Skip to main content

Table 1 Readiness Assessment for Pragmatic Trials (RAPT) domains and scoring guidance

From: Readiness assessment for pragmatic trials (RAPT): a model to assess the readiness of an intervention for testing in a pragmatic trial

DomainAssessmentScoring Guidance
1. Implementation protocolaIs the protocol sufficiently detailed to be replicated?There is no protocol.The protocol provides some documentation, but may be difficult to replicate.The protocol is well documented and is likely to be replicable.
2. EvidenceTo what extent does the evidence base support the intervention’s efficacy?There are no efficacy studies or the efficacy studies did not use rigorous methods (e.g., a RCT).A single study using rigorous methods demonstrated efficacy.Multiple studies using rigorous methods have demonstrated efficacy.
3. RiskIs it known how safe the intervention is?The risks (harms and discomforts) are unknown or are known to be more than minimal (e.g., greater than ordinarily encountered in daily life).The risks are unknown, but are likely minimal.The risks are known to be minimal.
4. FeasibilityTo what extent can the intervention be implemented under existing conditions?Resources necessary for implementation (e.g., staff, infrastructure, payment) are absent or insufficient.Minor modifications to existing resources would enable implementation.Implementation is possible with existing resources.
5. MeasurementTo what extent can the intervention’s outcomes be captured?aOutcomes cannot be captured without major modifications to systems (e.g., clinical assessments, documentation, or electronic health records) or increases in staff time.Outcomes can be captured with minor modifications to systems or increases in staff time.Outcomes are already routinely captured.
6. CostHow likely is the intervention to be economically viable?Cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness analysis has not been completed (formally or informally) and it is unknown whether benefits outweigh costs.Cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness analysis has not been completed, but benefits are likely to outweigh costs.Cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrates benefits outweigh costs.
7. AcceptabilityHow willing are providers likely to be to adopt the intervention?Acceptability is unknown or staff are unlikely to believe the intervention is feasible or needed.Acceptability is unknown, but staff are likely to believe the intervention is feasible or needed.Acceptability is known and staff believe the intervention is feasible and needed.
8. AlignmentTo what extent does the intervention align with external stakeholders’ priorities?Stakeholders (policymakers, payors, advocates, and others) do not believe the intervention addresses a current or anticipated priority.Some stakeholders believe the intervention addresses a priority.Most or all stakeholders believe the intervention addresses a priority.
9. ImpactHow useful will the intervention’s results be?Providers and stakeholders (policymakers, payors, advocates, and others) are unlikely to believe that the outcomes are useful (e.g., to inform clinical care or policy).Some providers or stakeholders are likely to believe the outcomes are useful.Most or all providers and stakeholders are likely to believe the outcomes are useful.
  1. aRefers to the operations manual or implementation guide for the intervention’s deployment, not the Institutional Review Board submission
  2. PCT Pragmatic randomized, controlled trial, RAPT Readiness Assessment for Pragmatic Trials, RCT Randomized, controlled trial