IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v61y2005i3p685-695.html

Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: Conceptual framework and implications for research

Author

Listed:
  • Bower, Peter
  • King, Michael
  • Nazareth, Irwin
  • Lampe, Fiona
  • Sibbald, Bonnie

Abstract

Patient preferences have recently been highlighted as a potential threat to the validity of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Although there have been significant methodological and statistical developments in relation to these issues, comparatively little attention has been paid to the development of a conceptual model concerning preferences and their effects on decision-making. This article describes the development of such a model, which was undertaken in parallel with a systematic review of the empirical data concerning preference effects. The model describes the concept of preference in terms of theoretical concepts from the psychological and economics literature, and describes a preliminary model of the development and operation of preferences in the context of RCTs. The paper then examines the implications of the model for informed consent and recruitment procedures. Key issues for future research are also outlined.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:61:y:2005:i:3:p:685-695
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(05)00007-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ubel, P. A. & Loewenstein, G., 1997. "The role of decision analysis in informed consent: Choosing between intuition and systematicity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 647-656, March.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. repec:bla:scotjp:v:46:y:1999:i:2:p:111-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Paul Dolan, 1997. "The Nature of Individual Preferences: A Prologue to Johannesson, Jonsson and Karlsson," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(1), pages 91-93, January.
    5. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Chard, J. A. & Lilford, R. J., 1998. "The use of equipoise in clinical trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 891-898, October.
    8. Brown, R. F. & Butow, P. N. & Butt, D. G. & Moore, A. R. & Tattersall, M. H. N., 2004. "Developing ethical strategies to assist oncologists in seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 379-390, January.
    9. Oecd, 2003. "Development Co-operation Review of Greece," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 3(2), pages 13-80.
    10. Anthony Scott & Sandra Vick, 1999. "Patients, Doctors and Contracts: An Application of Principal‐Agent Theory to the Doctor‐Patient Relationship," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 46(2), pages 111-134, May.
    11. Vick, Sandra & Scott, Anthony, 1998. "Agency in health care. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 587-605, October.
    12. Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 1997. "Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 699-707, March.
    13. Brown, R.F & Butow, P.N & Ellis, P & Boyle, F & Tattersall, M.H.N, 2004. "Seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials:: describing current practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(12), pages 2445-2457, June.
    14. Oecd, 2003. "Development Co-operation Review of Spain," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 3(2), pages 11-67.
    15. Oecd, 2002. "Country ownership and operations," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 3(3), pages 81-86.
    16. N/A, 2002. "B. Declaration on the Bo'ao Forum for Asia," China Report, , vol. 38(4), pages 594-595, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Barbara Sianesi, 2016. "‘Randomisation bias’ in the medical literature: a review," IFS Working Papers W16/23, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Hawe, Penelope & Riley, Therese & Gartrell, Alexandra & Turner, Karen & Canales, Claudia & Omstead, Darlene, 2015. "Comparison communities in a cluster randomised trial innovate in response to ‘being controlled’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 102-110.
    3. Wade, Julia & Donovan, Jenny L. & Athene Lane, J. & Neal, David E. & Hamdy, Freddie C., 2009. "It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: Opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2018-2028, June.
    4. 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.

    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. Schwab, Abraham P., 2008. "Putting cognitive psychology to work: Improving decision-making in the medical encounter," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1861-1869, December.
    2. Wade, Julia & Donovan, Jenny L. & Athene Lane, J. & Neal, David E. & Hamdy, Freddie C., 2009. "It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: Opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2018-2028, June.
    3. Joanna Coast, 2001. "Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 159-174, March.
    4. Camille Magron & Maxime Merli, 2012. "Stocks repurchase and sophistication of individual investors," Working Papers of LaRGE Research Center 2012-02, Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Economie (LaRGE), Université de Strasbourg.
    5. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    6. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    7. Soora Rasouli & Harry Timmermans, 2017. "Specification of regret-based models of choice behaviour: formal analyses and experimental design based evidence," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1555-1576, November.
    8. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2023. "Investors’ perspective on portfolio insurance," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 22(1), pages 49-79, January.
    9. Yuval Rottenstreich & Alex Markle & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2023. "Risky Sure Things," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4707-4720, August.
    10. Ulrich Schmidt & Stefan Traub, 2009. "An Experimental Investigation of the Disparity Between WTA and WTP for Lotteries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 229-262, March.
    11. Yixin Hu & Dawei Wang & Kaiyuan Pang & Guangxing Xu & Jinhong Guo, 2015. "The effect of emotion and time pressure on risk decision-making," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 637-650, May.
    12. Chuanyang Ruan & Sinong Lin, 2025. "Fermatean Fuzzy Two-Sided Matching Model Considering Regret Aversion and Matching Willingness," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-29, October.
    13. İriş, Doruk & Lee, Jungmin & Tavoni, Alessandro, "undated". "Delegation and Public Pressure in a Threshold Public Goods Game: Theory and Experimental Evidence," ETA: Economic Theory and Applications 234307, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    14. Suzanne O’Curry Fogel & Thomas Berry, 2010. "The Disposition Effect and Individual Investor Decisions: The Roles of Regret and Counterfactual Alternatives," Chapters, in: Brian Bruce (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Finance, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Peng Jing & Mengxuan Zhao & Meiling He & Long Chen, 2018. "Travel Mode and Travel Route Choice Behavior Based on Random Regret Minimization: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    16. Jasman Tuyon & Zamri Ahmada, 2016. "Behavioural finance perspectives on Malaysian stock market efficiency," Borsa Istanbul Review, Research and Business Development Department, Borsa Istanbul, vol. 16(1), pages 43-61, March.
    17. Fershtman, Chaim, 1996. "On the value of incumbency managerial reference points and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 245-257, April.
    18. Wang, Di, 2021. "Attention-driven probability weighting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    19. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    20. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:eee:socmed:v:61:y:2005:i:3:p:685-695. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.