Skip to main content
  • Other Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
Advertisement
JCORE Reference
this is the JCORE Reference site slogan
  • Home
  • Most Read
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
    • Help
  • Patients
  • Reference Site Links
    • View Regions
  • Archive

Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Implementation Opportunity, or Just Another Fad?

Anthony Delitto
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.2016.96.2.137 Published 1 February 2016
Anthony Delitto
A. Delitto, PT, PhD, FAPTA, Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Clinical trials have been characterized as either explanatory or pragmatic in nature based on whether the major objective of the trial is to prioritize internal or external validity.1 Explanatory trials prioritize internal validity by minimizing clinician and patient biases, but, in doing so, they are generalizable only to “ideal” conditions. In contrast, pragmatic trials prioritize external validity by studying interventions in the context of broadly based and routine clinical practice conditions.

The term pragmatic was coined for research trials in the 1960s2; however, since that time, alternative descriptors have been used to define trial designs in which generalizability is the primary goal, including practical trials, large simple trials, real-world trials, management trials, and effectiveness trials.1 Although there is considerable overlap in these labels, “pragmatic” has come to the forefront primarily for 2 reasons: (1) the advent of the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summaries (PRECIS),3,4 an intuitive tool to characterize a clinical trial on an explanatory-pragmatic spectrum, and (2) reporting standards for pragmatic clinical trials that have been formalized through an extended version of the Consolidated Reporting Trials (CONSORT).5 The PRECIS tool comprehensively dissects a clinical trial by eligibility criteria, recruitment methods, settings, clinician expertise, intervention delivery flexibility, adherence strategies, intensity of follow-up, relevancy of outcomes, and primary analysis strategies and characterizes each category on an explanatory-pragmatic spectrum.

Pragmatic Trials Are Rare But Likely to Increase

Although lack of detail in trial reporting makes true quantitative analyses difficult,6 attempts at quantifying the percentage of published trials that are pragmatic indicate that pragmatic trials are infrequent—less than 2% of trials, according to Chalkicou and colleagues.1 No doubt one major factor for the paucity of pragmatic trials is that most major funders of research, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), historically have prioritized explanatory approaches, which by definition are not generalizable to broad clinical practice. Recently, high rates of unwarranted practice variability and increased expenditures have prompted a shift in attention to clinical trials that can provide more valid and reliable information about what works best in our health care system. Pragmatic trials are being emphasized by alternative funders, such as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ), under the premise that the results of such trials will be more translatable and usable in clinical practice and by policy makers.7

In the field of physical therapy, the increasing emphasis on health services research parallels national trends that prioritize the types of research that can aid decision making in emerging health care reform issues that are immediately relevant. One of the prime examples of this effort is the Center of Excellence in Physical Therapy Health Services and Health Policy Research and Training Grant (CoHSTAR), funded by the Foundation for Physical Therapy. One emphasis of CoHSTAR is on training in, and funding of, pilot work in comparative effectiveness research using more pragmatic approaches.

A more pragmatic approach appears to have gained widespread acceptance; however, some degree of resistance exists among—paradoxically—established clinical trialists within the field, many of whom possess rich funding and publication histories largely in explanatory trials where clinician and patient biases are by definition minimized through stringent entrance criteria, overt intervention oversight, and compliance strategies. Unlike practitioners, researchers indoctrinated into explanatory methods might find it challenging to accept the fact that clinician and patient biases are not viewed as detrimental in a pragmatic trial but rather accepted as part of providers' and patients' responses to treatment and included in the overall assessment of an intervention.

In addition to formal training of the next generation of health care researchers through initiatives such as CoHSTAR, the physical therapy profession has seen a conversion of established researchers who have modified their previous, more explanatory approaches to newer designs that are more pragmatic. In the initial PCORI initiative soliciting large simple pragmatic trials, 2 of the 5 awardees had physical therapists as the principal investigators (PIs). In addition, 4 other physical therapists are PIs in PCORI's broad initiatives focused on comparative effective research designs.

Broadly Inclusive Pragmatic Trials Versus Narrowly Focused Explanatory Trials: Both Problematic?

