20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Challenges in the design, planning and implementation of trials evaluating group interventions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Group interventions are interventions delivered to groups of people rather than to individuals and are used in healthcare for mental health recovery, behaviour change, peer support, self-management and/or health education. Evaluating group interventions in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) presents trialists with a set of practical problems, which are not present in RCTs of one-to-one interventions and which may not be immediately obvious.

          Methods

          Case-based approach summarising Sheffield trials unit’s experience in the design and implementation of five group interventions. We reviewed participant recruitment and attrition, facilitator training and attrition, attendance at the group sessions, group size and fidelity aspects across five RCTs.

          Results

          Median recruitment across the five trials was 3.2 (range 1.7–21.0) participants per site per month. Group intervention trials involve a delay in starting the intervention for some participants, until sufficient numbers are available to start a group. There was no evidence that the timing of consent, relative to randomisation, affected post-randomisation attrition which was a matter of concern for all trial teams. Group facilitator attrition was common in studies where facilitators were employed by the health system rather than the by the grant holder and led to the early closure of one trial; research sites responded by training ‘back-up’ and new facilitators. Trials specified that participants had to attend a median of 62.5% (range 16.7%–80%) of sessions, in order to receive a ‘therapeutic dose’; a median of 76.7% (range 42.9%–97.8%) received a therapeutic dose. Across the five trials, 75.3% of all sessions went ahead without the pre-specified ideal group size. A variety of methods were used to assess the fidelity of group interventions at a group and individual level across the five trials.

          Conclusion

          This is the first paper to provide an empirical basis for planning group intervention trials. Investigators should expect delays/difficulties in recruiting groups of the optimal size, plan for both facilitator and participant attrition, and consider how group attendance and group size affects treatment fidelity.

          Trial registration

          ISRCTN17993825 registered on 11/10/2016, ISRCTN28645428 registered on 11/04/2012, ISRCTN61215213 registered on 11/05/2011, ISRCTN67209155 registered on 22/03/2012, ISRCTN19447796 registered on 20/03/2014.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward.

            Proper randomisation means little if investigators cannot include all randomised participants in the primary analysis. Participants might ignore follow-up, leave town, or take aspartame when instructed to take aspirin. Exclusions before randomisation do not bias the treatment comparison, but they can hurt generalisability. Eligibility criteria for a trial should be clear, specific, and applied before randomisation. Readers should assess whether any of the criteria make the trial sample atypical or unrepresentative of the people in which they are interested. In principle, assessment of exclusions after randomisation is simple: none are allowed. For the primary analysis, all participants enrolled should be included and analysed as part of the original group assigned (an intent-to-treat analysis). In reality, however, losses frequently occur. Investigators should, therefore, commit adequate resources to develop and implement procedures to maximise retention of participants. Moreover, researchers should provide clear, explicit information on the progress of all randomised participants through the trial by use of, for instance, a trial profile. Investigators can also do secondary analyses on, for instance, per-protocol or as-treated participants. Such analyses should be described as secondary and non-randomised comparisons. Mishandling of exclusions causes serious methodological difficulties. Unfortunately, some explanations for mishandling exclusions intuitively appeal to readers, disguising the seriousness of the issues. Creative mismanagement of exclusions can undermine trial validity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Group based training for self-management strategies in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

              It has been recognised that adoption of self-management skills by the person with diabetes is necessary in order to manage their diabetes. However, the most effective method for delivering education and teaching self-management skills is unclear. To assess the effects of group-based, patient-centred training on clinical, lifestyle and psychosocial outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes. Studies were obtained from computerised searches of multiple electronic bibliographic databases, supplemented by hand searches of reference lists of articles, conference proceedings and consultation with experts in the field. Date of last search was February 2003. Randomised controlled and controlled clinical trials which evaluated group-based education programmes for adults with type 2 diabetes compared with routine treatment, waiting list control or no intervention. Studies were only included if the length of follow-up was six months or more and the intervention was at least one session with the minimum of six participants. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis was performed if there were enough homogeneous studies reporting an outcome at either four to six months, 12-14 months, or two years, otherwise the studies were summarised in a descriptive manner. Fourteen publications describing 11 studies were included involving 1532 participants. The results of the meta-analyses in favour of group-based diabetes education programmes were reduced glycated haemoglobin at four to six months (1.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 1.9; P < 0.00001), at 12-14 months (0.8%; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.0; P < 0.00001) and two years (1.0%; 95% CI 0.5 to 1.4; P < 0.00001); reduced fasting blood glucose levels at 12 months (1.2 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.6; P < 0.00001); reduced body weight at 12-14 months (1.6 Kg; 95% CI 0.3 to 3.0; P = 0.02); improved diabetes knowledge at 12-14 months (SMD 1.0; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.2; P < 0.00001) and reduced systolic blood pressure at four to six months (5 mmHg: 95% CI 1 to 10; P = 0.01). There was also a reduced need for diabetes medication (odds ratio 11.8, 95% CI 5.2 to 26.9; P < 0.00001; RD = 0.2; NNT = 5). Therefore, for every five patients attending a group-based education programme we could expect one patient to reduce diabetes medication. Group-based training for self-management strategies in people with type 2 diabetes is effective by improving fasting blood glucose levels, glycated haemoglobin and diabetes knowledge and reducing systolic blood pressure levels, body weight and the requirement for diabetes medication.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                c.e.biggs@sheffield.ac.uk
                d.hind@sheffield.ac.uk
                r.gossage-worrall@sheffield.ac.uk
                kirsty.sprange@nottingham.ac.uk
                d.a.white@sheffield.ac.uk
                jessica.wright@sheffield.ac.uk
                r.chatters@sheffield.ac.uk
                katherine.berry@manchester.ac.uk
                d.papaioannou@sheffield.ac.uk
                m.bradburn@sheffield.ac.uk
                s.j.walters@sheffield.ac.uk
                c.l.cooper@sheffield.ac.uk
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                29 January 2020
                29 January 2020
                2020
                : 21
                : 116
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9262, GRID grid.11835.3e, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) University of Sheffield, ; Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8868, GRID grid.4563.4, Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit (NCTU), , University of Nottingham, ; Nottingham, UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000000121662407, GRID grid.5379.8, School of Health Sciences, , University of Manchester, ; Manchester, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4468-7417
                Article
                3807
                10.1186/s13063-019-3807-4
                6990578
                31996259
                f3e435ae-2373-4f13-8245-9e87ab274761
                © The Author(s). 2020

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 11 July 2019
                : 17 October 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000664, Health Technology Assessment Programme;
                Award ID: 08/107/01
                Award ID: 12/28/05
                Award ID: 14/140/80
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001921, Public Health Research Programme;
                Award ID: 09-3004-01
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265, Medical Research Council;
                Award ID: G1001406
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Medicine
                group interventions,therapy groups,treatment fidelity,implementation,intervention design,clinical trials

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content47

                Cited by18

                Most referenced authors981