Sample size calculations for stepped wedge and cluster randomised trials: a unified approach
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To clarify and illustrate sample size calculations for the cross-sectional stepped wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) and to present a simple approach for comparing the efficiencies of competing designs within a unified framework. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We summarize design effects for the SW-CRT, the parallel cluster randomized trial (CRT), and the parallel cluster randomized trial with before and after observations (CRT-BA), assuming cross-sectional samples are selected over time. We present new formulas that enable trialists to determine the required cluster size for a given number of clusters. We illustrate by example how to implement the presented design effects and give practical guidance on the design of stepped wedge studies. RESULTS: For a fixed total cluster size, the choice of study design that provides the greatest power depends on the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) and the cluster size. When the ICC is small, the CRT tends to be more efficient; when the ICC is large, the SW-CRT tends to be more efficient and can serve as an alternative design when the CRT is an infeasible design. CONCLUSION: Our unified approach allows trialists to easily compare the efficiencies of three competing designs to inform the decision about the most efficient design in a given scenario.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The sample size calculation estimated 180 participants, 30 (16.7%) per cluster, for an expected moderate effect size of the intervention on perceived stress.
“As detailed in the study protocol [33], the sample size calculation estimated 180 participants, 30 (16.7%) per cluster, for an expected moderate effect size of the intervention on the primary outcome, that is, perceived stress [34].”
From Effectiveness of a Web-Based Self-Guided Intervention (MINDxYOU) for Reducing Stress and Promoting Mental Health Among Health Professionals: Results From a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
The Results section gives illustrative sample-size calculations for a small standardized effect, and its relative-efficiencies example includes a cluster size of 30. Neither example reports a calculation of 180 participants across six clusters for an intervention targeting perceived stress. Searches for the stated numbers and outcome found no passage addressing that study-specific estimate; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 230
- Authors
- Hemming, K., & Taljaard, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Hemming, Karla
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 69
- Pages
- 137-146
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4687983
- OpenAlex
- W1753146223
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 7
- FWCI
- 10.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (WMCLAHRC-2014-1)
- Medical Research Council (G0800808)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- sample size determination, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial, design effect, intra-cluster correlation, cluster size, pre-post test comparison
- MeSH terms
- Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sample Size
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review