Dataset Information

A novel preference-informed complementary trial (PICT) design for clinical trial research influenced by strong patient preferences.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients and their families often have preferences for medical care that relate to wider considerations beyond the clinical effectiveness of the proposed interventions. Traditionally, these preferences have not been adequately considered in research. Research questions where patients and families have strong preferences may not be appropriate for traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) due to threats to internal and external validity, as there may be high levels of drop-out and non-adherence or recruitment of a sample that is not representative of the treatment population. Several preference-informed designs have been developed to address problems with traditional RCTs, but these designs have their own limitations and may not be suitable for many research questions where strong preferences and opinions are present.

Methods

In this paper, we propose a novel and innovative preference-informed complementary trial (PICT) design which addresses key weaknesses with both traditional RCTs and available preference-informed designs. In the PICT design, complementary trials would be operated within a single study, and patients and/or families would be given the opportunity to choose between a trial with all treatment options available and a trial with treatment options that exclude the option which is subject to strong preferences. This approach would allow those with strong preferences to take part in research and would improve external validity through recruiting more representative populations and internal validity. Here we discuss the strengths and limitations of the PICT design and considerations for analysis and present a motivating example for the design based on the use of opioids for pain management for children with musculoskeletal injuries.

Conclusions

PICTs provide a novel and innovative design for clinical trials with more than two arms, which can address problems with existing preference-informed trial designs and enhance the ability of researchers to reflect shared decision-making in research as well as improving the validity of trials of topics with strong preferences.

SUBMITTER: Ali S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7953803 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionApproximately one million undiagnosed persons living with HIV in Southern and Eastern Africa need to test for HIV. Novel approaches are necessary to identify HIV testing options that match the heterogeneous testing preferences of high-risk populations. This pragmatic randomised controlled trial (PRCT) will evaluate the efficacy of a preference-informed, heterogeneity-focused HIV counselling and testing (HCT) offer, for improving rates of HIV testing in two high-risk populations.Methods and analysisThe study will be conducted in Moshi, Tanzania. The PRCT will randomise 600 female barworkers and 600 male Kilimanjaro mountain porters across three study arms. All participants will receive an HIV testing offer comprised of four preference-informed testing options, including one 'common' option-comprising features that are commonly available in the area and, on average, most preferred among study participants-and three options that are specific to the study arm. Options will be identified using mixed logit and latent class analyses of data from a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants in Arm 1 will be offered the common option and three 'targeted' options that are predicted to be more preferred than the common option and combine features widely available in the study area. Participants in Arm 2 will be offered the common option and three 'enhanced' options, which also include HCT features that are not yet widely available in the study area. Participants in Arm 3, an active control arm, will be offered the common option and three predicted 'less preferred' options. The primary outcome will be uptake of HIV testing.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Duke University Health System IRB, the University of South Carolina IRB, the Ethics Review Committee at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, Tanzania's National Institute for Medical Research, and the Tanzania Food & Drugs Authority (now Tanzania Medicines & Medical Devices Authority). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The use of rigorous DCE methods for the preference-based design and tailoring of interventions could lead to novel policy options and implementation science approaches.Trial registration numberNCT02714140.

Project description:Objectives: To survey, analyze, and ascertain the preferences for specialty pharmacy services among patients requiring complex care and to provide evidence to support specialty pharmacy service decision-making in China. Methods: To identify essential service attributes and levels, a review of the literature, discussions with specialty pharmacy managers and a pilot questionnaire were conducted. A D-efficient fractional factorial design was used to generate the discrete-choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire. A face-to-face survey of patients with chronic illness and their families or friends was conducted at three specialty pharmacies in Chengdu and Qingdao, China. A mixed logit model was used for estimation. Results: Six relevant attributes were identified and incorporated into the DCE questionnaire. A total of 417 participants completed the survey (mean age 43 years, 45.1% males), and 32.1% had lung cancer. The conditional relative importance showed that the most critical attribute was "frequency of telephone follow-up to monitor adverse drug reactions (ADRs), "followed by "mode of drug delivery," "provider of medication guidance services," and "availability of medical insurance consultation"; the least important attribute was "business hours." A 1 min increase in time spent led to a 0.73% decrease in the probability that a service profile would be chosen. Negative preferences were noted for ADR monitoring by telephone follow-up once a year (β = -0.23, p < 0.001) and business hours [8:30-20:00 (Monday to Friday), 8:30-17:30 (weekend)] (β = -0.12, p < 0.001). Compared with women, men had a higher preference for service monitoring ADRs once every 3 months. Conclusions: Preference measurements showed that "frequency of telephone follow-up to monitor ADRs" had the most critical impact on decisions, followed by "mode of drug delivery." Specialty pharmacies in China need to take these findings into account to improve their design to increase uptake and patient loyalty.

Project description:Importance:While symptomatic vitreomacular interface abnormalities (VIAs) are common, assessment of vision preference values and treatment preferences of these may guide treatment recommendations by physicians and influence third-party payers. Objective:To determine preference values that individuals with VIA assign to their visual state and preferences of potential treatments. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this cross-sectional one-time questionnaire study conducted between December 2015 and January 2017, 213 patients from tertiary care referral centers in Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States were studied. Patients with symptomatic VIA diagnosed within 1 year of data collection, visual acuity less than 20/20 OU, and symptoms ascribed to VIAs were included. Data were analyzed from January 2017 to November 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary end points were overall mean preference value that individuals with VIA assigned to their visual state and patients' preferences for potential treatments. Preference values were graded on a scale from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating death and 1 indicating perfect health with perfect vision. Results:Of the 213 included patients, 139 (65.3%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 65.6 (7.7) years. Diagnoses included epiretinal membrane (n = 100 [46.9%]), macular hole (n = 99 [46.5%]), and vitreomacular traction (n = 14 [6.6%]). The mean (SD) vision preference value was 0.76 (0.15), without differences identified among the 3 VIA types. More participants were enthusiastic about vitrectomy (150 [71.1%]) compared with intravitreal injection (120 [56.9%]) (difference, 14.2%; 95% CI, 5.16-23.3; P = .002). Adjusted analyses showed enthusiasm for vitrectomy was associated with fellow eye visual acuity (odds ratio, 10.99; 95% CI, 2.01-59.97; P = .006) and better-seeing eye visual acuity (odds ratio, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.001-0.66; P = .03). Overall enthusiasm for treatment was associated with fellow eye visual acuity (odds ratio, 7.22; 95% CI, 1.29-40.40; P = .02). Overall, most participants (171 [81.0%]) were enthusiastic about surgery, injection, or both. Conclusions and Relevance:Study participants reported similar preference values among 3 types of VIAs. The data suggest that most patients with these conditions would be enthusiastic about undergoing vitrectomy or an injection to treat it, likely because of the condition's effect on visual functioning, although there may be a slight preference for vitrectomy at this time.