Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

The need to balance merits and limitations from different disciplines when considering the stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design

Authors: Esther de Hoop, Ingeborg van der Tweel, Rieke van der Graaf, Karel G. M. Moons, Johannes J. M. van Delden, Johannes B. Reitsma, Hendrik Koffijberg

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Various papers have addressed pros and cons of the stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design (SWD). However, some issues have not or only limitedly been addressed. Our aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of all merits and limitations of the SWD to assist researchers, reviewers and medical ethics committees when deciding on the appropriateness of the SWD for a particular study.

Methods

We performed an initial search to identify articles with a methodological focus on the SWD, and categorized and discussed all reported advantages and disadvantages of the SWD. Additional aspects were identified during multidisciplinary meetings in which ethicists, biostatisticians, clinical epidemiologists and health economists participated. All aspects of the SWD were compared to the parallel group cluster randomized design. We categorized the merits and limitations of the SWD to distinct phases in the design and conduct of such studies, highlighting that their impact may vary depending on the context of the study or that benefits may be offset by drawbacks across study phases. Furthermore, a real-life illustration is provided.

Results

New aspects are identified within all disciplines. Examples of newly identified aspects of an SWD are: the possibility to measure a treatment effect in each cluster to examine the (in)consistency in effects across clusters, the detrimental effect of lower than expected inclusion rates, deviation from the ordinary informed consent process and the question whether studies using the SWD are likely to have sufficient social value. Discussions are provided on e.g. clinical equipoise, social value, health economical decision making, number of study arms, and interim analyses.

