77
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: a review of the statistical methodology used and available

      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

          Previous reviews have focussed on the rationale for employing the stepped wedge design (SWD), the areas of research to which the design has been applied and the general characteristics of the design. However these did not focus on the statistical methods nor addressed the appropriateness of sample size methods used.This was a review of the literature of the statistical methodology used in stepped wedge cluster randomised trials.

          Methods

          Literature Review. The Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched for methodological guides and RCTs which employed the stepped wedge design.

          Results

          This review identified 102 trials which employed the stepped wedge design compared to 37 from the most recent review by Beard et al. 2015. Forty six trials were cohort designs and 45 % ( n = 46) had fewer than 10 clusters. Of the 42 articles discussing the design methodology 10 covered analysis and seven covered sample size. For cohort stepped wedge designs there was only one paper considering analysis and one considering sample size methods. Most trials employed either a GEE or mixed model approach to analysis ( n = 77) but only 22 trials (22 %) estimated sample size in a way which accounted for the stepped wedge design that was subsequently used.

          Conclusions

          Many studies which employ the stepped wedge design have few clusters but use methods of analysis which may require more clusters for unbiased and efficient intervention effect estimates. There is the need for research on the minimum number of clusters required for both types of stepped wedge design. Researchers should distinguish in the sample size calculation between cohort and cross sectional stepped wedge designs. Further research is needed on the effect of adjusting for the potential confounding of time on the study power.

          Related collections

          Most cited references160

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

          Systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials shows that design is particularly used to evaluate interventions during routine implementation.

          To describe the application of the stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial (CRCT) design. Systematic review. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, and Current Controlled Trials Register for articles published up to January 2010. Stepped wedge CRCTs from all fields of research were included. Two authors independently reviewed and extracted data from the studies. Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Motivations for using the design included ethical, logistical, financial, social, and political acceptability and methodological reasons. Most studies were evaluating an intervention during routine implementation. For most of the included studies, there was also a belief or empirical evidence suggesting that the intervention would do more good than harm. There was variation in data analysis methods and insufficient quality of reporting. The stepped wedge CRCT design has been mainly used for evaluating interventions during routine implementation, particularly for interventions that have been shown to be effective in more controlled research settings, or where there is lack of evidence of effectiveness but there is a strong belief that they will do more good than harm. There is need for consistent data analysis and reporting. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Stepped wedge designs could reduce the required sample size in cluster randomized trials.

            The stepped wedge design is increasingly being used in cluster randomized trials (CRTs). However, there is not much information available about the design and analysis strategies for these kinds of trials. Approaches to sample size and power calculations have been provided, but a simple sample size formula is lacking. Therefore, our aim is to provide a sample size formula for cluster randomized stepped wedge designs. We derived a design effect (sample size correction factor) that can be used to estimate the required sample size for stepped wedge designs. Furthermore, we compared the required sample size for the stepped wedge design with a parallel group and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) design. Our formula corrects for clustering as well as for the design. Apart from the cluster size and intracluster correlation, the design effect depends on choices of the number of steps, the number of baseline measurements, and the number of measurements between steps. The stepped wedge design requires a substantial smaller sample size than a parallel group and ANCOVA design. For CRTs, the stepped wedge design is far more efficient than the parallel group and ANCOVA design in terms of sample size. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Role of cash in conditional cash transfer programmes for child health, growth, and development: an analysis of Mexico's Oportunidades.

              Many governments have implemented conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes with the goal of improving options for poor families through interventions in health, nutrition, and education. Families enrolled in CCT programmes receive cash in exchange for complying with certain conditions: preventive health requirements and nutrition supplementation, education, and monitoring designed to improve health outcomes and promote positive behaviour change. Our aim was to disaggregate the effects of cash transfer from those of other programme components. In an intervention that began in 1998 in Mexico, low-income communities (n=506) were randomly assigned to be enrolled in a CCT programme (Oportunidades, formerly Progresa) immediately or 18 months later. In 2003, children (n=2449) aged 24-68 months who had been enrolled in the programme their entire lives were assessed for a wide variety of outcomes. We used linear and logistic regression to determine the effect size for each outcome that is associated with a doubling of cash transfers while controlling for a wide range of covariates, including measures of household socioeconomic status. A doubling of cash transfers was associated with higher height-for-age Z score (beta 0.20, 95% CI 0.09-0.30; p<0.0001), lower prevalence of stunting (-0.10, -0.16 to -0.05; p<0.0001), lower body-mass index for age percentile (-2.85, -5.54 to -0.15; p=0.04), and lower prevalence of being overweight (-0.08, -0.13 to -0.03; p=0.001). A doubling of cash transfers was also associated with children doing better on a scale of motor development, three scales of cognitive development, and with receptive language. Our results suggest that the cash transfer component of Oportunidades is associated with better outcomes in child health, growth, and development.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +61 2 4042 0503 , daniel.barker@newcastle.edu.au
                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2288
                6 June 2016
                6 June 2016
                2016
                : 16
                : 69
                Affiliations
                [ ]School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health, CCEB, HMRI Building, Level 4 West, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308 Australia
                [ ]National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200 Australia
                [ ]Medical Statistics Group, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
                Article
                176
                10.1186/s12874-016-0176-5
                4895892
                27267471
                f6e3cf28-f5b1-4a97-a40e-de54e617543f
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis 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
                : 21 January 2016
                : 28 May 2016
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Medicine
                stepped wedge,cluster randomised,statistical methodology
                Medicine
                stepped wedge, cluster randomised, statistical methodology

                Comments

                Comment on this article