Literature DB >> 21041538

Determining the impact of informed choice: separating treatment effects from the effects of choice and selection in randomized trials.

Kirsten J McCaffery1, Robin Turner1, Petra Macaskill1, Stephen D Walter2, Siew Foong Chan1, Les Irwig1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Rucker 2-stage randomized trial (RCT) design and method allows treatment, preference, and selection effects to be estimated separately in clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: To understand the effect of patient choice on patient outcomes, the authors applied the Rucker design and analysis method.
DESIGN: They used data from a trial of management strategies for women with atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) detected at routine cervical screening, in which informed choice using a decision aid was compared to no choice.
SETTING: Women's health clinics across Australia. PATIENTS: Women aged 18 to 70 years (n = 314) with ASCUS. INTERVENTION: Women were randomized to either an informed choice of human papillomavirus (HPV) triage testing or repeat Pap testing or to no choice with random allocation to management by either option. MEASUREMENTS: Health-related quality of life (SF36) and satisfaction were measured over the course of management and up to 1 year after triage.
RESULTS: Using the Rucker analysis, patients who received their choice had higher quality of life scores than those who did not choose (SF36 MCS, 6% higher, 6.0; 95% confidence interval: -0.6 to 12.9; P = 0.07; effect size 0.61 [moderate]). In contrast, the traditional RCT analysis suggested there was little difference in quality of life between the choice and no-choice trial arms. LIMITATIONS: The Rucker method assumes that the declared preferences for treatment in the choice arm are representative of the preferences that would have been observed in the no-choice arms if choice was available.
CONCLUSIONS: The Rucker method should be used to estimate treatment, preference, and selection effects in randomized trials, as it adds to our understanding of the effect of choice on patient outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21041538     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10379919

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  7 in total

1.  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

2.  Potential cost-effectiveness for using patient decision aids to guide osteoporosis treatment.

Authors:  H Penton; M Hiligsmann; M Harrison; J-Y Reginster; A Boonen; N Bansback
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-05-07       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  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 4.  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

5.  Do participants' preferences for mode of delivery (text, video, or both) influence the effectiveness of a Web-based physical activity intervention?

Authors:  Corneel Vandelanotte; Mitch J Duncan; Ronald C Plotnikoff; W Kerry Mummery
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 5.428

6.  Accounting for health literacy and intervention preferences when reducing unhealthy snacking: protocol for an online randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Julie Ayre; Erin Cvejic; Carissa Bonner; Robin M Turner; Stephen D Walter; Kirsten J McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Effects of health literacy, screening, and participant choice on action plans for reducing unhealthy snacking in Australia: A randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Julie Ayre; Erin Cvejic; Carissa Bonner; Robin M Turner; Stephen D Walter; Kirsten J McCaffery
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 11.069

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.