Conclusions

Deciding on the use of the SWD involves aspects and considerations from different disciplines not all of which have been discussed before. Pros and cons of this design should be balanced in comparison to other feasible design options as to choose the optimal design for a particular intervention study.
Literature
1.
Donner A, Klar N. Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. 1st ed. London: Arnold; 2000.
2.
Rietbergen C, Moerbeek M. The design of cluster randomized crossover trials. J Educ Behav Stat. 2011;36:472–90.CrossRef
3.
4.
Hawkins NG, Sanson-Fisher RW, Shakeshaft A, D’Este C, Green LW. The multiple baseline design for evaluating population-based research. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33:162–8.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Rhoda DA, Murray DM, Andridge RR, Pennell ML, Hade EM. Studies with staggered starts: multiple baseline designs and group-randomized trials. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:2164–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
7.
Sanson-Fisher RW, D’Este CA, Carey ML, Noble N, Paul CL. Evaluation of systems-oriented public health interventions: alternative research designs. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:9–27.CrossRefPubMed
8.
The Gambia Hepatitis Study Group. The Gambia hepatitis intervention study. Cancer Res. 1987;47:5782–7.
9.
Hussey MA, Hughes JP. Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:182–91.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Ukoumunne O, Gulliford M, Chinn S, Sterne J, Burney P. Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:98.
11.
Brown C, Hofer T, Johal A, Thomson R, Nicholl J, Franklin BD, et al. An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 2. Study design. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17:163–9.
12.
Mdege ND, Man MS, Brown CA T n, Torgerson DJ. Systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials shows that design is particularly used to evaluate interventions during routine implementation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:936–48.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zhan Z, van den Heuvel ER, Doornbos PM, Burger H, Verberne CJ, Wiggers T, et al. Strengths and weaknesses of a stepped wedge cluster randomized design: its application in a colorectal cancer follow-up study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:454–61.
14.
Mdege ND, Man MS, Taylor nee Brown CA, Torgerson DJ. There are some circumstances where the stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial is preferable to the alternative: no randomized trial at all. Response to the commentary by Kotz and colleagues. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:1253–4.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Br Med J. 2008;337:a1655.CrossRef
16.
Keriel-Gascou M, Buchet-Poyau K, Rabilloud M, Duclos A, Colin C. A stepped wedge cluster randomized trial is preferable for assessing complex health interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:831–3.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Mdege ND, Kanaan M. Response to Keriel-Gascou et al. Addressing assumptions on the stepped wedge randomized trial design. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:833–4.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kotz D, Spigt M, Arts IC, Crutzen R, Viechtbauer W. Use of the stepped wedge design cannot be recommended: a critical appraisal and comparison with the classic cluster randomized controlled trial design. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:1249–52.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Hemming K, Girling A, Martin J, Bond SJ. Stepped wedge cluster randomized trials are efficient and provide a method of evaluation without which some interventions would not be evaluated. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1058–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Kotz D, Spigt M, Arts IC, Crutzen R, Viechtbauer W. The stepped wedge design does not inherently have more power than a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1059–60.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Viechtbauer W, Kotz D, Spigt M, Arts IC, Crutzen R. Response to Keriel-Gascou et al.: Higher efficiency and other alleged advantages are not inherent to the stepped wedge design. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:834–6.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Kotz D, Spigt M, Arts IC, Crutzen R, Viechtbauer W. Researchers should convince policy makers to perform a classic cluster randomized controlled trial instead of a stepped wedge design when an intervention is rolled out. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:1255–6.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Hutson AD, Reid ME. The utility of partial cross-over designs in early phase randomized prevention trials. Control Clin Trials. 2004;25:493–501.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Macklin R, Shepherd L. Informed consent and standard of care: what must be disclosed. Am J Bioeth. 2013;13:9–13.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
28.
Claxton K, Palmer S, Longworth L, Bojke L, Griffin S, McKenna C, et al. Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1–323.
29.
Eckermann S, Willan AR. Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. Health Econ. 2007;16:195–209.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1055–68.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Claxton K, Griffin S, Koffijberg H, McKenna C. Expected health benefits of additional evidence: principles, methods and applications. York: Center for Health Economics, University of York; 2013.
32.
de Smet AM, Kluytmans JA, Cooper BS, Mascini EM, Benus RF, van der Werf TS, et al. Decontamination of the digestive tract and oropharynx in ICU patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:20–31.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Huis A, Schoonhoven L, Grol R, Borm G, Adang E, Hulscher M, et al. Helping hands: a cluster randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of two different strategies for promoting hand hygiene in hospital nurses. Implement Sci. 2011;6:101.
34.
de Hoop E, Woertman W, Teerenstra S. The stepped wedge cluster randomized trial always requires fewer clusters but not always fewer measurements, that is, participants than a parallel cluster randomized trial in a cross-sectional design. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1428.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Woertman W, de Hoop E, Moerbeek M, Zuidema SU, Gerritsen DL, Teerenstra S. Stepped wedge designs could reduce the required sample size in cluster randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:752–8.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Hemming K, Girling A. The efficiency of stepped wedge vs. cluster randomized trials: Stepped wedge studies do not always require a smaller sample size. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1427–8.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Hemming K, Haines TP, Chilton PJ, Girling AJ, Lilford RJ. The stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: rationale, design, analysis, and reporting. Br Med J. 2015;350:h391.CrossRef
38.
Weijer C, Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, McRae AD, White A, Brehaut JC, et al. The Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001346.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence-inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1294–302.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Zou GY, Donner A, Klar N. Group sequential methods for cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes. Clin Trials. 2005;2:479–87.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Hayes RJ, Moulton LH. Cluster randomised trials. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2009.CrossRef
42.
Poldervaart JM, Reitsma JB, Koffijberg H, Backus BE, Six AJ, Doevendans PA, et al. The impact of the HEART risk score in the early assessment of patients with acute chest pain: design of a stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2013;13:77.
43.
Six AJ, Cullen L, Backus BE, Greenslade J, Parsonage W, Aldous S, et al. The HEART score for the assessment of patients with chest pain in the emergency department: a multinational validation study. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2013;12:121–6.
44.
Backus BE, Six AJ, Kelder JC, Mast TP, van den Akker F, Mast EG, et al. Chest pain in the emergency room: a multicenter validation of the HEART Score. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2010;9:164–9.
45.
de Araujo GP, Ferreira J, Aguiar C, Seabra-Gomes R. TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores: sustained prognostic value and interaction with revascularization in NSTE-ACS. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:865–72.CrossRef
46.
Antman EM, Cohen M, Bernink PJ, McCabe CH, Horacek T, Papuchis G, et al. The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: a method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. JAMA. 2000;284:835–42.
47.
Fox KA, Dabbous OH, Goldberg RJ, Pieper KS, Eagle KA, Van de WF, et al. Prediction of risk of death and myocardial infarction in the six months after presentation with acute coronary syndrome: prospective multinational observational study (GRACE). Br Med J. 2006;333:1091.CrossRef
48.
Hemming K, Lilford R, Girling AJ. Stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials: a generic framework including parallel and multiple-level designs. Stat Med. 2015;34:181–96.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Hemming K, Girling A. A menu-driven facility for power and detectable-difference calculations in stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trials. Stata J. 2014;14:363–80.
50.
Duncan GJ, Kalton G. Issues of design and analysis of surveys across time. Int Stat Rev. 1987;55:97–117.CrossRef
51.
Feldman HA, Mckinlay SM. Cohort versus cross-sectional design in large field trials - precision, sample-size, and a unifying model. Stat Med. 1994;13:61–78.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Frison L, Pocock SJ. Repeated measures in clinical-trials - analysis using mean summary statistics and its implications for design. Stat Med. 1992;11:1685–704.CrossRefPubMed
53.
van der Tweel I, van der Graaf R. Issues in the use of stepped wedge cluster and alternative designs in the case of pandemics. Am J Bioeth. 2013;13:23–4.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Handley MA, Schillinger D, Shiboski S. Quasi-experimental designs in practice-based research settings: design and implementation considerations. J Am Board Fam Med. 2011;24:589–96.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Fatemi Y, Jacobson RM. The stepped wedge cluster randomized trial and its potential for child health services research: a narrative review. Acad Pediatr. 2015;15:128–33.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Pearson D, Torgerson D, McDougall C, Bowles R. Parable of two agencies, one of which randomizes. An Am Acad Polit Soc Sci. 2010;628:11–29.CrossRef
57.
van der Graaf R, Koffijberg H, Grobbee DE, de Hoop E, Moons KGM, van Thiel GJMW, et al. Rethinking the ethics of cluster randomized trials: a refinement of the Ottawa statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:1108–14.
Metadata
Title
The need to balance merits and limitations from different disciplines when considering the stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design
Authors
Esther de Hoop
Ingeborg van der Tweel
Rieke van der Graaf
Karel G. M. Moons
Johannes J. M. van Delden
Johannes B. Reitsma
Hendrik Koffijberg
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0090-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

An application of propensity score weighting to quantify the causal effect of rectal sexually transmitted infections on incident HIV among men who have sex with men

Research article

An evaluation of harvest plots to display results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews: a cross-sectional study

Debate

Clinical research and medical care: towards effective and complete integration

Research article

Novel participatory methods of involving patients in research: naming and branding a longitudinal cohort study, BRIGHTLIGHT

TECHNICAL ADVANCE

A general framework for comparative Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic studies

Research article

A novel method for expediting the development of patient-reported outcome measures and an evaluation of its performance via simulation