More pragmatic approaches can be natural extensions of explanatory research efforts and are consistent with the clinical implementation (T3) and health policy (T4) stages of the clinical translational research paradigm. According to the Blue Ribbon Panel on Rehabilitation Research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), “There are tremendous opportunities to increase the clinical and societal relevance of rehabilitation research throughout the NIH by addressing the gaps in the continuum of translational research and the WHO-ICF [World Health Organization–International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health] framework.”8 Soliciting pragmatic proposals that investigate rehabilitation interventions in multiple settings—including environments where the intervention is intended to generalize—would go a long way to bridging this gap.9

Some people have argued that extrapolating the results of broadly inclusive pragmatic trials to patient care may be as problematic as extrapolating the results of narrowly focused explanatory or efficacy trials.10 Consider the clinical prediction rule (CPR) for manipulation in patients with low back pain. The CPR for manipulation of the lumbar spine was developed by Flynn et al11 as an observational trial and was validated in a subsequent randomized controlled trial by Childs et al.12 A more pragmatic application by Hancock et al13 demonstrated the rule to have no predictive ability to identify responders to manipulation; this application included more relaxed entrance criteria (eg, subjects did not need to meet the same standard of acuity) and a more generalizable definition of spinal manipulation to include nonthrust mobilization techniques. Some have argued that increased pragmatism may have “washed out” the treatment effect; however, from a payer and policy-maker perspective, a more generalizable trial with a broader range of subjects—coupled with a more commonly used intervention (nonthrust mobilization)—provides a much more reliable and predictable effect.

In an effort to more accurately portray daily practice environments with minimal researcher interference, pragmatic trials typically require that data be derived from existing data sources, which usually includes the electronic health record (EHR). Integrating EHR data components that are critical to answering the aims of the trial allows for systematic data collection within the context of everyday practice and obviates the need to create an invasive data collection effort or a research infrastructure separate from the clinical environment. Thus, one promising development arising from pragmatic trial actualization is that EHRs are revamped to collect data necessary to conduct the study, including routine assessment of key variables such as patient-reported outcomes and other key process-of-care information that is deemed critical for clinical decision making.

The Real Barriers to Uptake in the Clinic

More pragmatic approaches that carefully consider the real-world context married to methodological rigor (eg, randomization) should provide information that is useful to providers, patients, payers, and policy makers. But is lack of generalizable published research the major barrier to uptake of research findings into routine health care? It seems doubtful that publishing more pragmatic trials alone will translate to more uptake of research findings into everyday practice. Even with greater numbers of relevant pragmatic trials, passive diffusion and similar implementation strategies will likely be unsuccessful in better aligning evidence with clinical practice behaviors. Methods to promote the uptake of research findings into routine health care in clinical, organizational, or policy contexts will still need to incorporate strategies that take into account more powerful drivers of clinical behavior, including financial alignment to bridge the transition from volume-based to quality-based initiatives.

In our effort to achieve the triple aim of health care reform (improving the patient experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing the per capita cost of health care), information from randomized clinical trials will remain a mainstay; however, as a profession, we will need a better balance between both explanatory and pragmatic approaches if we are to address the needs of patients, payers, purchasers, and policy makers.

