Applying the PRECIS Criteria to Describe Three Effectiveness Trials of Weight Loss in Obese Patients with Comorbid Conditions

Applying the PRECIS Criteria to Describe Three Effectiveness Trials of Weight Loss in Obese... Objectives To characterize Practice‐Based Opportunities for Weight Reduction (POWER) trials along the pragmatic‐explanatory continuum. Settings The POWER trials consist of three individual studies that target obesity treatment in primary care settings. Design Using the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) criteria, nine reviewers independently scored each trial. Methods Average and median ratings, inter‐rater reliability, and relationships to additional ratings of the extent to which study designs were explanatory (i.e., efficacy) versus pragmatic (i.e., practical) and related to external validity were determined. Principal Findings One trial was consistently rated as being significantly more pragmatic than the others (R2 = 0.43, p < .001), although all three were in the moderate range on the PRECIS scales. Ratings varied across PRECIS dimensions, being most pragmatic on comparison condition and primary outcome. Raters, although undergoing training and using identical definitions, scored their own study as more pragmatic than the other studies/interventions. Conclusions These results highlight the need for more comprehensive reporting on PRECIS and related criteria for research translation. The PRECIS criteria provide a richer understanding of the POWER studies. It is not clear whether the original criteria are sufficient to provide a comprehensive profile. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Health Services Research Wiley

Applying the PRECIS Criteria to Describe Three Effectiveness Trials of Weight Loss in Obese Patients with Comorbid Conditions

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/applying-the-precis-criteria-to-describe-three-effectiveness-trials-of-wqzibbFKhZ
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2012 Health Research and Educational Trust
ISSN
0017-9124
eISSN
1475-6773
D.O.I.
10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01347.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Objectives To characterize Practice‐Based Opportunities for Weight Reduction (POWER) trials along the pragmatic‐explanatory continuum. Settings The POWER trials consist of three individual studies that target obesity treatment in primary care settings. Design Using the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) criteria, nine reviewers independently scored each trial. Methods Average and median ratings, inter‐rater reliability, and relationships to additional ratings of the extent to which study designs were explanatory (i.e., efficacy) versus pragmatic (i.e., practical) and related to external validity were determined. Principal Findings One trial was consistently rated as being significantly more pragmatic than the others (R2 = 0.43, p < .001), although all three were in the moderate range on the PRECIS scales. Ratings varied across PRECIS dimensions, being most pragmatic on comparison condition and primary outcome. Raters, although undergoing training and using identical definitions, scored their own study as more pragmatic than the other studies/interventions. Conclusions These results highlight the need for more comprehensive reporting on PRECIS and related criteria for research translation. The PRECIS criteria provide a richer understanding of the POWER studies. It is not clear whether the original criteria are sufficient to provide a comprehensive profile.

Journal

Health Services ResearchWiley

Published: Jun 1, 2012

Keywords: ; ; ; ; ; ;

References

  • Effects of Interventions in Health Care Settings on Physical Activity or Cardiorespiratory Fitness
    Simons‐Morton, D. G.; Calfas, K. J.; Oldenburg, B.; Burton, N. W.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off