Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 16, 2026

A Novel Digital Platform for a Monitored Home-based Cardiac Rehabilitation Program
Published on: April 19, 2019
Considerations for evaluating pragmatic design elements in digital health intervention trials: the case of Keep It
Benbow Nanette1,2,3,4, Li Dennis H5,6,7,8, Macapagal Kathryn5,6,7
1Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. nanette@northwestern.edu.
Background:
Digital health interventions are increasingly promoted in healthcare and prevention practices due to their potential for reaching key populations in a cost-efficient manner. Yet there has been limited research on how to effectively implement them with pragmatic approaches that can facilitate scale-up. Keep It Up! (KIU!) 3.0 was a hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness trial comparing two delivery strategies (i.e. trial arms) of an HIV prevention intervention for cisgender, young men who have sex with men. We aimed to determine the level of pragmatism of our two-armed trial before and after changes to the county-randomized design.
Methods:
We applied different versions of the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) tool to the two trial arms: delivery of KIU! by community-based organizations (CBO) versus centralized, direct-to-consumer (DTC) delivery. We scored PRECIS-2 for the original study design and the modified design in which the DTC strategy expanded nationally. We applied PRECIS-2-PS to the modified study design. Nine coders in three groups independently scored the tools. Scores were iteratively discussed to arrive at one consensus score per domain, tool, design stage, and arm. We plotted results using the PRECIS-2 and PRECIS-2-PS wheels and averaged domains scores to describe overall score along the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum.
Results:
Using PRECIS-2, the trial was on the pragmatic side of the spectrum for both arms and design stages, with average ratings ranging from 3.89-4.33. Both arms were highly pragmatic in the original and modified design in the Setting and Primary Analysis domains and least pragmatic in the Follow-up domain. In the modified trial design, the CBO and DTC arms again scored rather pragmatic using the PRECIS-2-PS tool, but CBO arm scored higher in the eligibility, recruitment, and organization domains compared to PRECIS-2 (5 vs. 4, respectively).
Conclusions:
Application of both the PRECIS-2 and PRECIS-2-PS tools validated the pragmatic design of KIU! 3.0 as originally designed and after modifications during trial implementation. Our findings highlight instances where one tool may be more suitable than the other to assess the pragmatic-explanatory continuum for emerging digital health interventions delivered in diverse settings and with different implementation strategies.
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
Biopharmaceutical Factors Influencing Drug Product Design: Overview
Clinical Trials: Overview

