Skip to main content

Effect of Treatment Preference in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research volume 12, pages 593–609 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 49.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making—the pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780–1. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1109283.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sidani S, Epstein DR, Bootzin RR, Moritz P, Miranda J. Assessment of preferences for treatment: validation of a measure. Res Nurs Health. 2009;32(4):419–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20329.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. George SZ, Robinson ME. Preference, expectation, and satisfaction in a clinical trial of behavioral interventions for acute and sub-acute low back pain. J Pain. 2010;11(11):1074–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2010.02.016.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kwan BM, Dimidjian S, Rizvi SL. Treatment preference, engagement, and clinical improvement in pharmacotherapy versus psychotherapy for depression. Behav Res Ther. 2010;48(8):799–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 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. Behav Ther. 2007;38(3):209–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2006.08.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Le QA, Doctor JN, Zoellner LA, Feeny NC. Effects of treatment, choice, and preference on health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Qual Life Res. 2018;27(6):1555–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1833-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Torgerson D, Sibbald B. Understanding controlled trials: what is a patient preference trial? BMJ. 1998;316(7128):360.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 Am Med Assoc. 2005;293(9):1089–99. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.9.1089.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Walter SD, Turner R, Macaskill P, McCaffery KJ, Irwig L. Beyond the treatment effect: evaluating the effects of patient preferences in randomised trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2014;26(1):489–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280214550516.

    Article  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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brewin CR, Bradley C. Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1989;299(6694):313–5.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Swift JK, Callahan JL. The impact of client treatment preferences on outcome: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychol. 2009;65(4):368–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Swift JK, Callahan JL, Vollmer BM. Preferences. J Clin Psychol. 2011;67(2):155–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20759.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lindhiem O, Bennett CB, Trentacosta CJ, McLear C. Client preferences affect treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014;34(6):506–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.06.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Preference Collaborative Review Group. Patients’ preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. Br Med J. 2008;337:1864. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Public Libr Sci Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Marcus SM, Stuart EA, Wang P, Shadish WR, Steiner PM. Estimating the causal effect of randomization versus treatment preference in a doubly randomized preference trial. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(2):244–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028031.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  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 

  25. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McCaffery KJ, Turner R, Macaskill P, Walter SD, Chan SF, Irwig L. Determining the impact of informed choice: separating treatment effects from the effects of choice and selection in randomized trials. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(2):229–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x10379919.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Burke LE, Warziski M, Styn MA, Music E, Hudson AG, Sereika SM. A randomized clinical trial of a standard versus vegetarian diet for weight loss: the impact of treatment preference. Int J Obes. 2008;32(1):166–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803706.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Renjilian DA, Perri MG, Nezu AM, McKelvey WF, Shermer RL, Anton SD. Individual versus group therapy for obesity: effects of matching participants to their treatment preferences. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2001;69(4):717–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.4.717.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lin P, Campbell DG, Chaney EF, Liu CF, Heagerty P, Felker BL, et al. The influence of patient preference on depression treatment in primary care. Ann Behav Med. 2005;30(2):164–73. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm3002_9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sherman KJ, Cherkin DC, Ichikawa L, Avins AL, Delaney K, Barlow WE, et al. Treatment expectations and preferences as predictors of outcome of acupuncture for chronic back pain. Spine. 2010;35(15):1471–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c2a8d3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Loh A, Simon D, Wills CE, Kriston L, Niebling W, Harter M. The effects of a shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67(3):324–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Delsignore A, Schnyder U. Control expectancies as predictors of psychotherapy outcome: a systematic review. Br J Clin Psychol. 2007;46(Pt 4):467–83. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466507x226953.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cook T, Campbell D. Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 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(3):685–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.010.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Stewart MJ, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, Herbert RD, Nicholas MK. Patient and clinician treatment preferences do not moderate the effect of exercise treatment in chronic whiplash-associated disorders. Eur J Pain. 2008;12(7):879–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2007.12.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yancy WS Jr, Mayer SB, Coffman CJ, Smith VA, Kolotkin RL, Geiselman PJ, et al. Effect of allowing choice of diet on weight loss: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(12):805–14. https://doi.org/10.7326/m14-2358.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Shay LE, Seibert D, Watts D, Sbrocco T, Pagliara C. Adherence and weight loss outcomes associated with food-exercise diary preference in a military weight management program. Eat Behav. 2009;10(4):220–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2009.07.004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Adamson SJ, Sellman DJ, Dore GM. Therapy preference and treatment outcome in clients with mild to moderate alcohol dependence. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2005;24(3):209–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09595230500167502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gum AM, Areán PA, Hunkeler E, et al. Depression treatment preferences in older primary care patients. Gerontologist. 2006;46(1):14–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/46.1.14.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Bowling A, Rowe G. “You decide doctor”. What do patient preference arms in clinical trials really mean? J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2005;59(11):914–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.035261.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. McKay JR, Alterman AI, McLellan AT, Snider EC, O’Brien CP. Effects of random versus nonrandom assignment in a comparison of inpatient and day hospital rehabilitation for male alcoholics. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1995;63(1):70–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.63.1.70.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  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.

    CAS  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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Long Q, Little RJ, Lin X. Causal inference in hybrid intervention trials involving treatment choice. J Am Stat Assoc. 2008;103(482):474–84. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214507000000662.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Clark NM, Janz NK, Dodge JA, Mosca L, Lin X, Long Q, et al. The effect of patient choice of intervention on health outcomes. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008;29(5):679–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2008.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Zoellner LA, Roy-Byrne PP, Mavissakalian M, Feeny NC. Doubly randomized preference trial of prolonged exposure versus sertraline for treatment of PTSD. Am J Psychiatry. 2019;176(4):287–96. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17090995.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Moffett JK, Torgerson D, Bell-Syer S, Jackson D, Llewlyn-Phillips H, Farrin A, et al. Randomised controlled trial of exercise for low back pain: clinical outcomes, costs, and preferences. BMJ. 1999;319(7205):279. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7205.279.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  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.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Salter GC, Roman M, Bland MJ, MacPherson H. Acupuncture for chronic neck pain: a pilot for a randomised controlled trial. BioMed Central Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:99. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-7-99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Johnson RE, Jones GT, Wiles NJ, Chaddock C, Potter RG, Roberts C, et al. Active exercise, education, and cognitive behavioral therapy for persistent disabling low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2007;32(15):1578–85. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318074f890.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Pharmacy, Western University of Health Sciences, 309 East Second Street, Pomona, CA, 91766, USA

    Dimittri Delevry & Quang A. Le

Authors
  1. Dimittri Delevry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Quang A. Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Quang A. Le.

Ethics declarations

Funding

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 92 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delevry, D., Le, Q.A. Effect of Treatment Preference in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis. Patient 12, 593–609 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00379-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00379-6