CHARTing a Path to Pragmatic Tobacco Treatment Research

Erica Cruvinel, Kimber P. Richter, Catherine Stoney, Sonia Duffy, Jeffrey Fellows, Kathleen F. Harrington, Nancy A. Rigotti, Scott Sherman, Hilary A. Tindle, Theresa I. Shireman, Donna Shelley, Lisa Waiwaiole, Sharon Cummins

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Introduction It is important to consider the degree to which studies are explanatory versus pragmatic to understand the implications of their findings for patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers. Pragmatic trials test the effectiveness of interventions in real-world conditions; explanatory trials test for efficacy under ideal conditions. The Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART) is a network of seven NIH-funded trials designed to identify effective programs that can be widely implemented in routine clinical practice. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of CHART trial study designs was conducted to place each study on the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. After reliability training, six raters independently scored each CHART study according to ten PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) dimensions, which covered participant eligibility criteria, intervention flexibility, practitioner expertise, follow-up procedures, participant compliance, practitioner adherence, and outcome analyses. Means and SDs were calculated for each dimension of each study, with lower scores representing more pragmatic elements. Results were plotted on “spoke and wheel” diagrams. The rating process and analyses were performed in October 2014 to September 2015. Results All seven CHART trials tended toward the pragmatic end of the spectrum, although there was a range from 0.76 (SD=0.23) to 1.85 (SD=0.58). Most studies included some explanatory design elements. Conclusions CHART findings should be relatively applicable to clinical practice. Funders and reviewers could integrate PRECIS criteria into their guidelines to better facilitate pragmatic research. CHART study protocols, coupled with scores reported here, may help readers improve the design of their own pragmatic trials.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)630-636
    Number of pages7
    JournalAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine
    Volume51
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Oct 1 2016

    Fingerprint

    Tobacco
    Research
    Pragmatic Clinical Trials
    Therapeutics
    Compliance
    Cross-Sectional Studies
    Guidelines
    Delivery of Health Care

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Epidemiology
    • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

    Cite this

    Cruvinel, E., Richter, K. P., Stoney, C., Duffy, S., Fellows, J., Harrington, K. F., ... Cummins, S. (2016). CHARTing a Path to Pragmatic Tobacco Treatment Research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51(4), 630-636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.025

    CHARTing a Path to Pragmatic Tobacco Treatment Research. / Cruvinel, Erica; Richter, Kimber P.; Stoney, Catherine; Duffy, Sonia; Fellows, Jeffrey; Harrington, Kathleen F.; Rigotti, Nancy A.; Sherman, Scott; Tindle, Hilary A.; Shireman, Theresa I.; Shelley, Donna; Waiwaiole, Lisa; Cummins, Sharon.

    In: American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 51, No. 4, 01.10.2016, p. 630-636.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Cruvinel, E, Richter, KP, Stoney, C, Duffy, S, Fellows, J, Harrington, KF, Rigotti, NA, Sherman, S, Tindle, HA, Shireman, TI, Shelley, D, Waiwaiole, L & Cummins, S 2016, 'CHARTing a Path to Pragmatic Tobacco Treatment Research', American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 630-636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.025
    Cruvinel E, Richter KP, Stoney C, Duffy S, Fellows J, Harrington KF et al. CHARTing a Path to Pragmatic Tobacco Treatment Research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2016 Oct 1;51(4):630-636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.025
    Cruvinel, Erica ; Richter, Kimber P. ; Stoney, Catherine ; Duffy, Sonia ; Fellows, Jeffrey ; Harrington, Kathleen F. ; Rigotti, Nancy A. ; Sherman, Scott ; Tindle, Hilary A. ; Shireman, Theresa I. ; Shelley, Donna ; Waiwaiole, Lisa ; Cummins, Sharon. / CHARTing a Path to Pragmatic Tobacco Treatment Research. In: American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 51, No. 4. pp. 630-636.
    @article{46bac332ca7e4bf48cffd907c3a1973a,
    title = "CHARTing a Path to Pragmatic Tobacco Treatment Research",
    abstract = "Introduction It is important to consider the degree to which studies are explanatory versus pragmatic to understand the implications of their findings for patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers. Pragmatic trials test the effectiveness of interventions in real-world conditions; explanatory trials test for efficacy under ideal conditions. The Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART) is a network of seven NIH-funded trials designed to identify effective programs that can be widely implemented in routine clinical practice. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of CHART trial study designs was conducted to place each study on the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. After reliability training, six raters independently scored each CHART study according to ten PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) dimensions, which covered participant eligibility criteria, intervention flexibility, practitioner expertise, follow-up procedures, participant compliance, practitioner adherence, and outcome analyses. Means and SDs were calculated for each dimension of each study, with lower scores representing more pragmatic elements. Results were plotted on “spoke and wheel” diagrams. The rating process and analyses were performed in October 2014 to September 2015. Results All seven CHART trials tended toward the pragmatic end of the spectrum, although there was a range from 0.76 (SD=0.23) to 1.85 (SD=0.58). Most studies included some explanatory design elements. Conclusions CHART findings should be relatively applicable to clinical practice. Funders and reviewers could integrate PRECIS criteria into their guidelines to better facilitate pragmatic research. CHART study protocols, coupled with scores reported here, may help readers improve the design of their own pragmatic trials.",
    author = "Erica Cruvinel and Richter, {Kimber P.} and Catherine Stoney and Sonia Duffy and Jeffrey Fellows and Harrington, {Kathleen F.} and Rigotti, {Nancy A.} and Scott Sherman and Tindle, {Hilary A.} and Shireman, {Theresa I.} and Donna Shelley and Lisa Waiwaiole and Sharon Cummins",
    year = "2016",
    month = "10",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.025",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "51",
    pages = "630--636",
    journal = "American Journal of Preventive Medicine",
    issn = "0749-3797",
    publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
    number = "4",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - CHARTing a Path to Pragmatic Tobacco Treatment Research

