Dimittri Delevry1, Quang A Le2. 1. College of Pharmacy, Western University of Health Sciences, 309 East Second Street, Pomona, CA, 91766, USA. 2. College of Pharmacy, Western University of Health Sciences, 309 East Second Street, Pomona, CA, 91766, USA. qle@westernu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A significant limitation of the traditional randomized controlled trials is that strong preferences for (or against) one treatment may influence outcomes and/or willingness to receive treatment. Several trial designs incorporating patient preference have been introduced to examine the effect of treatment preference separately from the effects of individual interventions. In the current study, we summarized results from studies using doubly randomized preference trial (DRPT) or fully randomized preference trial (FRPT) designs and examined the effect of treatment preference on clinical outcomes. METHODS: The current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies using DRPT or FRPT design were identified using electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar between January 1989 and November 2018. All studies included in this meta-analysis were examined to determine the extent to which giving patients their preferred treatment option influenced clinical outcomes. The following data were extracted from included studies: study characteristics, sample size, study duration, follow-up, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes. We further appraised risk of bias for the included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. RESULTS: The search identified 374 potentially relevant articles, of which 27 clinical trials utilized a DRPT or FRPT design and were included in the final analysis. Overall, patients who were allocated to their preferred treatment intervention were more likely to achieve better clinical outcomes [effect size (ES) = 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10-0.26]. Subgroup analysis also found that mental health as well as pain and functional disorders moderated the preference effect (ES = 0.23, 95% CI 0.11-0.36, and ES = 0.09, 95% CI 0.03-0.15, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Matching patients to preferred interventions has previously been shown to promote outcomes such as satisfaction and treatment adherence. Our analysis of current evidence showed that allowing patients to choose their preferred treatment resulted in better clinical outcomes in mental health and pain than giving them a treatment that is not preferred. These results underline the importance of incorporating patient preference when making treatment decisions.
BACKGROUND: A significant limitation of the traditional randomized controlled trials is that strong preferences for (or against) one treatment may influence outcomes and/or willingness to receive treatment. Several trial designs incorporating patient preference have been introduced to examine the effect of treatment preference separately from the effects of individual interventions. In the current study, we summarized results from studies using doubly randomized preference trial (DRPT) or fully randomized preference trial (FRPT) designs and examined the effect of treatment preference on clinical outcomes. METHODS: The current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies using DRPT or FRPT design were identified using electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar between January 1989 and November 2018. All studies included in this meta-analysis were examined to determine the extent to which giving patients their preferred treatment option influenced clinical outcomes. The following data were extracted from included studies: study characteristics, sample size, study duration, follow-up, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes. We further appraised risk of bias for the included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. RESULTS: The search identified 374 potentially relevant articles, of which 27 clinical trials utilized a DRPT or FRPT design and were included in the final analysis. Overall, patients who were allocated to their preferred treatment intervention were more likely to achieve better clinical outcomes [effect size (ES) = 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10-0.26]. Subgroup analysis also found that mental health as well as pain and functional disorders moderated the preference effect (ES = 0.23, 95% CI 0.11-0.36, and ES = 0.09, 95% CI 0.03-0.15, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Matching patients to preferred interventions has previously been shown to promote outcomes such as satisfaction and treatment adherence. Our analysis of current evidence showed that allowing patients to choose their preferred treatment resulted in better clinical outcomes in mental health and pain than giving them a treatment that is not preferred. These results underline the importance of incorporating patient preference when making treatment decisions.
Authors: Jane L Carr; Jennifer A Klaber Moffett; Elaine Howarth; Stewart J Richmond; David J Torgerson; David A Jackson; Caroline J Metcalfe Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2005-08-19 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: Patricia Lin; Duncan G Campbell; Edmund F Chaney; Chuan-Fen Liu; Patrick Heagerty; Bradford L Felker; Susan C Hedrick Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2005-10
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
Authors: Sarah Cockayne; Kate Hicks; Arthur R Kangombe; Catherine Hewitt; Michael Concannon; Kim Thomas; Farina Hashmi; Caroline McIntosh; Gwen Brierley; David Torgerson; Ian Watt Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Giana H Davidson; Sarah E Monsell; Heather Evans; Emily C Voldal; Erin Fannon; Sarah O Lawrence; Anusha Krishnadasan; David A Talan; Bonnie Bizzell; Patrick J Heagerty; Bryan A Comstock; Danielle C Lavallee; Cassandra Villegas; Robert Winchell; Callie M Thompson; Wesley H Self; Lillian S Kao; Shah-Jahan Dodwad; Amber K Sabbatini; David Droullard; David Machado-Aranda; Melinda Maggard Gibbons; Amy H Kaji; Daniel A DeUgarte; Lisa Ferrigno; Matthew Salzberg; Katherine A Mandell; Nicole Siparsky; Thea P Price; Anooradha Raman; Joshua Corsa; Jon Wisler; Patricia Ayoung-Chee; Jesse Victory; Alan Jones; Matthew Kutcher; Karen McGrane; Julie Holihan; Mike K Liang; Joseph Cuschieri; Jeffrey Johnson; Katherine Fischkoff; F Thurston Drake; Sabrina E Sanchez; Stephen R Odom; Larry G Kessler; David R Flum Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: Jana Sommer; Jan Dyczmons; Sandra Grobosch; Veronika Gontscharuk; Markus Vomhof; Michael Roden; Andrea Icks Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Danielle A C Oprel; Chris M Hoeboer; Maartje Schoorl; Rianne A de Kleine; Marylene Cloitre; Ingrid G Wigard; Agnes van Minnen; Willem van der Does Journal: Eur J Psychotraumatol Date: 2021-01-15
Authors: Lucinda B Leung; Hannah N Ziobrowski; Victor Puac-Polanco; Robert M Bossarte; Corey Bryant; Janelle Keusch; Howard Liu; Wilfred R Pigeon; David W Oslin; Edward P Post; Alan M Zaslavsky; Jose R Zubizarreta; Ronald C Kessler Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-10-06 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Jason M Beneciuk; Dorothy Verstandig; Chuck Taylor; Doug Scott; Joan Levin; Raine Osborne; Joel E Bialosky; Trevor A Lentz; Tava Buck; Anita L Davis; Christina Harder; Monika B Beneciuk; Virgil Wittmer; James Sylvester; Robert Rowe; David McInnes; Tad P Fisher; Lisa McGarrie Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2020-06-01