly, under an exchangeable correlation structure, we show the power based on a logistic model is lower than that from assuming a linear model in the absence of period effects. We then evaluate the impact of background prevalence changes over time on power. To allow the correlation among outcomes in the same cluster to change over time and with treatment status, we generalize the methods to more complex correlation structures. Our simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed power calculation methods perform well with the model-based variance under the true correlation structure and reveal that a working independence structure can result in substantial efficiency loss, while a working exchangeable structure performs well even when the underlying correlation structure deviates from exchangeable. An extension to our methods accounts for variable cluster sizes and reveals that unequal cluster sizes have a modest impact on power. We illustrate the approaches by application to a quality of care improvement trial for acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Costs of care are important to patients making cancer treatment decisions, but clinicians often do not feel prepared to discuss treatment costs. We aim to (1) assess the impact of a conversation-based decision aid (Option Grid) containing cost information about slow-growing prostate cancer management options, combined with urologic surgeon training, on the frequency and quality of patient-urologic surgeon cost conversations, and (2) examine the impact of the decision aid and surgeon training on decision quality.
METHODS: We will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in outpatient urology practices affiliated with a large academic medical center in the USA. We will randomize five urologic surgeons to four intervention sequences and enroll their patients with a first-time diagnosis of slow-growing prostate cancer independently at each period. Primary outcomes include frequency of cost conversations, initiator of cost conversations, and whether or not a referral is made to address costs. These outcomes will be collected by patient report (post-visit survey) and by observation (audio-recorded clinic visits) with consent. Other outcomes include the following: patient-reported decisional conflict post-visit and at 3-month follow-up, decision regret at 3-month follow-up, shared decision-making post-visit, communication post-visit, and financial toxicity post-visit and at 3-month follow-up; clinician-reported attitudes about shared decision-making before and after the study, and feasibility of sustained intervention use. We will use hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient-level outcomes, including urologic surgeon as a random effect to account for clustering of patient participants.
CONCLUSIONS: This study evaluates a two-part intervention to improve cost discussions between urologic surgeons and patients when deciding how to manage slow-growing prostate cancer. Establishing the effectiveness of the strategy under study will allow for its replication in other clinical decision contexts.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397016 . Registered on 21 May 2020.

To test the effectiveness of a comprehensive team-based intervention to improve human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination completion rates and reduce missed opportunities to vaccinate in rural Oregon.
Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.
Forty family physicians and pediatricians who are members of the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network.
Tailored to individual practice needs, components will include (1) practice facilitation with clinicians, nurses, front office staff, and others who have patient contact to redesign patient care and communication strategies to optimize HPV vaccine series completion; (2) workflow mapping adapted to practice context to support HPV vaccine delivery; (3) a practice improvement model designed to firmly establish reminder and recall systems and then standing orders; (4) education for patients and parents that underscores HPV vaccination is safe, effective, and an important approach for reducing cancer risk; and (5) partnering with community organizations to plan and implement a social marketing campaign on HPV vaccination.
Initiation and completion of the HPV vaccine series as well as reduction in rates of missed opportunities to vaccinate derived from Oregon Immunization Program data.
ClinicalTrials.govPRS, NCT03604393 : .Trial was registered on July 11, 2018. The first participant was enrolled on September 11, 2018.

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for the stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) is a recently published reporting guideline for SW-CRTs. We assess the quality of reporting of a recent sample of SW-CRTs.
Quality of reporting was asssessed according to the 26 items in the new guideline using a novel crowd sourcing methodology conducted independently and in duplicate, with random assignment, by 50 reviewers. We assessed reliability of the quality assessments, proposing this as a novel way to assess robustness of items in reporting guidelines.
Several items were well reported. Some items were very poorly reported, including several items that have unique requirements for the SW-CRT, such as the rationale for use of the design, description of the design, identification and recruitment of participants within clusters, and concealment of cluster allocation (not reported in more than 50% of the reports). Agreement across items was moderate (median percentage agreement was 76% [IQR 64 to 86]). Agreement was low for several items including the description of the trial design and why trial ended or stopped for example.
When reporting SW-CRTs, authors should pay particular attention to ensure clear reporting on the exact format of the design with justification, as well as how clusters and individuals were identified for inclusion in the study, and whether this was done before or after randomization of the clusters, which are crucial for risk of bias assessments. Some items, including why the trial ended, might either not be relevant to SW-CRTs or might be unclearly described in the statement.

To determine how often stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trials reach their planned sample size, and what reasons are reported for choosing a stepped-wedge trial design.
We conducted a PubMed literature search (period 2012 to 2017) and included articles describing the results of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial. We calculated the percentage of studies reaching their prespecified number of participants and clusters, and we summarized the reasons for choosing the stepped-wedge trial design as well as difficulties during enrollment.
Forty-six individual stepped-wedge studies from a total of 53 articles were included in our review. Of the 35 studies, for which recruitment rate could be calculated, 69% recruited their planned number of participants, with 80% having recruited the planned number of clusters. Ethical reasons were the most common motivation for choosing the stepped-wedge trial design. Most important difficulties during study conduct were dropout of clusters and delayed implementation of the intervention.
About half of recently published stepped-wedge trials reached their planned sample size indicating that recruitment is also a major problem in these trials. Still, the stepped-wedge trial design can yield practical, ethical, and methodological advantages.