4.5 Article

Design and analysis considerations for cohort stepped wedge cluster randomized trials with a decay correlation structure

Journal

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 39, Issue 4, Pages 438-455

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.8415

Keywords

finite-sample correction; generalized estimating equations (GEEs); group-randomized trial; proportional decay; quasi-least squares (QLS); sample size calculation

Funding

  1. NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory, National Institute on Drug Abuse [UH3DA047003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A stepped wedge cluster randomized trial is a type of longitudinal cluster design that sequentially switches clusters to intervention over time until all clusters are treated. While the traditional posttest-only parallel design requires adjustment for a single intraclass correlation coefficient, the stepped wedge design allows multiple outcome measurements from the same cluster and so additional correlation parameters are necessary to characterize the within-cluster correlation structure. Although a number of studies have differentiated between the concepts of within-period and between-period correlations, only a few studies have allowed the between-period correlation to decay over time. In this article, we consider the proportional decay correlation structure for a cohort stepped wedge design, and provide a matrix-adjusted quasi-least squares approach to accurately estimate the correlation parameters along with the marginal intervention effect. We further develop the sample size and power procedures accounting for the correlation decay, and investigate the accuracy of the power procedure with continuous outcomes in a simulation study. We show that the empirical power agrees well with the prediction even with as few as nine clusters, when data are analyzed with matrix-adjusted quasi-least squares concurrently with a suitable bias-corrected sandwich variance. Two trial examples are provided to illustrate the new sample size procedure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available