Examining the influence of treatment preferences on attrition, adherence and outcomes: a protocol for a two-stage partially randomized trial

Souraya Sidani, Mary Fox, David L Streiner, Joyal Miranda, Suzanne Fredericks, Dana R Epstein, Souraya Sidani, Mary Fox, David L Streiner, Joyal Miranda, Suzanne Fredericks, Dana R Epstein

Abstract

Background: Empirical evidence pertaining to the influence of treatment preferences on attrition, adherence and outcomes in intervention evaluation trials is inconsistent. The inconsistency can be explained by the method used for allocating treatment and measuring preferences. The current methodological study is designed to address these factors by implementing the two-stage partially randomized or preference trial design, and administering a validated measure to assess participants' preferences for the treatments under evaluation. It aims to compare attrition, adherence and outcomes for participants allocated randomly or by preference to treatment. The study is in its final stages of data collection; its protocol is presented in this paper.

Methods/design: A partially randomized clinical or preference trial is used. Eligible participants are randomized to two trial arms. First is the random arm involving random assignment to treatments, and second is the preference arm involving allocation to the chosen treatment. Participants with chronic insomnia are targeted. Two behavioral treatments are offered, stimulus control therapy and sleep restriction therapy, in the same format (small group) and dose (two sessions given over a 4-week period). A participant log is used to collect data on attrition. Adherence is evaluated in terms of exposure and enactment of treatment. Sleep-related outcomes (sleep parameters and perceived insomnia severity) are measured at pretest, posttest, 6 and 12 month follow-up. Treatment preferences, adherence and outcomes are assessed with reliable and valid measures.

Discussion: The advantages and limitations of the preference trial design are highlighted. The challenges in implementing the trial are discussed relative to the distribution of participants in the groups defined by treatment received and method of treatment allocation.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry NCT02513017.

Keywords: Adherence to treatment; Attrition; Behavioral therapy; Insomnia; Outcomes; Treatment preference; Two-stage randomized clinical trial.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Illustration of the PRCT design

