Literature DB >> 18515187

The effect of patient choice of intervention on health outcomes.

Noreen M Clark1, Nancy K Janz, Julia A Dodge, Lori Mosca, Xihong Lin, Qi Long, Roderick J Little, John R C Wheeler, Steven Keteyian, Jersey Liang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient preference may influence intervention effects, but has not been extensively studied. Randomized controlled design (N=1075) assessed outcomes when women (60 years+) were given a choice of two formats of a program to enhance heart disease management.
METHODS: Randomization to "no choice" or "choice" study arms. Further randomization of "no choice" to: 1) Group intervention program format, 2) Self-Directed program format, 3) Control Group. "Choice" arm selected their preferred program format. Baseline, four, twelve, and eighteen month follow-up data were collected. Two analyses: health outcomes for choice compared to being randomized; and preference effect on treatment efficacy.
RESULTS: Women who chose a format compared to being assigned a format had better psychosocial functioning at four months (p=0.02) and tended toward better physical functioning at twelve months (p=0.07). At eighteen months women who chose versus being assigned a format had more symptoms measured as: number (p=0.004), frequency (p=0.006) and bother (p=0.004). At four months women who preferred the Group format had better psychosocial functioning when assigned the Group format than when they were assigned the Self-Directed format (p=0.03). At eighteen months women preferring a Group format had more symptoms: number (p=0.001), frequency (p=0.001), bother (p=0.001) when assigned the Group format than when assigned the Self-Directed format.
CONCLUSIONS: Choice and preference for the Group format each enhanced psychosocial and physical functioning up to one year. Despite the preference for Group format, over the longer term (eighteen months) cardiac symptoms were fewer when assigned the Self-Directed format.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18515187      PMCID: PMC2577598          DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.04.002

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


  20 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study.

Authors:  Julie Pildal; An-Wen Chan; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Elisabeth Forfang; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-04-07

Review 2.  The use of unequal randomisation ratios in clinical trials: a review.

Authors:  J C Dumville; S Hahn; J N V Miles; D J Torgerson
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 2.226

3.  A two-stage trial design for testing treatment, self-selection and treatment preference effects.

Authors:  G Rücker
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Generalizability of trial results based on randomized versus nonrandomized allocation of OME infants to ventilation tubes or watchful waiting.

Authors:  M M Rovers; H Straatman; K Ingels; G J van der Wilt; P van den Broek; G A Zielhuis
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  The impact of using a partially randomised patient preference design when evaluating alternative managements for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Authors:  K G Cooper; A M Grant; A M Garratt
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1997-12

Review 6.  The role of choice in health education intervention trials: a review and case study.

Authors:  Mary R Janevic; Nancy K Janz; Julia A Dodge; Xihong Lin; Wenqin Pan; Brandy R Sinco; Noreen M Clark
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 7.  Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michael King; Irwin Nazareth; Fiona Lampe; Peter Bower; Martin Chandler; Maria Morou; Bonnie Sibbald; Rosalind Lai
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-02       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Recruitment and retention challenges in breast cancer survivorship research: results from a multisite, randomized intervention trial in women with early stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Sharon R Sears; Annette L Stanton; Lorna Kwan; Janice L Krupnick; Julia H Rowland; Beth E Meyerowitz; Patricia A Ganz
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Randomized 2 x 2 trial evaluating hormonal treatment and the duration of chemotherapy in node-positive breast cancer patients. German Breast Cancer Study Group.

Authors:  M Schumacher; G Bastert; H Bojar; K Hübner; M Olschewski; W Sauerbrei; C Schmoor; C Beyerle; R L Neumann; H F Rauschecker
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Influences on women's participation in cardiac rehabilitation.

Authors:  Holly Gregory Heid; Marilee Schmelzer
Journal:  Rehabil Nurs       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.625

View more
  15 in total

1.  Progression of symptoms and functioning among female cardiac patients with and without diabetes.

Authors:  Mary R Janevic; Nancy K Janz; Cathleen M Connell; Niko Kaciroti; Noreen M Clark
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Time availability and preference for e-health communication channels for nutrition and physical activity.

Authors:  Lisa M Quintiliani; Jessica A Whiteley; Elizabeth J Johnson; K Viswanath
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  Do Parent Preferences for Child Conduct Problem Interventions Impact Parenting Outcomes? A Pilot Study in Community Children's Mental Health Settings.

Authors:  Yaliu He; Abigail H Gewirtz; Susanne Lee; Gerald August
Journal:  J Marital Fam Ther       Date:  2018-02-09

4.  Exercise self-regulation among older women participating in a heart disease-management intervention.

Authors:  Mary R Janevic; Nancy K Janz; Niko Kaciroti; Julia A Dodge; Steven J Keteyian; Lori Mosca; Noreen M Clark
Journal:  J Women Aging       Date:  2010

5.  A comparison of maternal outcomes from an alcohol, tobacco, and other drug prevention program for mothers choosing an intervention versus being randomized.

Authors:  Hilary F Byrnes; Brenda A Miller; Nicole Laborde
Journal:  Health Educ Behav       Date:  2012-04-13

6.  Does Giving Parents Their Choice of Interventions for Child Behavior Problems Improve Child Outcomes?

Authors:  Abigail H Gewirtz; Susanne S Lee; Gerald J August; Yaliu He
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2019-01

Review 7.  Effect of Treatment Preference in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Dimittri Delevry; Quang A Le
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Effects of tailored knowledge enhancement on colorectal cancer screening preference across ethnic and language groups.

Authors:  Anthony Jerant; Richard L Kravitz; Kevin Fiscella; Nancy Sohler; Raquel Lozano Romero; Bennett Parnes; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Charles Turner; Simon Dvorak; Peter Franks
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2012-09-15

9.  Toward systematic integration between self-determination theory and motivational interviewing as examples of top-down and bottom-up intervention development: autonomy or volition as a fundamental theoretical principle.

Authors:  Maarten Vansteenkiste; Geoffrey C Williams; Ken Resnicow
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2012-03-02       Impact factor: 6.457

10.  Patient preference in psychological treatment and associations with self-reported outcome: national cross-sectional survey in England and Wales.

Authors:  Ryan Williams; Lorna Farquharson; Lucy Palmer; Paul Bassett; Jeremy Clarke; David M Clark; Mike J Crawford
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 3.630

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.