Challenges in the design, planning and implementation of trials evaluating group interventions

Abstract

Background: Group interventions are interventions delivered to groups of people rather than to individuals and are used in healthcare for mental health recovery, behaviour change, peer support, self-management and/or health education. Evaluating group interventions in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) presents trialists with a set of practical problems, which are not present in RCTs of one-to-one interventions and which may not be immediately obvious. Methods: Case-based approach summarising Sheffield trials unit's experience in the design and implementation of five group interventions. We reviewed participant recruitment and attrition, facilitator training and attrition, attendance at the group sessions, group size and fidelity aspects across five RCTs. Results: Median recruitment across the five trials was 3.2 (range 1.7-21.0) participants per site per month. Group intervention trials involve a delay in starting the intervention for some participants, until sufficient numbers are available to start a group. There was no evidence that the timing of consent, relative to randomisation, affected post-randomisation attrition which was a matter of concern for all trial teams. Group facilitator attrition was common in studies where facilitators were employed by the health system rather than the by the grant holder and led to the early closure of one trial; research sites responded by training 'back-up' and new facilitators. Trials specified that participants had to attend a median of 62.5% (range 16.7%-80%) of sessions, in order to receive a 'therapeutic dose'; a median of 76.7% (range 42.9%-97.8%) received a therapeutic dose. Across the five trials, 75.3% of all sessions went ahead without the pre-specified ideal group size. A variety of methods were used to assess the fidelity of group interventions at a group and individual level across the five trials. Conclusion: This is the first paper to provide an empirical basis for planning group intervention trials. Investigators should expect delays/difficulties in recruiting groups of the optimal size, plan for both facilitator and participant attrition, and consider how group attendance and group size affects treatment fidelity.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle modification programme in the prevention and treatment of subclinical, mild and moderate depression in primary care: a randomised clinical trial protocol

“…Study limitations include the possible attrition of participants due to session scheduling or participant refusal to participate in a group intervention or do the complete follow-ups. 80 However, the possible reasons for attrition and other issues will be registered regarding MAGI framework. 38 Therefore, the creation of a six-session group programme addressing lifestyle modifications (plus testing the monitoring with ICTs by adding a smartwatch to one of the intervention group) appears to be a good choice for depression treatment.…”

Assessing fidelity of a community based psychosocial intervention for people with mild dementia within a large randomised controlled trial

“…Timing of training in trials of group interventions is a well-known challenge [ 45 ]. The time lag between training and delivery of the intervention could have impacted upon fidelity but we mitigated against this by site supervisors being place and supervision of the site supervisors by the research team.…”

Online, Group-Based Psychological Support for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors: Results from the Recapture Life Randomized Trial

“…Groups of five consecutively recruited participants were allocated to each randomly-generated condition, before moving to the next with the subsequent group of five participants. This approach minimizes the waiting time for individual participants before an online group matching their allocation can be run with sufficient participant numbers, reducing drop-out and participant burden [ 49 ]. Waitlisted participants, at the conclusion of their waitlist, were re-randomized to receive either Recapture Life or the peer-support group, using a similar randomization algorithm at the group level.…”