Unequal cluster sizes for trials in English and Welsh general practice: implications for sample size calculations.

Cluster randomized trials are often used in primary care settings. In the U.K., general practices are usually the unit of allocation. The effect of variability in practice list size on sample size calculations is demonstrated using the General Medical Services Statistics for England and Wales, 1997. Summary statistics and tables are given to help design such trials assuming that a fixed proportion of patients are to be recruited from each cluster. Three different weightings of the cluster means are compared: uniform, cluster size and minimum variance weights. Minimum variance weights are shown to be superior to uniform, particularly when clusters are small, and to cluster size weights, particularly when clusters are large. Where there are large numbers of participants per cluster and cluster size weights are used, the power actually falls as more patients are recruited to large clusters. When minimum variance weights are used the increase in the design effect due to variation in list size is small, regardless of the size of intracluster correlation coefficient or the number of participants per cluster, provided there is no loss of randomized units. When the expected number of participants per practice is low a greater loss in power comes from practices which fail to recruit patients. A method to estimate the likely effect and allow for it is presented.

[1]  S. Kerry,et al.  Randomized controlled trial of the effect of the Royal College of Radiologists' guidelines on general practitioners' referrals for radiographic examination. , 1994, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[2]  S. Kerry,et al.  Development of clinical guidelines , 1998, The Lancet.

[3]  S. Eldridge,et al.  Do clinical guidelines introduced with practice based education improve care of asthmatic and diabetic patients? A randomised controlled trial in general practices in east London , 1995, BMJ.

[4]  Jerome Cornfield,et al.  SYMPOSIUM ON CHD PREVENTION TRIALS: DESIGN ISSUES IN TESTING LIFE STYLE INTERVENTIONRANDOMIZATION BY GROUP: A FORMAL ANALYSIS , 1978 .

[5]  A Donner,et al.  Methods for comparing event rates in intervention studies when the unit of allocation is a cluster. , 1994, American journal of epidemiology.

[6]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistics notes: Sample size in cluster randomisation , 1998, BMJ.

[7]  A. Donner,et al.  Randomization by cluster. Sample size requirements and analysis. , 1981, American journal of epidemiology.

[8]  Ann Louise Kinmonth,et al.  General practice Randomised controlled trial of patient centred care of diabetes in general practice : impact on current wellbeing and future disease risk , 1998 .

[9]  S. Eldridge,et al.  Effect of postal prompts to patients and general practitioners on the quality of primary care after a coronary event (POST): randomised controlled trial , 1999, BMJ.

[10]  B. Sibbald,et al.  Impact of introducing near patient testing for standard investigations in general practice. , 1993, BMJ.

[11]  T. Kendrick,et al.  Randomised controlled trial of teaching general practitioners to carry out structured assessments of their long term mentally ill patients , 1995, BMJ.

[12]  S. Jarvis,et al.  Effect of community based management in failure to thrive: randomised controlled trial , 1998, BMJ.

[13]  A. J. Fischer,et al.  Information and the Speed of Innovation Adoption , 1996 .

[14]  M. Desai,et al.  Adequacy of cervical cytology sampling with the Cervex brush and the Aylesbury spatula: a population based randomised controlled trial , 1996, BMJ.

[15]  C D Florey,et al.  Sample size for beginners. , 1993, BMJ.

[16]  P Marsh,et al.  Preventing injuries in children: cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care , 1999, BMJ.

[17]  A. Steptoe,et al.  Behavioural counselling in general practice for the promotion of healthy behaviour among adults at increased risk of coronary heart disease: randomised trial. , 1999, BMJ.

[18]  J A Knottnerus,et al.  Does feedback improve the quality of cervical smears? A randomized controlled trial. , 1993, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[19]  J. Sterne,et al.  Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. , 1999, Health technology assessment.