    AU - Cruvinel, Erica

    AU - Richter, Kimber P.

    AU - Stoney, Catherine

    AU - Duffy, Sonia

    AU - Fellows, Jeffrey

    AU - Harrington, Kathleen F.

    AU - Rigotti, Nancy A.

    AU - Sherman, Scott

    AU - Tindle, Hilary A.

    AU - Shireman, Theresa I.

    AU - Shelley, Donna

    AU - Waiwaiole, Lisa

    AU - Cummins, Sharon

    PY - 2016/10/1

    Y1 - 2016/10/1

    N2 - Introduction It is important to consider the degree to which studies are explanatory versus pragmatic to understand the implications of their findings for patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers. Pragmatic trials test the effectiveness of interventions in real-world conditions; explanatory trials test for efficacy under ideal conditions. The Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART) is a network of seven NIH-funded trials designed to identify effective programs that can be widely implemented in routine clinical practice. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of CHART trial study designs was conducted to place each study on the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. After reliability training, six raters independently scored each CHART study according to ten PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) dimensions, which covered participant eligibility criteria, intervention flexibility, practitioner expertise, follow-up procedures, participant compliance, practitioner adherence, and outcome analyses. Means and SDs were calculated for each dimension of each study, with lower scores representing more pragmatic elements. Results were plotted on “spoke and wheel” diagrams. The rating process and analyses were performed in October 2014 to September 2015. Results All seven CHART trials tended toward the pragmatic end of the spectrum, although there was a range from 0.76 (SD=0.23) to 1.85 (SD=0.58). Most studies included some explanatory design elements. Conclusions CHART findings should be relatively applicable to clinical practice. Funders and reviewers could integrate PRECIS criteria into their guidelines to better facilitate pragmatic research. CHART study protocols, coupled with scores reported here, may help readers improve the design of their own pragmatic trials.

    AB - Introduction It is important to consider the degree to which studies are explanatory versus pragmatic to understand the implications of their findings for patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers. Pragmatic trials test the effectiveness of interventions in real-world conditions; explanatory trials test for efficacy under ideal conditions. The Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART) is a network of seven NIH-funded trials designed to identify effective programs that can be widely implemented in routine clinical practice. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of CHART trial study designs was conducted to place each study on the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. After reliability training, six raters independently scored each CHART study according to ten PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) dimensions, which covered participant eligibility criteria, intervention flexibility, practitioner expertise, follow-up procedures, participant compliance, practitioner adherence, and outcome analyses. Means and SDs were calculated for each dimension of each study, with lower scores representing more pragmatic elements. Results were plotted on “spoke and wheel” diagrams. The rating process and analyses were performed in October 2014 to September 2015. Results All seven CHART trials tended toward the pragmatic end of the spectrum, although there was a range from 0.76 (SD=0.23) to 1.85 (SD=0.58). Most studies included some explanatory design elements. Conclusions CHART findings should be relatively applicable to clinical practice. Funders and reviewers could integrate PRECIS criteria into their guidelines to better facilitate pragmatic research. CHART study protocols, coupled with scores reported here, may help readers improve the design of their own pragmatic trials.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991819417&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84991819417&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.025

    DO - 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.025

    M3 - Article

    VL - 51

    SP - 630

    EP - 636

    JO - American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    JF - American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    SN - 0749-3797

    IS - 4

    ER -