Present: Levi Bonnell, Nancy Gell, Kairn Kelley, Ben
Littenberg, Jen Oshita, Gail Rose, Connie van Eeghen
1.
Warm Up: Ben has budget
$$$ for books and education materials; see him if you have requests.
2.
Rodger Kessler
& Connie van Eeghen: PRECIS evaluation of IBHPC study: pragmatic vs.
explanatory continuum
a. Background:
Rodger Kessler,
Stephanie Brennhofer, and Connie van Eeghen are working on a manuscript to
describe the PCORI Integrated Behavioral Health in Primary Care study from a
research study management perspective: the inherent complexity of large
pragmatic trials using IBHPC as a starting point, supplemented with results
from a literature review. They have come
to CROW to conduct an exercise in re-evaluating IBHPC on the PRECIS continuum
of pragmatic/explanatory trials.
b. One key issue:
in using this continuum, discussion focused on who the participants are
(recipients of the intervention) and who the practitioners are (those who
deliver the intervention). IBHPC has two
kinds of recipients: patients and practice members. It has two kinds of practitioners: practice
members and “the practice.” The group
used both perspectives in evaluating the study.
c. Patient as
Participant
i.
Primary Trial Outcome: 9; it’s not completely
objective
ii.
Participant compliance with “prescribed”
intervention: 10, hands down
iii.
Practitioner adherence to study protocol: 10,
also easy
iv.
Analysis of primary outcome: 10
d. Provider
as Participant
i.
Experimental intervention – practitioner
expertise: 9, some selection for friends of Rodger
ii.
Comparison intervention – flexibility: 10
e. Current Radar
Charts:
f.
Final CROW session next week: continue to focus on provider as
participant to complete final 6 domains.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.