References

    1. Stalmeier PFM, van Tol-Geerdink JJ, van Lin ENJT, Schimmel E, Huizenga H, van Daal WAJ, et al. Doctors’ ad patient’s preferences for participation and treatment in curative prostate cancer radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(21):3096–3100. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.4955.
    1. Mills N, Metcalfe, C, Ronsmans C, Davis M, Lane JA, Sterne JAC, et al. A comparison of socio-demographic and psychological factors between patients consenting to randomisation and those selecting treatment (the ProtecT study). Contemp Clin Trials. 2006;27:413–9.
    1. Sidani S, Miranda J, Epstein D, Fox M. Influence of treatment preferences on validity: a review. Can J Nurs Res. 2009;41:52–67.
    1. Rücker G. A two-stage trial design for testing treatment, self selection and treatment preference effects. Stat Med. 1989;8:477–485. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780080411.
    1. Leykin Y, DeRubeis RJ, Gallop R, Amsterdam JD, Shelton RC, Hollon SD. The relation of patients’ treatment preferences to outcome in a randomized clinical trial. Beh Ther. 2007;38:209–217. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2006.08.002.
    1. Lewis BA, Napolitano MA, Whiteley JA, Marcus BH. The effect of preferences for print versus telephone interventions on compliance and attrition in a randomized controlled physical activity trial. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2006;7:453–462. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.04.004.
    1. Raue PJ, Schulberg HC, Heo M, Klimstra S, Bruce ML. Patients’ depression treatment preferences and initiation, adherence, and outcome: a randomized primary care study. Psychiat Servi. 2009;6:337–343. doi: 10.1176/ps.2009.60.3.337.
    1. King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M, et al. Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials. A systematic review. J Amer Med Assoc. 2005;293:1089–99.
    1. Kwan BM, Dimidjian S, Rizvi SL. Treatment preferences, engagement, and clinical improvement in pharmacotherapy versus psychotherapy for depression. Beh Res Ther. 2010;48:799–804. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2010.04.003.
    1. Preference Collaborative Review Group Patients’ preferences within randomized trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. Brit Med J. 2009;338:a1864. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1864.
    1. Swift JK, Callahan JL, Vollmer BM. Preferences. J Clin Psychol: In Session 2011; 67 (2): 155–165.
    1. Bedi N, Chilvers C, Churchill R, Dewey M, Duggan C, Fielding K, et al. Assessing effectiveness of treatment of depression in primary care. Partially randomized preference trial. Brit J Psychiat. 2000;177:312–8.
    1. Hitchcock Noël P, Marsh G, Larme AC, Correa A, Meyer J, Pugh JA. Patient choice in diabetes education curriculum. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:896–901. doi: 10.2337/diacare.21.6.896.
    1. Janevic MR, Janz MK, Dodge JA, Lin X, Pan W, Sinco BR, et al. The role of choice in health education intervention trials: a review and case study. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:1581–94.
    1. Macias C, Barreira P, Hargreaves W, Bickman L, Fisher W, Aronson E. Impact of referral source and study applicants’ preference for randomly assigned service on research enrollment, service engagement, and evaluative outcomes. Amer J Psychiat. 2005;162(4):781–787. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.4.781.
    1. Gelhorn HL, Sexton CC, Classi PM. Patient preferences for treatment of major depressive disorder and the impact on health outcomes: a systematic review. Prim Care Companion CNS Dis. 2011; 13 (5). DOI: 10.4088/PCC.11r01161
    1. Winter SE, Barber JP. Should treatment for depression be based more on patient preference? Patient Preference and Adherence. 2013;7:1047–1057. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S52746.
    1. Becker C, Davis E, Schaumberg K. An analog study of patient preferences for exposure versus alternative treatments of posttraumatic stress disorder. Behav Res Ther. 2007;45:2861–2873. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2007.05.006.
    1. Epstein RM, Peters E. Beyond information. Exploring patients’ preferences. J Amer Med Assoc. 2009;302:195–197. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.984.
    1. Tarrier N, Liversidge T, Gregg L. The acceptability and preference for the psychological treatment of PTSD. Beh Res Ther. 2006;44:1643–1656. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.11.012.
    1. Cochran BN, Pruitt L, Fukuda S, Feeny NC. Reasons underlying treatment preferences. J Interpers Violence. 2008;23:276. doi: 10.1177/0886260507309836.
    1. Lambert N, Rowe G, Bowling A, Ebrahim S, Lawrence M, Dalrymple J, et al. Reasons underpinning patients’ preferences for various angina treatments. Health Expect. 2004;6:246–56.
    1. Miranda J. An exploration of participants’ treatment preferences in a partial RCT. Can J Nurs Res. 2004;36(3):100–114.
    1. Sidani S, Epstein DR, Bootzin RR, Moritz P, Miranda J. Assessment of preferences for treatment: validation of a measure. Res Nurs Health. 2009;32:419–431. doi: 10.1002/nur.20329.
    1. Morin CM, Bootzin RR, Buysse DJ, Edinger JD, Espie CA, Lichstein KL. Psychological and behavioral treatment of insomnia: update of the recent evidence (1998–2004) Sleep. 2006;29:1398–1414.
    1. National Institutes of Health. National Institutes of Health State of the Science conference statement. Insomnia Sleep. 2005.
    1. Buysse DJ, Ancoli-Israeli S, Edinger JD, Lichstein KL, Morin CM. Recommendations for a standard research assessment of insomnia. Sleep. 2006;29:1155–73.
    1. Morin CM. Insomnia: psychological assessment and management. New York: Guilford; 1993.
    1. Crum RM, Anthony JC, Bassett S, Folstein MF. Population-based norms for the mini-mental state examination by age and educational level. J Amer Med Assoc. 1993;269:2386–2391. doi: 10.1001/jama.1993.03500180078038.
    1. Kline RB. Beyond significance testing: reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2004.
    1. Irwin MR, Cole J, Nicassio PM. Comparative analysis of behavioral interventions for insomnia and their efficacy in middle-aged adults and in older adults 55+ years of age. Health Psychol. 2006;25(1):3–14. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.25.1.3.
    1. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155–159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
    1. Stein KF, Sargent JT, Rafaels N. Establishing fidelity of the independent variable in nursing clinical trials. Nurs Res. 2007;56(1):54–62. doi: 10.1097/00006199-200701000-00007.
    1. Morin CM, Belleville G, Bélanger L, Ivers H. The insomnia severity index: psychometric indicators to detect insomnia cases and evaluate treatment response. Sleep. 2011;34(5):601–608.
    1. Sidani S, Braden CJ. Design, evaluation, and translation of nursing interventions. Wiley-Blackwell: Ames, IA; 2011.
    1. Sidani S, Fox M. Patient-centered care: a clarification of its active ingredients. J Interprofessional Care. 2014;28(2):134–141. doi: 10.3109/13561820.2013.862519.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する