Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title
Nguyen HQ, Moy ML, Fan VS, Gould MK, Xiang A, Bailey A, Desai S, Coleman KJ. Applying the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary to the implementation of a physical activity coaching trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nursing Outlook. 2018 Sep 1; 66(5):455-463.
BACKGROUND: Observational studies show that physical inactivity is associated with worse outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Despite practice guidelines recommending regular physical activity (PA), there are no large-scale experimental studies to confirm that patients at high risk for COPD exacerbations can increase their PA and consequently, have improved outcomes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this case study is to describe the use of a widely accepted pragmatic trials framework for the design and implementation of a pragmatic clinical trial (PCT) of PA coaching for COPD in a real-world setting. METHOD: The aim of the trial was to determine the effectiveness of a 12-month PA coaching intervention (Walk On!) compared to standard care for 2,707 patients at high risk for COPD exacerbations from a large integrated health care system. The descriptions of our implementation experiences are anchored within the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS-2) framework. DISCUSSION: Facilitators of PCT implementation include early and ongoing engagement and support of multiple stakeholders including patients, health system leaders, administrators, physician champions, and frontline clinicians, an organizational/setting that prioritizes positive lifestyle behaviors, and a flexible intervention that allows for individualization. Pragmatic challenges include reliance on electronic data that are not complete or available in real-time for patient identification, timing of outreach may not synchronize with patients'' readiness for change, and high turnover of clinical staff drawn from the existing workforce. DISCUSSION: PRECIS-2 is a useful guide for organizing decisions about study designs and implementation approaches to help diverse stakeholders recognize the compromises between internal and external validity with those decisions.