IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i2p229-236.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determining the Impact of Informed Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Kirsten J. McCaffery
  • Robin Turner
  • Petra Macaskill
  • Stephen D. Walter
  • Siew Foong Chan
  • Les Irwig

Abstract

Background . The Rucker 2-stage randomized trial (RCT) design and method allows treatment, preference, and selection effects to be estimated separately in clinical trials. Objective . To understand the effect of patient choice on patient outcomes, the authors applied the Rucker design and analysis method. Design . They used data from a trial of management strategies for women with atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) detected at routine cervical screening, in which informed choice using a decision aid was compared to no choice. Setting . Women’s health clinics across Australia. Patients . Women aged 18 to 70 years (n = 314) with ASCUS. Intervention . Women were randomized to either an informed choice of human papillomavirus (HPV) triage testing or repeat Pap testing or to no choice with random allocation to management by either option. Measurements . Health-related quality of life (SF36) and satisfaction were measured over the course of management and up to 1 year after triage. Results . Using the Rucker analysis, patients who received their choice had higher quality of life scores than those who did not choose (SF36 MCS, 6% higher, 6.0; 95% confidence interval: −0.6 to 12.9; P = 0.07; effect size 0.61 [moderate]). In contrast, the traditional RCT analysis suggested there was little difference in quality of life between the choice and no-choice trial arms. Limitations . The Rucker method assumes that the declared preferences for treatment in the choice arm are representative of the preferences that would have been observed in the no-choice arms if choice was available. Conclusions . The Rucker method should be used to estimate treatment, preference, and selection effects in randomized trials, as it adds to our understanding of the effect of choice on patient outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirsten J. McCaffery & Robin Turner & Petra Macaskill & Stephen D. Walter & Siew Foong Chan & Les Irwig, 2011. "Determining the Impact of Informed Choice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 229-236, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:2:p:229-236
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10379919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10379919
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10379919?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Long, Qi & Little, Roderick J. & Lin, Xihong, 2008. "Causal Inference in Hybrid Intervention Trials Involving Treatment Choice," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 474-484, June.
    2. Janevic, Mary R. & Janz, Nancy K. & Dodge, Julia A. & Lin, Xihong & Pan, Wenqin & Sinco, Brandy R. & Clark, Noreen M., 2003. "The role of choice in health education intervention trials: a review and case study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1581-1594, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daido Kido, 2023. "Incorporating Preferences Into Treatment Assignment Problems," Papers 2311.08963, arXiv.org.
    2. Takanori Ida & Takunori Ishihara & Koichiro Ito & Daido Kido & Toru Kitagawa & Shosei Sakaguchi & Shusaku Sasaki, 2022. "Choosing Who Chooses: Selection-Driven Targeting in Energy Rebate Programs," NBER Working Papers 30469, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Takanori Ida & Takunori Ishihara & Koichiro Ito & Daido Kido & Toru Kitagawa & Shosei Sakaguchi & Shusaku Sasaki, 2021. "Paternalism, Autonomy, or Both? Experimental Evidence from Energy Saving Programs," Papers 2112.09850, arXiv.org.
    4. Qi Long & Roderick J. A. Little & Xihong Lin, 2010. "Estimating causal effects in trials involving multitreatment arms subject to non‐compliance: a Bayesian framework," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(3), pages 513-531, May.
    5. Wunsch, Conny & Strobl, Renate, 2018. "Identification of causal mechanisms based on between-subject double randomization designs," CEPR Discussion Papers 13028, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Robin M. Turner & Stephen D. Walter & Petra Macaskill & Kirsten J. McCaffery & Les Irwig, 2014. "Sample Size and Power When Designing a Randomized Trial for the Estimation of Treatment, Selection, and Preference Effects," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 711-719, August.
    7. Renate Strobl & Conny Wunsch, 2021. "Risky choices and solidarity: disentangling different behavioural channels," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1185-1214, December.
    8. Strobl, Renate & Wunsch, Conny, 2018. "Risky Choices and Solidarity: Why Experimental Design Matters," Working papers 2018/17, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    9. Kirsten McCaffery & Les Irwig & Patrick Bossuyt, 2007. "Patient Decision Aids to Support Clinical Decision Making: Evaluating the Decision or the Outcomes of the Decision," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 619-625, September.
    10. Birthe Andrea Lehmann & Lara Lindert & Silke Ohlmeier & Lara Schlomann & Holger Pfaff & Kyung-Eun Choi, 2020. "“And Then He Got into the Wrong Group”: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Effects of Randomization in Recruitment to a Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-16, March.
    11. Bower, Peter & King, Michael & Nazareth, Irwin & Lampe, Fiona & Sibbald, Bonnie, 2005. "Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: Conceptual framework and implications for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 685-695, August.
    12. Roderick J. Little & Qi Long & Xihong Lin, 2009. "A Comparison of Methods for Estimating the Causal Effect of a Treatment in Randomized Clinical Trials Subject to Noncompliance," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 640-649, June.
    13. Long, Qi & Little, Roderick J. & Lin, Xihong, 2008. "Causal Inference in Hybrid Intervention Trials Involving Treatment Choice," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 474-484, June.
    14. Onur Altindag & Theodore J. Joyce & Julie A. Reeder, 2019. "Can Nonexperimental Methods Provide Unbiased Estimates of a Breastfeeding Intervention? A Within-Study Comparison of Peer Counseling in Oregon," Evaluation Review, , vol. 43(3-4), pages 152-188, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:2:p:229-236. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.