Literature DB >> 9511845

The impact of patient preference on the design and interpretation of clinical trials.

J S Feine1, M A Awad, J P Lund.   

Abstract

Research on several health problems shows that patients and health care providers do not use the same criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment and often disagree on the severity of symptoms. When the disease is chronic and the main aim of treatment is to improve quality of life, we argue that variables rated as important by patients should be used as outcomes in clinical trials, and that in most cases these need to be measured from subjects' self-reports. In many non-pharmacological randomized clinical trials, the subjects cannot be blinded to treatment. Furthermore, many of them will probably have a preference for a particular treatment option. It has been proposed that emotional responses following assignment of treatments, which may or may not be preferred, will strongly influence the outcome, especially when it is based on self-reports of treatment satisfaction. Because of this concern, some investigators have suggested alternative study designs that incorporate preference. Brewin & Bradley (Br Med J 1989; 299 [6694]:313-5) have proposed allocating subjects to treatment methods according to their preferences, and randomizing those individuals with no preference. To determine the influence of preference on treatment outcome, they recommend comparing results from the preference group with those of the randomized group. However, we have found that there are clear differences in level of education and in the pre-treatment state between individuals with preferences and those with no strong preferences. Therefore, we believe that the design proposed by Wennberg et al. (Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993;703:52-62) is more appropriate. In it, subjects are randomly allocated to a preference trial (subjects choose their treatment) or to a randomized trial (random allocation to treatment). Between-trial comparisons can then be used to determine the influence of preference on outcome. This will lead to better evaluation of treatment efficacy and allow better estimates of the true effectiveness to be made.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9511845     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1998.tb01927.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Community Dent Oral Epidemiol        ISSN: 0301-5661            Impact factor:   3.383


  5 in total

1.  Validation of the HIV treatment satisfaction questionnaire (HIVTSQ).

Authors:  A Woodcock; C Bradley
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Patient Centered Outcomes in Periodontal Treatment-An Evidenced Based Approach.

Authors:  Ekta Bharatbhai Shah; Bhavesh Bhupendrabhai Modi; Monali Amit Shah; Deepak Harishbhai Dave
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-04-01

3.  Response shift masks the treatment impact on patient reported outcomes (PROs): the example of individual quality of life in edentulous patients.

Authors:  Lena Ring; Stefan Höfer; Frank Heuston; David Harris; Ciaran A O'Boyle
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2005-09-07       Impact factor: 3.186

4.  Evaluation of Satisfaction Perceived by Prosthetic Patients Compared to Clinical and Technical Variables.

Authors:  Ettore Epifania; Roberto Sanzullo; Roberto Sorrentino; Pietro Ausiello
Journal:  J Int Soc Prev Community Dent       Date:  2018-05-17

5.  Changes in oral health-related quality of life after three different strategies of implant therapy: a clinical trial.

Authors:  Javier Montero; Javier Dolz; Francisco-Javier Silvestre; Javier Flores; Abraham Dib; Cristina Gómez-Polo
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 2.634

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.