Power and Sample Size Calculations for Cluster Randomized Hybrid Type 2 Effectiveness‐Implementation Studies

Hybrid studies allow investigators to simultaneously study an intervention effectiveness outcome and an implementation research outcome. In particular, type 2 hybrid studies support research that places equal importance on both outcomes rather than focusing on one and secondarily on the other (i.e., type 1 and type 3 studies). Hybrid 2 studies introduce the statistical issue of multiple testing, complicated by the fact that they are typically also cluster randomized trials. Standard statistical methods do not apply in this scenario. Here, we describe the design methodologies available for validly powering hybrid type 2 studies and producing reliable sample size calculations in a cluster-randomized design with a focus on binary outcomes. Through a literature search, 18 publications were identified that included methods relevant to the design of hybrid 2 studies. Five methods were identified, two of which did not account for clustering but are extended in this article to do so, namely the combined outcomes approach and the single 1-degree of freedom combined test. Procedures for powering hybrid 2 studies using these five methods are described and illustrated using input parameters inspired by a study from the Community Intervention to Reduce CardiovascuLar Disease in Chicago (CIRCL-Chicago) Implementation Research Center. In this illustrative example, the intervention effectiveness outcome was controlled blood pressure, and the implementation outcome was reach. The conjunctive test resulted in higher power than the popular p value adjustment methods, and the newly extended combined outcomes and single 1-DF test were found to be the most powerful among all of the tests.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Statistics in Medicine
Published
2025-02-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.70015
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Health Policy Implementation Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.82

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Power and Sample Size Calculations for Cluster Randomized Hybrid Type 2 Effectiveness‐Implementation Studies

Justin D. Smith, Yacob G. Tedla, Geoffrey M. Curran, Donna Spiegelman et al.
1 citations
Statistics in Medicine
Health Policy Implementation Science
2.82
article

Power and Sample Size Calculations for Cluster Randomized Hybrid Type 2 Effectiveness‐Implementation Studies

Justin D. Smith, Yacob G. Tedla, Geoffrey M. Curran, Donna Spiegelman, Chao Cheng, Melody Owen
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Hybrid studies allow investigators to simultaneously study an intervention effectiveness outcome and an implementation research outcome. In particular, type 2 hybrid studies support research that places equal importance on both outcomes rather than focusing on one and secondarily on the other (i.e., type 1 and type 3 studies). Hybrid 2 studies introduce the statistical issue of multiple testing, complicated by the fact that they are typically also cluster randomized trials. Standard statistical methods do not apply in this scenario. Here, we describe the design methodologies available for validly powering hybrid type 2 studies and producing reliable sample size calculations in a cluster-randomized design with a focus on binary outcomes. Through a literature search, 18 publications were identified that included methods relevant to the design of hybrid 2 studies. Five methods were identified, two of which did not account for clustering but are extended in this article to do so, namely the combined outcomes approach and the single 1-degree of freedom combined test. Procedures for powering hybrid 2 studies using these five methods are described and illustrated using input parameters inspired by a study from the Community Intervention to Reduce CardiovascuLar Disease in Chicago (CIRCL-Chicago) Implementation Research Center. In this illustrative example, the intervention effectiveness outcome was controlled blood pressure, and the implementation outcome was reach. The conjunctive test resulted in higher power than the popular p value adjustment methods, and the newly extended combined outcomes and single 1-DF test were found to be the most powerful among all of the tests.

Statistics in MedicineVol. 44(5)
University of Utah (US), Yale University (US), University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US), Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Health Policy Implementation Science
2.82
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.