Provider experiences with and attitudes about an embedded pragmatic clinical trial
Sarah M. Leatherman, Britte Beaudette-Zlatanova, Gregory Robben, Peter A. Glassman, Patricia Woods, Ryan E. Ferguson, William C. Cushman, Areef Ishani

TL;DR
This study examined how primary care providers experienced and felt about a real-world clinical trial comparing two diuretics for cardiovascular events in older Veterans.
Contribution
The study provides insights into provider attitudes and experiences with embedded pragmatic trials in primary care settings.
Findings
Most providers found the trial question interesting and the participation time reasonable.
Very few providers felt the trial negatively affected the provider-patient relationship.
Providers were as or more comfortable with the pragmatic trial compared to traditional trials.
Abstract
The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) was a pragmatic clinical trial comparing rates of cardiovascular events between hydrochlorothiazide or chlorthalidone. VA primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients were participants in the study. Veterans ≥ 65 years taking hydrochlorothiazide were randomized to continue on hydrochlorothiazide or switch to chlorthalidone. Participating providers could decline the randomization of their patients. Providers were surveyed about their experience with DCP, and to ascertain providers’ understanding of and attitudes towards embedded pragmatic trials. A questionnaire was emailed to PCPs that provided informed consent to participate in the study. The survey asked about provider experience with the trial including interest in the study question, awareness of the study and educational materials, impact on the provider-patient relationship, burden of…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsEthics in Clinical Research · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Health Policy Implementation Science
