Literature DB >> 16774847

A comparison of socio-demographic and psychological factors between patients consenting to randomisation and those selecting treatment (the ProtecT study).

Nicola Mills1, Chris Metcalfe, Carine Ronsmans, Michael Davis, J Athene Lane, Jonathan A C Sterne, Tim J Peters, Freddie C Hamdy, David E Neal, Jenny L Donovan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient preferences for treatment can pose problems for the conduct of randomised controlled trials: patients with a preference may refuse participation and thereby potentially compromise external validity. Moreover, randomising patients with a preference may affect treatment efficacy and threaten internal validity. AIMS: This study compared baseline characteristics and short-term psychological outcomes of patients who selected their treatment and those who agreed to random allocation.
METHODS: Men participating in the prostate testing for cancer and treatment (ProtecT) study and who were randomised to active monitoring (n=138) were compared with those who had refused randomisation and selected this management (n=180). Socio-demographic data were collected at baseline, and anxiety and depression data were collected at baseline and six month follow-up. Socio-demographic characteristics were compared across these two groups in univariable analyses, and then linear regression was used to compare levels of anxiety and depression at follow-up with adjustments for confounders.
RESULTS: Participants who selected active monitoring were more affluent (based on occupation details) and had less anxiety at baseline than those who were randomised. There were no differences with respect to age and marital status. Levels of anxiety and depression at six months follow-up were similar across the two groups of men.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found some differences at baseline between the socio-demographic and psychological status of those randomised and self-selecting treatment, but no psychological differences at short-term follow-up. Further empirical evidence is required to assess whether preferences impact upon the process and outcome of randomised controlled trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16774847     DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials        ISSN: 1551-7144            Impact factor:   2.226


  8 in total

1.  Assessment of preferences for treatment: validation of a measure.

Authors:  Souraya Sidani; Dana R Epstein; Richard R Bootzin; Patricia Moritz; Joyal Miranda
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.228

2.  Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Nicola Mills; Jenny L Donovan; Julia Wade; Freddie C Hamdy; David E Neal; J Athene Lane
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-04-07       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Karin A Wasmann; Pieta Wijsman; Susan van Dieren; Willem Bemelman; Christianne Buskens
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Nurses' Perception of a Tailored Web-Based Intervention for the Self-Management of Pain After Cardiac Surgery.

Authors:  Geraldine Martorella; Lucinda Graven; Glenna Schluck; Mélanie Bérubé; Céline Gélinas
Journal:  SAGE Open Nurs       Date:  2018-11-21

5.  Trends in non-metastatic prostate cancer management in the Northern and Yorkshire region of England, 2000-2006.

Authors:  L Fairley; M Baker; J Whiteway; W Cross; D Forman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 6.  Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate.

Authors:  Gunn Elisabeth Vist; Dianne Bryant; Lyndsay Somerville; Trevor Birminghem; Andrew D Oxman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2008-07-16

7.  Examining the influence of treatment preferences on attrition, adherence and outcomes: a protocol for a two-stage partially randomized trial.

Authors:  Souraya Sidani; Mary Fox; David L Streiner; Joyal Miranda; Suzanne Fredericks; Dana R Epstein
Journal:  BMC Nurs       Date:  2015-11-09

8.  Investigating generalizability of results from a randomized controlled trial of the management of chronic widespread pain: the MUSICIAN study.

Authors:  Gareth T Jones; Elizabeth A Jones; Marcus J Beasley; Gary J Macfarlane
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 7.926

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.