  • © 2016 American Physical Therapy Association

References

  1. ↵
    1. Chalkidou K,
    2. Tunis S,
    3. Whicher D,
    4. et al
    . The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials. 2012;9:436–446.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Schwartz D,
    2. Lellouch J
    . Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1967;20:637–648.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Thorpe KE,
    2. Zwarenstein M,
    3. Oxman AD,
    4. et al
    . A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. CMAJ. 2009;180(10):E47–E57.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Loudon K,
    2. Treweek S,
    3. Sullivan F,
    4. et al
    . The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ. 2015;350:h2147.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Zwarenstein M,
    2. Treweek S,
    3. Gagnier JJ,
    4. et al
    . Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008;337:a2390.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Blencowe NS,
    2. Boddy AP,
    3. Harris A,
    4. et al
    . Systematic review of intervention design and delivery in pragmatic and explanatory surgical randomized clinical trials. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1037–1047.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Tunis SR,
    2. Stryer DB,
    3. Clancy CM
    . Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:1624–1632.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Craik R,
    2. Chae J
    . A Preliminary Report to NICHD Council. Blue Ribbon Panel on Rehabilitation at the National Institutes of Health. Available at: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/advisory/nachhd/Documents/Blue_Ribbon_Panel_201205.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2016.
  9. ↵
    1. Glasgow RE,
    2. Lichtenstein E,
    3. Marcus AC
    . Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1261–1267.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Kent DM,
    2. Kitsios G
    . Against pragmatism: on efficacy, effectiveness and the real world. Trials. 2009;10:48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Flynn T,
    2. Fritz J,
    3. Whitman J,
    4. et al
    . A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with spinal manipulation. Spine. 2002;27:2835–2843.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    1. Childs JD,
    2. Fritz JM,
    3. Flynn TW,
    4. et al
    . A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:920–928.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Hancock MJ,
    2. Maher CG,
    3. Latimer J,
    4. et al
    . Independent evaluation of a clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulative therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:936–943.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 96 Issue 2 Table of Contents
Physical Therapy: 96 (2)

Issue highlights

  • Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Implementation Opportunity, or Just Another Fad?
  • Unpacking Payment Bundles
  • Role of Physical Therapists in the Management of Individuals at Risk for or Diagnosed With Venous Thromboembolism: Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline
  • Association of Varus Thrust With Pain and Stiffness and Activities of Daily Living in Patients With Medial Knee Osteoarthritis
  • Assessing the Reliability and Validity of a Physical Therapy Functional Measurement Tool—the Modified Iowa Level of Assistance Scale—in Acute Hospital Inpatients
  • Predictors of Independent Walking in Young Children With Cerebral Palsy
  • Telehealth Implementation in a Skilled Nursing Facility: Case Report for Physical Therapist Practice in Washington
  • Hospital Readmission Following Discharge From Inpatient Rehabilitation for Older Adults With Debility
  • Examining the Association Between Comorbidity Indexes and Functional Status in Hospitalized Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries
  • Which Children Are Not Getting Their Needs for Therapy or Mobility Aids Met? Data From the 2009–2010 National Survey of Children With Special Health Care Needs
  • Impact of Out-of-Pocket Expenditure on Physical Therapy Utilization for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Secondary Analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Data
  • Utilization and Payments of Office-Based Physical Rehabilitation Services Among Individuals With Commercial Insurance in New York State
  • Sitting and Activity Time in People With Stroke
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on JCORE Reference.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Implementation Opportunity, or Just Another Fad?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from JCORE Reference
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the JCORE Reference web site.
Print
Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Implementation Opportunity, or Just Another Fad?
Anthony Delitto
Physical Therapy Feb 2016, 96 (2) 137-138; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.2016.96.2.137

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Save to my folders

Share
Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Implementation Opportunity, or Just Another Fad?
Anthony Delitto
Physical Therapy Feb 2016, 96 (2) 137-138; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.2016.96.2.137
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Article
    • Pragmatic Trials Are Rare But Likely to Increase
    • Broadly Inclusive Pragmatic Trials Versus Narrowly Focused Explanatory Trials: Both Problematic?
    • The Real Barriers to Uptake in the Clinic
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Unpacking Payment Bundles
Show more Points of View

Subjects

  • Research Methods
    • Research: Other
  • Health Services Research
  • Physical Therapist Practice
    • Professional Issues
    • Evidence-Based Practice

Footer Menu 1

  • menu 1 item 1
  • menu 1 item 2
  • menu 1 item 3
  • menu 1 item 4

Footer Menu 2

  • menu 2 item 1
  • menu 2 item 2
  • menu 2 item 3
  • menu 2 item 4

Footer Menu 3

  • menu 3 item 1
  • menu 3 item 2
  • menu 3 item 3
  • menu 3 item 4

Footer Menu 4

  • menu 4 item 1
  • menu 4 item 2
  • menu 4 item 3
  • menu 4 item 4
footer second
footer first
Copyright © 2013 The HighWire JCore Reference Site | Print ISSN: 0123-4567 | Online ISSN: 1123-4567
advertisement bottom
Advertisement Top