Reconsidering stepped wedge cluster randomized trial designs with implementation periods: Fewer sequences or the parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods are potentially more efficient

Background/aims: When designing a cluster randomized trial, advantages and disadvantages of tentative designs must be weighed. The stepped wedge design is popular for multiple reasons, including its potential to increase power via improved efficiency relative to a parallel-group design. In many realistic settings, it will take time for clusters to fully implement the intervention. When designing the HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-term^SM) Communities Study, implementation time was a major consideration, and we examined the efficiency and practicality of three designs. Specifically, a three-sequence stepped wedge design with implementation periods, a corresponding two-sequence modified design that is created by removing the middle sequence, and a parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods. In this article, we study the relative efficiencies of these specific designs. More generally, we study the relative efficiencies of modified designs when the stepped wedge design with implementation periods has three or more sequences. We also consider different correlation structures. Methods: We compare efficiencies of stepped wedge designs with implementation periods consisting of three to nine sequences with a variety of corresponding designs. The three-sequence design is compared to the two-sequence modified design and to the parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods analysed via analysis of covariance. Stepped wedge designs with implementation periods consisting of four or more sequences are compared to modified designs that remove all or a subset of ‘middle’ sequences. Efficiencies are based on the use of linear mixed effects models. Results: In the studied settings, the modified design is more efficient than the three-sequence stepped wedge design with implementation periods. The parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods with analysis of covariance–based analysis is often more efficient than the three-sequence design. With respect to stepped wedge designs with implementation periods that are comprised of more sequences, there are often corresponding modified designs that improve efficiency. However, use of only the first and last sequences has the potential to be either relatively efficient or inefficient. Relative efficiency is impacted by the strength of the statistical correlation among outcomes from the same cluster; for example, the relative efficiencies of modified designs tend to be greater for smaller cluster auto-correlation values. Conclusion: If a three-sequence stepped wedge design with implementation periods is being considered for a future cluster randomized trial, then a corresponding modified design using only the first and last sequences should be considered if sole focus is on efficiency. However, a parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods and analysis of covariance–based analysis can be a practical, efficient alternative. For stepped wedge designs with implementation periods and a larger number of sequences, modified versions that remove ‘middle’ sequences should be considered. Due to the potential sensitivity of design efficiencies, statistical correlation should be carefully considered.