Present: Levi Bonnell, Marianne Burke, Jessica
Clifton, Justine Dee, Nancy Gell, Kairn Kelley, Ben Littenberg, Jen Oshita, Gail
Rose, Connie van Eeghen
1.
Warm Up: New members
coming to CROW soon: Lisa Watts Natkin
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. Provider
as Participant (Provider is Practice Leadership or the Practice as an
entity? The latter)
i.
Comparison intervention – practitioner expertise: 10
ii.
Follow up intensity: collecting a fair amount of data, but not
from everyone: drifting from 5 to 4
iii.
Primary trial outcome: 10
iv.
Participant compliance with “prescribed” intervention: education
reports are part of the intervention, not part of the research. But the
identification of patients and use of the Community Panel are prescribed. 8
v.
Practitioner adherence to study protocol: 9
vi.
Analysis of primary outcome: 10
d. THANK YOU
EVERYONE!
e. Final Radar
Charts:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.