Literature DB >> 29121828

Preference option randomized design (PORD) for comparative effectiveness research: Statistical power for testing comparative effect, preference effect, selection effect, intent-to-treat effect, and overall effect.

Moonseong Heo1, Paul Meissner2, Alain H Litwin3, Julia H Arnsten3, M Diane McKee2, Alison Karasz2, Paula McKinley3, Colin D Rehm1,4, Earle C Chambers2, Ming-Chin Yeh5, Judith Wylie-Rosett1.   

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research trials in real-world settings may require participants to choose between preferred intervention options. A randomized clinical trial with parallel experimental and control arms is straightforward and regarded as a gold standard design, but by design it forces and anticipates the participants to comply with a randomly assigned intervention regardless of their preference. Therefore, the randomized clinical trial may impose impractical limitations when planning comparative effectiveness research trials. To accommodate participants' preference if they are expressed, and to maintain randomization, we propose an alternative design that allows participants' preference after randomization, which we call a "preference option randomized design (PORD)". In contrast to other preference designs, which ask whether or not participants consent to the assigned intervention after randomization, the crucial feature of preference option randomized design is its unique informed consent process before randomization. Specifically, the preference option randomized design consent process informs participants that they can opt out and switch to the other intervention only if after randomization they actively express the desire to do so. Participants who do not independently express explicit alternate preference or assent to the randomly assigned intervention are considered to not have an alternate preference. In sum, preference option randomized design intends to maximize retention, minimize possibility of forced assignment for any participants, and to maintain randomization by allowing participants with no or equal preference to represent random assignments. This design scheme enables to define five effects that are interconnected with each other through common design parameters-comparative, preference, selection, intent-to-treat, and overall/as-treated-to collectively guide decision making between interventions. Statistical power functions for testing all these effects are derived, and simulations verified the validity of the power functions under normal and binomial distributions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Preference; comparative effectiveness research; decision making; power; randomization

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29121828      PMCID: PMC6834113          DOI: 10.1177/0962280217734584

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  28 in total

1.  Clinical and translational science: from bench-bedside to global village.

Authors:  Scott A Waldman; Andre Terzic
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 4.689

2.  Practice-based research--"Blue Highways" on the NIH roadmap.

Authors:  John M Westfall; James Mold; Lyle Fagnan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-01-24       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  Outcomes research, PORTs, and health care reform.

Authors:  J E Wennberg; M J Barry; F J Fowler; A Mulley
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1993-12-31       Impact factor: 5.691

4.  Strategy and alternate randomized designs in cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  M Zelen
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rep       Date:  1982-05

5.  Directly observed antiretroviral therapy improves adherence and viral load in drug users attending methadone maintenance clinics: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Karina M Berg; Alain Litwin; Xuan Li; Moonseong Heo; Julia H Arnsten
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 4.492

6.  Elbasvir-Grazoprevir to Treat Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Persons Receiving Opioid Agonist Therapy: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Gregory J Dore; Frederick Altice; Alain H Litwin; Olav Dalgard; Edward J Gane; Oren Shibolet; Anne Luetkemeyer; Ronald Nahass; Cheng-Yuan Peng; Brian Conway; Jason Grebely; Anita Y M Howe; Isaias N Gendrano; Erluo Chen; Hsueh-Cheng Huang; Frank J Dutko; David C Nickle; Bach-Yen Nguyen; Janice Wahl; Eliav Barr; Michael N Robertson; Heather L Platt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Contribution of treatment acceptability to acceptance of randomization: an exploration.

Authors:  Souraya Sidani; Mary Fox; Dana R Epstein
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 2.431

8.  Rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial of directly observed hepatitis C treatment delivered in methadone clinics.

Authors:  Alain H Litwin; Karina M Berg; Xuan Li; Jennifer Hidalgo; Julia H Arnsten
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2011-11-12       Impact factor: 3.090

9.  Clinical and Economic Impact of a Digital, Remotely-Delivered Intensive Behavioral Counseling Program on Medicare Beneficiaries at Risk for Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease.

Authors:  Fang Chen; Wenqing Su; Shawn H Becker; Mike Payne; Cynthia M Castro Sweet; Anne L Peters; Timothy M Dall
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-05       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Randomised trials comparing different healthcare settings: an exploratory review of the impact of pre-trial preferences on participation, and discussion of other methodological challenges.

Authors:  Mark S Corbett; Judith Watson; Alison Eastwood
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  3 in total

1.  Authors' reply: Letter to the Editor: Preference option randomized design (PORD) for comparative effectiveness research: Statistical power for testing comparative effect, preference effect, selection effect, intent-to-treat effect, and overall effect (SMMR, Vol. 28, Issue 2, 2019).

Authors:  Moonseong Heo; Paul Meissner; Alain H Litwin; M Diane McKee; Alison Karasz; Earle C Chambers; Ming-Chin Yeh; Judith Wylie-Rosett
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2018-04-10       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  Comparative effects of telephone versus in-office behavioral counseling to improve HIV treatment outcomes among people living with HIV in a rural setting.

Authors:  Seth C Kalichman; Harold Katner; Lisa A Eaton; Ellen Banas; Marnie Hill; Moira O Kalichman
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Utilizing patient perception of group treatment in exploring medication adherence, social support, and quality of life outcomes in people who inject drugs with hepatitis C.

Authors:  Kerry A Howard; Lior Rennert; Irene Pericot-Valverde; Moonseong Heo; Brianna L Norton; Matthew J Akiyama; Linda Agyemang; Alain H Litwin
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2021-05-07
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.