OBJECTIVE: Despite their promise for increasing treatment precision, Personalized Trials (i.e., N-of-1 trials) have not been widely adopted. We aimed to ascertain patient preferences for Personalized Trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We recruited 501 adults with ≥2 common chronic conditions from Harris Poll Online. We used Sawtooth Software to generate 45 plausible Personalized Trial designs comprising combinations of eight key attributes (treatment selection, treatment type, clinician involvement, blinding, time commitment, self-monitoring frequency, duration, and cost) at different levels. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess relative importance of different attributes using a random utility maximization model. RESULTS: Overall, participants preferred Personalized Trials with no costs vs. $100 cost (utility difference 1.52 [standard error 0.07], P < 0.001) and with less vs. more time commitment/day (0.16 [0.07], P < 0.015) but did not hold preferences for the other six attributes. In subgroup analyses, participants ≥65 years, white, and with income ≤$50,000 were more averse to costs than their counterparts (P all <0.05). CONCLUSION: To optimize dissemination, Personalized Trial designers should seek to minimize out-of-pocket costs and time burden of self-monitoring. They should also consider adaptive designs that can accommodate subgroup differences in design preferences.
OBJECTIVE: Despite their promise for increasing treatment precision, Personalized Trials (i.e., N-of-1 trials) have not been widely adopted. We aimed to ascertain patient preferences for Personalized Trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We recruited 501 adults with ≥2 common chronic conditions from Harris Poll Online. We used Sawtooth Software to generate 45 plausible Personalized Trial designs comprising combinations of eight key attributes (treatment selection, treatment type, clinician involvement, blinding, time commitment, self-monitoring frequency, duration, and cost) at different levels. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess relative importance of different attributes using a random utility maximization model. RESULTS: Overall, participants preferred Personalized Trials with no costs vs. $100 cost (utility difference 1.52 [standard error 0.07], P < 0.001) and with less vs. more time commitment/day (0.16 [0.07], P < 0.015) but did not hold preferences for the other six attributes. In subgroup analyses, participants ≥65 years, white, and with income ≤$50,000 were more averse to costs than their counterparts (P all <0.05). CONCLUSION: To optimize dissemination, Personalized Trial designers should seek to minimize out-of-pocket costs and time burden of self-monitoring. They should also consider adaptive designs that can accommodate subgroup differences in design preferences.
Authors: John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Santosh Kumar; Wendy J Nilsen; Amy Abernethy; Audie Atienza; Kevin Patrick; Misha Pavel; William T Riley; Albert Shar; Bonnie Spring; Donna Spruijt-Metz; Donald Hedeker; Vasant Honavar; Richard Kravitz; R Craig Lefebvre; David C Mohr; Susan A Murphy; Charlene Quinn; Vladimir Shusterman; Dallas Swendeman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Inger Ekman; Karl Swedberg; Charles Taft; Anders Lindseth; Astrid Norberg; Eva Brink; Jane Carlsson; Synneve Dahlin-Ivanoff; Inga-Lill Johansson; Karin Kjellgren; Eva Lidén; Joakim Öhlén; Lars-Eric Olsson; Henrik Rosén; Martin Rydmark; Katharina Stibrant Sunnerhagen Journal: Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 3.908
Authors: Suzana Karim; Benjamin M Craig; Caroline Vass; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 4.558
Authors: Patricia K Riggs; Antoine Chaillon; Guochun Jiang; Scott L Letendre; Yuyang Tang; Jeff Taylor; Andrew Kaytes; Davey M Smith; Karine Dubé; Sara Gianella Journal: Curr HIV/AIDS Rep Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 5.495
Authors: Ying Kuen Cheung; Dallas Wood; Kangkang Zhang; Ty A Ridenour; Lilly Derby; Tara St Onge; Naihua Duan; Joan Duer-Hefele; Karina W Davidson; Ian Kronish; Nathalie Moise Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-07 Impact factor: 2.692