Effect of Treatment Preference in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis
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.
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.
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).
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.
QAL conceived the research and contributed to the development of the study design. Both authors screened a portion of abstracts and performed full-text review. DD oversaw quality appraisal tasks and drafted the manuscript. Both authors provided critical review in the draft of the final manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Unrestricted funding was received through the PhRMA Foundation Value Assessment Research Award.
Conflict of Interest
Dimittri Delevry and Quang A. Le have no conflicts of interests that are directly relevant to the content of this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its Electronic Supplementary Material files.
- 8.Kocsis JH, Leon AC, Markowitz JC, Manber R, Arnow B, Klein DN, et al. Patient preference as a moderator of outcome for chronic forms of major depressive disorder treated with nefazodone, cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy, or their combination. J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70(3):354–61.Google Scholar
- 9.Torgerson D, Sibbald B. Understanding controlled trials: what is a patient preference trial? BMJ. 1998;316(7128):360.Google Scholar
- 12.Rucker G. A two-stage trial design for testing treatment, self-selection and treatment preference effects. Stat Med. 1989;8(4):477–85.Google Scholar
- 13.Torgerson DJ, Klaber-Moffett J, Russell IT. Patient preferences in randomised trials: threat or opportunity? J Health Services Res Policy. 1996;1(4):194–7.Google Scholar
- 14.Brewin CR, Bradley C. Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1989;299(6694):313–5.Google Scholar
- 23.Wilson DB. Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator [Online calculator]. https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/research-resources/research-for-resources/effect-size-calculator.html. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
- 24.Borenstein M. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley; 2009.Google Scholar
- 31.Mergl R, Henkel V, Allgaier AK, Kramer D, Hautzinger M, Kohnen R, et al. Are treatment preferences relevant in response to serotonergic antidepressants and cognitive-behavioral therapy in depressed primary care patients? Results from a randomized controlled trial including a patients’ choice arm. Psychother Psychosom. 2011;80(1):39–47. https://doi.org/10.1159/000318772.Google Scholar
- 34.Bradley C. Designing medical and educational intervention studies. A review of some alternatives to conventional randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care. 1993;16(2):509–18.Google Scholar
- 35.Cook T, Campbell D. Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1979.Google Scholar
- 37.Janevic MR, Janz NK, 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 (1982). 2003;56(7):1581–94.Google Scholar
- 38.Dunlop BW, Kelley ME, Aponte-Rivera V, Mletzko-Crowe T, Kinkead B, Ritchie JC, et al. Effects of patient preferences on outcomes in the predictors of remission in depression to individual and combined treatments (PReDICT) study. Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(6):546–56. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16050517.Google Scholar
- 44.Cockayne S, Hicks K, Kangombe AR, Hewitt C, Concannon M, Thomas K, et al. The effect of patients’ preference on outcome in the EVerT cryotherapy versus salicylic acid for the treatment of plantar warts (verruca) trial. J Foot Ankle Res. 2012;5(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-5-28.Google Scholar
- 46.Corbett MS, Watson J, Eastwood A. Randomised trials comparing different healthcare settings: an exploratory review of the impact of pre-trial preferences on participation, and discussion of other methodological challenges. BioMed Central Health Services Res. 2016;16(1):589. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1823-6.Google Scholar
- 48.Rokke PD, Tomhave JA, Jocic Z. The role of client choice and target selection in self-management therapy for depression in older adults. Am Psychol Assoc. 1999;14:155–69.Google Scholar
- 49.Noel PH, Larme AC, Meyer J, Marsh G, Correa A, Pugh JA. Patient choice in diabetes education curriculum. Nutritional versus standard content for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1998;21(6):896–901.Google Scholar
- 54.Thomas E, Croft PR, Paterson SM, Dziedzic K, Hay EM. 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(499):93–6.Google Scholar
- 55.Carr JL, Klaber Moffett JA, Howarth E, Richmond SJ, Torgerson DJ, Jackson DA, et al. A randomized trial comparing a group exercise programme for back pain patients with individual physiotherapy in a severely deprived area. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(16):929–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280500030639.Google Scholar
- 56.Moffett JK, Jackson DA, Richmond S, Hahn S, Coulton S, Farrin A, et al. Randomised trial of a brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: outcomes and patients’ preference. BMJ. 2005;330(7482):75. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38286.493206.82.Google Scholar
- 57.Moffett JK, Jackson DA, Gardiner ED, Torgerson DJ, Coulton S, Eaton S, et al. Randomized trial of two physiotherapy interventions for primary care neck and back pain patients: ‘McKenzie’ vs brief physiotherapy pain management. Rheumatology. 2006;45(12):1514–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kel339.Google Scholar
- 60.McLean SM, Klaber Moffett JA, Sharp DM, Gardiner E. A randomised controlled trial comparing graded exercise treatment and usual physiotherapy for patients with non-specific neck pain (the GET UP neck pain trial). Man Ther. 2013;18(3):199–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.09.005.Google Scholar