Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials

Nicola Mills, Jenny L Donovan, Julia Wade, Freddie C Hamdy, David E Neal, J Athene Lane, Nicola Mills, Jenny L Donovan, Julia Wade, Freddie C Hamdy, David E Neal, J Athene Lane

Abstract

Objective: To explore how patients' treatment preferences were expressed and justified during recruitment to a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and how they influenced participation and treatment decisions.

Study design and setting: Qualitative analysis of audio recordings of recruitment appointments with 93 participants aged 51-70 years in a UK multicenter RCT of localized prostate cancer treatments.

Results: Treatment preferences at recruitment were more complex and dynamic than previously assumed. Most participants expressed views about treatments early in appointments, ranging on a continuum from hesitant to well-formed opinions. As recruiters elicited men's views and provided detailed evidence-based treatment and study information, some opted for their preference, but many became uncertain and open to RCT recruitment, often accepting a different treatment from their original "preference." Discussion of treatment preferences did not act as the expected barrier to recruitment but actively enabled many to express their concerns and reach an informed decision that often included RCT participation.

Conclusion: Exploring treatment preferences and providing evidence-based information can improve levels of informed decision making and facilitate RCT participation. Treatment preferences should be reconceptualized from a barrier to recruitment to an integral part of the information exchange necessary for informed decision making about treatments and RCT participation.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The development or dissipation of participants’ treatment preferences during (and in some cases after) the recruitment appointments. ∗ indicates that one man did not state what treatment his preference referred to.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Participants’ treatment preferences in relation to outcome of trial recruitment. ∗ indicates that one man did not state what treatment his preference referred to.

References

    1. McDonald A.M., Knight R.C., Campbell M.K., Entwistle V.A., Grant A.M., Cook J.A. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7:9.
    1. Torgerson D., Sibbald B. Understanding controlled trials: what is a patient preference trial? BMJ. 1998;316:360.
    1. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:141–145.
    1. World Medical Association . World Medial Association General Assembly; Tokyo, Japan: 2004. Declaration of Helsinki, ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.
    1. Ross S., Grant A., Counsell C., Gillespie W., Russell I., Prescott R. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:1143–1156.
    1. Mills E.J., Seely D., Rachlis B., Griffith L., Wu P., Wilson K. Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:141–148.
    1. King M., Nazareth I., Lampe F., Bower P., Chandler M., Morou M. Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293:1089–1099.
    1. McPherson K. Do patients’ preferences matter? BMJ. 2008;337:a2034.
    1. Preference Collaborative Review Group Patients’ preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008;337:a1864.
    1. King M., Nazareth I., Lampe F., Bower P., Chandler M., Morou M. Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants’ and professionals’ preferences in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(35):1–186.
    1. Bowling A., Rowe G. “You decide doctor.” What do patient preference arms in clinical trials really mean? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59:914–915.
    1. Rowe G., Lambert N., Bowling A., Ebrahim S., Wakeling I., Thomson R. Assessing patients’ preferences for treatments for angina using a modified repertory grid method. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:2585–2595.
    1. Stiggelbout A.M., de Haes J.C.J.M. Patient preference for cancer therapy: an overview of measurement approaches. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:220–230.
    1. Wade J., Donovan J.L., Lane J.A., Neal D.E., Hamdy F.C. 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. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:2018–2028.
    1. Edwards A., Elwyn G. Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences. Qual Health Care. 2001;10:i9–i13.
    1. Wragg J.A., Robinson E.J., Lilford R.J. Information presentation and decisions to enter clinical trials: a hypothetical trial of hormone replacement therapy. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51:453–462.
    1. Donovan J., Hamdy F., Neal D., Peters T., Oliver S., Brindle L. Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(14):1–42.
    1. Marteau T.M. Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. Br J Soc Psychol. 1989;28:89–94.
    1. Bower P., King M., Nazareth I., Lampe F., Sibbald B. Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: conceptual framework and implications for research. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:685–695.
    1. Donovan J.L., Lane J.A., Peters T.J., Brindle L., Salter E., Gillatt D., for the ProtecT Study Group Development of a complex intervention improved randomization and informed consent in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:29–36.
    1. Olschewski M., Scheurlen H. Comprehensive cohort study: an alternative to randomized consent design in a breast preservation trial. Methods Inf Med. 1985;24:131–134.
    1. Donovan J., Mills N., Smith M., Brindle L., Jacoby A., Peters T. Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. BMJ. 2002;325:766–770.
    1. Rose D., O’Reilly K. Office for National Statistics & Economic and Social Research Council; London & Swindon, UK: 1998. The ESRC review of government social classifications.
    1. Krippendorff K. Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2004. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology.
    1. Glaser B.G., Strauss A.L. Aldine Publishing Company; Chicago, IL: 1967. The discovery of grounded theory.
    1. Mays N., Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320:50–52.
    1. Oxford University Press; Oxford, UK: 2010. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Available at. Accessed February 14, 2011.
    1. Little P. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ. 2002;325:766–770.
    1. McPherson K., Britton A. The impact of patient treatment preferences on the interpretation of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Cancer Care. 1999;35:1598–1602.
    1. Torgerson D.J., Klaber-Moffett J., Russell I.T. Patient preferences in randomised trials: threat or opportunity? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1:194–197.
    1. Klaber Moffett J., Torgerson D., Bell-Syer S., Jackson D., Llewlyn-Philips H., Farrin A. Randomised controlled trial of exercise for low back pain: clinical outcomes, costs, and preferences. BMJ. 1999;319:279–283.
    1. Klaber Moffett J.A., Jackson D.A., Richmond S., Hahn S., Coulton S., Farrin A. Randomised trial of brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: outcomes and patients’ preference. BMJ. 2005;330:75–78.
    1. Thomas E., Croft P.R., Paterson S.M., Dziedzic K., Hay E. What influences participants’ treatment preference and can it influence outcome? Results from a primary care-based randomised trial for shoulder pain. Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54:93–96.
    1. Featherstone K., Donovan J.L. “Why don’t they just tell me straight, why allocate it?” The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:709–719.
    1. Mills N., Metcalfe C., Ronsmans C., Davis M., Lane J.A., Sterne J.A.C. A comparison of socio-demographic and psychological factors between patients consenting to randomisation and those selecting treatment (the ProtecT study) Contemp Clin Trials. 2006;27:413–419.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj