Eleanor J Murray1, Ellen C Caniglia2, Sonja A Swanson3, Sonia Hernández-Díaz2, Miguel A Hernán4. 1. Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Electronic address: emurray@mail.harvard.edu. 2. Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 3. Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Boston, MA 02139, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Pragmatic randomized trials are important tools for shared decision-making, but no guidance exists on patients' preferences for types of causal information. We aimed to assess preferences of patients and investigators toward causal effects in pragmatic randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We (a) held three focus groups with patients (n = 23) in Boston, MA; (b) surveyed (n = 12) and interviewed (n = 5) investigators with experience conducting pragmatic trials; and (c) conducted a systematic literature review of pragmatic trials (n = 63). RESULTS: Patients were distrustful of new-to-market medications unless substantially more effective than existing choices, preferred stratified absolute risks, and valued adherence-adjusted analyses when they expected to adhere. Investigators wanted both intention-to-treat and per-protocol effects but felt methods for estimating per-protocol effects were lacking. When estimating per-protocol effects, many pragmatic trials used inappropriate methods to adjust for adherence and loss to follow-up. CONCLUSION: We made four recommendations for pragmatic trials to improve patient centeredness: (1) focus on superiority in effectiveness or safety, rather than noninferiority; (2) involve patients in specifying a priori subgroups; (3) report absolute measures of risk; and (4) complement intention-to-treat effect estimates with valid per-protocol effect estimates.
OBJECTIVES: Pragmatic randomized trials are important tools for shared decision-making, but no guidance exists on patients' preferences for types of causal information. We aimed to assess preferences of patients and investigators toward causal effects in pragmatic randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We (a) held three focus groups with patients (n = 23) in Boston, MA; (b) surveyed (n = 12) and interviewed (n = 5) investigators with experience conducting pragmatic trials; and (c) conducted a systematic literature review of pragmatic trials (n = 63). RESULTS:Patients were distrustful of new-to-market medications unless substantially more effective than existing choices, preferred stratified absolute risks, and valued adherence-adjusted analyses when they expected to adhere. Investigators wanted both intention-to-treat and per-protocol effects but felt methods for estimating per-protocol effects were lacking. When estimating per-protocol effects, many pragmatic trials used inappropriate methods to adjust for adherence and loss to follow-up. CONCLUSION: We made four recommendations for pragmatic trials to improve patient centeredness: (1) focus on superiority in effectiveness or safety, rather than noninferiority; (2) involve patients in specifying a priori subgroups; (3) report absolute measures of risk; and (4) complement intention-to-treat effect estimates with valid per-protocol effect estimates.
Authors: Michael Allen; Tanya MacLeod; Richard Handfield-Jones; Douglas Sinclair; Michael Fleming Journal: J Contin Educ Health Prof Date: 2010 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Kevin E Thorpe; Merrick Zwarenstein; Andrew D Oxman; Shaun Treweek; Curt D Furberg; Douglas G Altman; Sean Tunis; Eduardo Bergel; Ian Harvey; David J Magid; Kalipso Chalkidou Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Daniella A Zipkin; Craig A Umscheid; Nancy L Keating; Elizabeth Allen; KoKo Aung; Rebecca Beyth; Scott Kaatz; Devin M Mann; Jeremy B Sussman; Deborah Korenstein; Connie Schardt; Avishek Nagi; Richard Sloane; David A Feldstein Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Simon Gilbody; Elizabeth Littlewood; Catherine Hewitt; Gwen Brierley; Puvan Tharmanathan; Ricardo Araya; Michael Barkham; Peter Bower; Cindy Cooper; Linda Gask; David Kessler; Helen Lester; Karina Lovell; Glenys Parry; David A Richards; Phil Andersen; Sally Brabyn; Sarah Knowles; Charles Shepherd; Debbie Tallon; David White Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-11-11
Authors: Rohan Khera; Martijn J Schuemie; Yuan Lu; Anna Ostropolets; RuiJun Chen; George Hripcsak; Patrick B Ryan; Harlan M Krumholz; Marc A Suchard Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Stuart G Nicholls; Kelly Carroll; Spencer Phillips Hey; Merrick Zwarenstein; Jennifer Zhe Zhang; Hayden P Nix; Jamie C Brehaut; Joanne E McKenzie; Steve McDonald; Charles Weijer; Dean A Fergusson; Monica Taljaard Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2021-03-28 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Jeroen Hoogland; Joanna IntHout; Michail Belias; Maroeska M Rovers; Richard D Riley; Frank E Harrell; Karel G M Moons; Thomas P A Debray; Johannes B Reitsma Journal: Stat Med Date: 2021-08-16 Impact factor: 2.497