CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 99Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsOptimal Experimental Design MethodsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Dynamic wait-listed designs for randomized trials: new designs for prevention of youth suicide

Brown, C Hendricks, Wyman, Peter A, Guo, Jing, Peña, Juan·2006·Clinical Trials
DOI 10.1191/1740774506cn152oa
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background The traditional wait-listed design, where half are randomly assigned to receive the intervention early and half are randomly assigned to receive it later, is often acceptable to communities who would not be comfortable with a notreatment group. As such this traditional wait-listed design provides an excellent opportunity to evaluate short-term impact of an intervention. We introduce a new class of wait-listed designs for conducting randomized experiments where all subjects receive the intervention, and the timing of the intervention is randomly assigned. We use the term “dynamic wait-listed designs” to describe this new class. Purpose This paper examines a new class of statistical designs where random assignment to intervention condition occurs at multiple times in a trial. As an extension of a traditional wait-listed design, this dynamic design allows all subjects to receive the intervention at a random time. Motivated by our search for increased statistical power in an ongoing school-based trial that is testing a program of gatekeeper training to identify suicidal youth and refer them to treatment, this new design class is especially useful when the primary outcome is a count or rate of occurrence, such as suicidal behavior, whose rate can fluctuate over time due to uncontrolled factors. Methods Statistical power is computed for various dynamic wait-listed designs under conditions where the underlying rate of occurrence is allowed to vary nonsystematically. We also present as an example a large ongoing trial to evaluate a gatekeeper training suicide prevention program in 32 schools which we initially began as a classic randomized wait-listed design. The primary outcome of interest in this study is the count of the number of children who are identified by the school system as having suicidal thoughts or behaviors who are then validated as being suicidal by mental health professionals in the community. Results A general result shows that dynamic wait-listed designs always have higher statistical power over a traditional wait-listed design. This power increase can be substantial. Efficiency gains of 33% are easy to obtain for situations where the intervention has a small effect and the variation in rate across time is quite high. When the rate variation for an outcome is very low or the intervention effect is large, efficiency gains approach 100%. A small increase in the number of times where random assignment occurs from 2 – for the standard wait-listed design, to say 4 – can provide a large reduction in variance. Efficiency gains can also be high when converting standard wait-listed design to a dynamic one half-way into the study. Limitations As with all wait-listed designs, dynamic wait-listed designs can only be used to evaluate short-term impact. Since all subjects eventually receive the intervention, no comparison can be made after the end of the random assignment period. The statistical power benefits are primarily limited to outcomes that can be treated as count or time to event data. Conclusions A dynamic design randomly assigns units – either individuals or groups – to start the intervention at varying times during the course of the study. This design is useful in testing interventions that screen for new or existing cases, as well as testing the scalability of interventions as they are disseminated or expanded system wide. They can improve on the traditional wait-listed design both in terms of statistical power and robustness in the presence of exogenous factors. This paper demonstrates that such designs yield smaller standard errors and can achieve higher statistical power than that of a standard wait-listed design. Just as important, dynamic designs can also help reduce the logistical challenges of implementing an intervention on a wide scale. When the intervention requires that significant training resources be allocated throughout the study, the dynamic waitlisted design is likely to increase the rate of training and lead to a higher level of program implementation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1191/1740774506cn152oa

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Communities and organizations often accept roll-out designs over traditional designs when receiving the new strategy is seen as advantageous or when withholding it for the whole study is unethical.

    “Communities and organizations often are willing to accept this type of roll-out design over a traditional design when there are obvious or perceived advantages in receiving the new implementation strategy, or when it is unethical to withhold a new implementation strategy throughout the study (17).”

    From An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation (2017) · cites this paper as [17]

  • This roll-out design has been used in effectiveness trials for roughly twenty years, under names such as dynamic wait-listed design or stepped-wedge design.

    “This type of roll-out design has been used for about two decades in effectiveness trials, where it is known as a dynamic wait-listed design (17) or a stepped-wedge design (10).”

    From An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation (2017) · cites this paper as [17]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Brown, C. H., Wyman, P. A., Guo, J., & Peña, J.
Affiliations
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Trials
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2006-06
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
259-271
ISSN
  • 1740-7745 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-7753
DOI
10.1191/1740774506cn152oa
OpenAlex
W2091197596
Cited by
99
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5t32mh020061-25)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH40859, T32-MH020061, R01MH040859)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
statistical power, statistical efficiency, count outcomes, gatekeeper training, suicide prevention, suicidal youth, school-based intervention, intervention timing, variance reduction
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Adolescent, Georgia, Humans, Research Design, Statistics as Topic, Suicide, Waiting Lists, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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