Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep 6;25(1):593.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08415-z.

Covariate-constrained randomization in cluster randomized 2 × 2 factorial trials: application to a diabetes prevention study

Affiliations

Covariate-constrained randomization in cluster randomized 2 × 2 factorial trials: application to a diabetes prevention study

Juned Siddique et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are randomized trials where randomization takes place at an administrative level (e.g., hospitals, clinics, or schools) rather than at the individual level. When the number of available clusters is small, researchers may not be able to rely on simple randomization to achieve balance on cluster-level covariates across treatment conditions. If these cluster-level covariates are predictive of the outcome, covariate imbalance may distort treatment effects, threaten internal validity, lead to a loss of power, and increase the variability of treatment effects. Covariate-constrained randomization (CR) is a randomization strategy designed to reduce the risk of imbalance in cluster-level covariates when performing a CRT. Existing methods for CR have been developed and evaluated for two- and multi-arm CRTs but not for factorial CRTs.

Methods: Motivated by the BEGIN study-a CRT for weight loss among patients with pre-diabetes-we develop methods for performing CR in 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomized trials with a continuous outcome and continuous cluster-level covariates. We apply our methods to the BEGIN study and use simulation to assess the performance of CR versus simple randomization for estimating treatment effects by varying the number of clusters, the degree to which clusters are associated with the outcome, the distribution of cluster level covariates, the size of the constrained randomization space, and analysis strategies.

Results: Compared to simple randomization of clusters, CR in the factorial setting is effective at achieving balance across cluster-level covariates between treatment conditions and provides more precise inferences. When cluster-level covariates are included in the analyses model, CR also results in greater power to detect treatment effects, but power is low compared to unadjusted analyses when the number of clusters is small.

Conclusions: CR should be used instead of simple randomization when performing factorial CRTs to avoid highly imbalanced designs and to obtain more precise inferences. Except when there are a small number of clusters, cluster-level covariates should be included in the analysis model to increase power and maintain coverage and type 1 error rates at their nominal levels.

Keywords: Balance; CRT; Confounding.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Histogram of total balance scores for the 2520 possible allocation schemes for the Behavioral Nudges for Diabetes Prevention (BEGIN) cluster randomized trial with 8 clusters and 4 randomization conditions. The vertical red line indicates the cutoff corresponding to the top 10% of balance scores among the 2520 possible scores

Update of

Similar articles

References

    1. Murray DM, Taljaard M, Turner EL, George SM. Essential ingredients and innovations in the design and analysis of group-randomized trials. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020;41(1):1–19. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094027 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Giraudeau B, Ravaud P. Preventing bias in cluster randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2009;6(5):e1000065. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000065 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ivers NM, Halperin IJ, Barnsley J, Grimshaw JM, Shah BR, Tu K, et al. Allocation techniques for balance at baseline in cluster randomized trials: a methodological review. Trials. 2012;13(1):1–9. 10.1186/1745-6215-13-120 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dziak JJ, Nahum-Shani I, Collins LM. Multilevel factorial experiments for developing behavioral interventions: power, sample size, and resource considerations. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(2):153. 10.1037/a0026972 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moerbeek M, van Schie S. How large are the consequences of covariate imbalance in cluster randomized trials: a simulation study with a continuous outcome and a binary covariate at the cluster level. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):1–10. 10.1186/s12874-016-0182-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources