IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v12y2019i6d10.1007_s40271-019-00379-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of Treatment Preference in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Dimittri Delevry

    (Western University of Health Sciences)

  • Quang A. Le

    (Western University of Health Sciences)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Dimittri Delevry & Quang A. Le, 2019. "Effect of Treatment Preference in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(6), pages 593-609, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00379-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00379-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-019-00379-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-019-00379-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2010. "Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 36(i03).
    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. Bart Verkuil & Serpil Atasayi & Marc L Molendijk, 2015. "Workplace Bullying and Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Francesca Pilotto & Ingolf Kühn & Rita Adrian & Renate Alber & Audrey Alignier & Christopher Andrews & Jaana Bäck & Luc Barbaro & Deborah Beaumont & Natalie Beenaerts & Sue Benham & David S. Boukal & , 2020. "Meta-analysis of multidecadal biodiversity trends in Europe," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:972-988 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    5. Mario Herberz & Tobias Brosch & Ulf J. J. Hahnel, 2020. "Kilo what? Default units increase value sensitivity in joint evaluations of energy efficiency," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 972-988, November.
    6. Piers Steel & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & Herman Aguinis, 2021. "The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(1), pages 23-44, February.
    7. Augusteijn, Hilde Elisabeth Maria & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2021. "Posterior Probabilities of Effect Sizes and Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis: An Intuitive Approach of Dealing with Publication Bias," OSF Preprints avkgj, Center for Open Science.
    8. Georgiou, George K. & Guo, Kan & Naveenkumar, Nithya & Vieira, Ana Paula Alves & Das, J.P., 2020. "PASS theory of intelligence and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    9. Stephan Kambach & Ingolf Kühn & Bastien Castagneyrol & Helge Bruelheide, 2016. "The Impact of Tree Diversity on Different Aspects of Insect Herbivory along a Global Temperature Gradient - A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:234-279 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. de la Cruz, Vera Ysabel V. & Tantriani, & Cheng, Weiguo & Tawaraya, Keitaro, 2023. "Yield gap between organic and conventional farming systems across climate types and sub-types: A meta-analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    12. Kelly R Moran & Sara Y Del Valle, 2016. "A Meta-Analysis of the Association between Gender and Protective Behaviors in Response to Respiratory Epidemics and Pandemics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, October.
    13. Cyrielle Maroteau & Antonio Espuela-Ortiz & Esther Herrera-Luis & Sundararajan Srinivasan & Fiona Carr & Roger Tavendale & Karen Wilson & Natalia Hernandez-Pacheco & James D Chalmers & Steve Turner & , 2021. "LTA4H rs2660845 association with montelukast response in early and late-onset asthma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-17, September.
    14. Barne Willie & Emma L. Sweeney & Steven G. Badman & Mark Chatfield & Andrew J. Vallely & Angela Kelly-Hanku & David M. Whiley, 2022. "The Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae in Papua New Guinea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-11, January.
    15. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    16. Blum, Diego & Holling, Heinz, 2017. "Spearman's law of diminishing returns. A meta-analysis," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 60-66.
    17. Stephanie Medlock & Juliette L Parlevliet & Danielle Sent & Saeid Eslami & Marjan Askari & Derk L Arts & Joost B Hoekstra & Sophia E de Rooij & Ameen Abu-Hanna, 2017. "An email-based intervention to improve the number and timeliness of letters sent from the hospital outpatient clinic to the general practitioner: A pair-randomized controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-13, October.
    18. Chin Lin & Hsiang-Cheng Chen & Wen-Hui Fang & Chih-Chien Wang & Yi-Jen Peng & Herng-Sheng Lee & Hung Chang & Chi-Ming Chu & Guo-Shu Huang & Wei-Teing Chen & Yu-Jui Tsai & Hong-Ling Lin & Fu-Huang Lin , 2016. "Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Insertion/Deletion Polymorphism and Susceptibility to Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Case-Control Study and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, September.
    19. Vize, Colin E. & Miller, Joshua D. & Lynam, Donald R., 2018. "FFM facets and their relations with different forms of antisocial behavior: An expanded meta-analysis," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 67-75.
    20. Evangelos Danopoulos & Maureen Twiddy & Jeanette M Rotchell, 2020. "Microplastic contamination of drinking water: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-23, July.
    21. Nian-Feng Wan & Liwan Fu & Matteo Dainese & Yue-Qing Hu & Lars Pødenphant Kiær & Forest Isbell & Christoph Scherber, 2022. "Plant genetic diversity affects multiple trophic levels and trophic interactions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    22. Kim, Yeolib & Kim, Seung Hyun & Peterson, Robert A. & Choi, Jeonghye, 2023. "Privacy concern and its consequences: A meta-analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00379-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.