Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2010

Open Access 01-12-2010 | Research

Spatial effects should be allowed for in primary care and other community-based cluster RCTS

Authors: Paul Silcocks, Denise Kendrick

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Typical advice on the design and analysis of cluster randomized trials (C-RCTs) focuses on allowance for the clustering at the level of the unit of allocation. However often C-RCTs are also organised spatially as may occur in the fields of Public Health and Primary Care where populations may even overlap.

Methods

We allowed for spatial effects on the error variance by a multiple membership model. These are a form of hierarchical model in which each lower level unit is a member of more than one higher level unit. Membership may be determined through adjacency or through Euclidean distance of centroids or in other ways such as the proportion of overlapping population. Such models may be estimated for Normal, binary and Poisson responses in Stata (v10 or above) as well as in WinBUGS or MLWin. We used this to analyse a dummy trial and two real, previously published cluster-allocated studies (one allocating general practices within one City and the other allocating general practices within one County) to investigate the extent to which ignoring spatial effects affected the estimate of treatment effect, using different methods for defining membership with Akaike's Information Criterion to determine the "best" model.

Results

The best fitting model included both a fixed North-South gradient and a random cluster effect for the dummy RCT. For one of the real RCTs the best fitting model included both a random practice effect plus a multiple membership spatial term, while for the other RCT the best fitting model ignored the clustering but included a fixed North-South gradient. Alternative models which fitted only slightly less well all included spatial effects in one form or another, with some variation in parameter estimates (greater when less well fitting models were included).

Conclusions

These particular results are only illustrative. However, we believe when designing C-RCTs in a primary care setting the possibility of spatial effects should be considered in relation to the intervention and response, as well as any explanatory effect of fixed covariates, together with any implications for sample size and methods for planned analyses.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Donner A, Klar N: Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. 2000, London: Arnold Donner A, Klar N: Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. 2000, London: Arnold
2.
go back to reference Puffer S, Torgerson D, Watson J: Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals. BMJ. 2003, 327 (7418): 785-789. 10.1136/bmj.327.7418.785.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Puffer S, Torgerson D, Watson J: Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals. BMJ. 2003, 327 (7418): 785-789. 10.1136/bmj.327.7418.785.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Hahn S, Suezann Puffer S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J: Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2005, 5: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-10. 10.1186/1471-2288-5-10 Hahn S, Suezann Puffer S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J: Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2005, 5: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-10. 10.1186/1471-2288-5-10
4.
go back to reference Campbell MK, Mollison J, Steen N, Grimshaw JM, Eccles M: Analysis of cluster randomized trials in primary care: a practical approach. Family Practice. 2000, 17: 192-196. 10.1093/fampra/17.2.192.CrossRefPubMed Campbell MK, Mollison J, Steen N, Grimshaw JM, Eccles M: Analysis of cluster randomized trials in primary care: a practical approach. Family Practice. 2000, 17: 192-196. 10.1093/fampra/17.2.192.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Eldridge S, Ashby D, Feder G, Rudnicka A, Ukoumunne O: Lessons for cluster randomized trials in the twenty-first century: a systematic review of trials in primary care. Clinical Trials. 2004, 1: 80-90. 10.1191/1740774504cn006rr.CrossRefPubMed Eldridge S, Ashby D, Feder G, Rudnicka A, Ukoumunne O: Lessons for cluster randomized trials in the twenty-first century: a systematic review of trials in primary care. Clinical Trials. 2004, 1: 80-90. 10.1191/1740774504cn006rr.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Eldridge S, Ashby D, Bennett C, Wakelin M, Feder G: Internal and external validity of cluster randomised trials: systematic review of recent trials. BMJ. 2008, 336 (7649): 876-880. 10.1136/bmj.39517.495764.25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Eldridge S, Ashby D, Bennett C, Wakelin M, Feder G: Internal and external validity of cluster randomised trials: systematic review of recent trials. BMJ. 2008, 336 (7649): 876-880. 10.1136/bmj.39517.495764.25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Giraudeau B, Ravaud P: Preventing Bias in Cluster Randomised Trials. PLoS Med. 2009, 6 (5): e1000065. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000065. Giraudeau B, Ravaud P: Preventing Bias in Cluster Randomised Trials. PLoS Med. 2009, 6 (5): e1000065. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000065.
8.
go back to reference Wei WWS: Time series analysis. Univariate and multivariate methods. 2006, Boston. Pearson Education Wei WWS: Time series analysis. Univariate and multivariate methods. 2006, Boston. Pearson Education
9.
go back to reference Kemp I, Boyle P, Smans M, Muir C: Atlas of cancer in Scotland, 1975-1980. 1985, IARC Scientific publications 72. Lyon Kemp I, Boyle P, Smans M, Muir C: Atlas of cancer in Scotland, 1975-1980. 1985, IARC Scientific publications 72. Lyon
10.
go back to reference Browne WJ: MCMC estimation in MLwiN. 2003, London. Institute of Education Browne WJ: MCMC estimation in MLwiN. 2003, London. Institute of Education
11.
go back to reference Kendrick D, Marsh P, Fielding K, Miller P: Preventing injuries in children: cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care. British Medical Journal. 1999, 318: 980-983.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kendrick D, Marsh P, Fielding K, Miller P: Preventing injuries in children: cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care. British Medical Journal. 1999, 318: 980-983.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Kendrick D, Illingworth R, Woods A, Watts K, Collier J, Dewey M, Hapgood R, Chen CM: Promoting child safety in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial to reduce baby walker use. British Journal of General Practice. 2005, 55 (517): 582-588.PubMedPubMedCentral Kendrick D, Illingworth R, Woods A, Watts K, Collier J, Dewey M, Hapgood R, Chen CM: Promoting child safety in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial to reduce baby walker use. British Journal of General Practice. 2005, 55 (517): 582-588.PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Anderson DR, Burnham KP: Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference. 2004, NY: Springer-Verlag, Second Anderson DR, Burnham KP: Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference. 2004, NY: Springer-Verlag, Second
14.
go back to reference Blume JD: Likelihood methods for measuring statistical evidence. Statist Med. 2002, 21: 2563-2599. 10.1002/sim.1216.CrossRef Blume JD: Likelihood methods for measuring statistical evidence. Statist Med. 2002, 21: 2563-2599. 10.1002/sim.1216.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Spatial effects should be allowed for in primary care and other community-based cluster RCTS
Authors
Paul Silcocks
Denise Kendrick
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2010
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-11-55

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

Trials 1/2010 Go to the issue