IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i3p264-277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining Multiple Treatment Comparisons with Personalized Patient Preferences: A Randomized Trial of an Interactive Platform for Statin Treatment Selection

Author

Listed:
  • Gareth Hopkin

    (Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK)

  • Anson Au

    (Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Verena Jane Collier

    (King’s College London, London, UK)

  • John S. Yudkin

    (University College London, London, UK)

  • Sanjay Basu

    (Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA)

  • Huseyin Naci

    (Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK)

Abstract

Background. Patients and clinicians are often required to make tradeoffs between the relative benefits and harms of multiple treatment options. Combining network meta-analysis results with user preferences can be useful when choosing among several treatment alternatives. Objective. Using cholesterol-lowering statin drugs as a case study, we aimed to determine whether an interactive web-based platform that combines network meta-analysis findings with patient preferences had an effect on the decision-making process in a general population sample. Method. This was a pilot parallel randomized controlled trial. We used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to recruit adults residing in the United States. A total of 349 participants were randomly allocated to view either the interactive tool (intervention) or a series of bar charts (control). The primary endpoint was decisional conflict, and secondary endpoints included decision self-efficacy, preparation for decision making, and the overall ranking of statins. Results. A total of 258 participants completed the trial and were included in the analysis. On the primary outcome, participants randomized to the interactive tool had significantly lower levels of decisional conflict than those in the control group (difference, –8.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], −12.96 to −4.11 on a 100-point scale; P = 0.001). They also appeared to have higher levels of preparation for decision making (difference, 4.19; 95% CI, –0.24 to 8.63 on a 100-point scale; P = 0.031). No difference was found for decision self-efficacy, although groups were statistically significantly different in how they ranked different statins. Conclusion. The findings of our proof-of-concept evaluation suggest that an interactive web-based tool combining published clinical evidence with individual preferences can reduce decisional conflict and better prepare individuals for decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Gareth Hopkin & Anson Au & Verena Jane Collier & John S. Yudkin & Sanjay Basu & Huseyin Naci, 2019. "Combining Multiple Treatment Comparisons with Personalized Patient Preferences: A Randomized Trial of an Interactive Platform for Statin Treatment Selection," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(3), pages 264-277, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:3:p:264-277
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19835239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19835239
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19835239?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elizabeth S Mearns & Diana M Sobieraj & C Michael White & Whitney J Saulsberry & Christine G Kohn & Yunes Doleh & Eric Zaccaro & Craig I Coleman, 2015. "Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Antidiabetic Drug Regimens Added to Metformin Monotherapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Network Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-28, April.
    2. Kenneth F Schulz & Douglas G Altman & David Moher & for the CONSORT Group, 2010. "CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-7, March.
    3. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Holly O. Witteman & Ruth Ndjaboue & Gratianne Vaisson & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Bob Arnold & John F. P. Bridges & Sandrine Comeau & Angela Fagerlin & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Melina Marcoux & Arwen Pieter, 2021. "Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 801-820, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    2. Ángel Enrique & Juana Bretón-López & Guadalupe Molinari & Rosa M. Baños & Cristina Botella, 2018. "Efficacy of an adaptation of the Best Possible Self intervention implemented through positive technology: a randomized control trial," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 13(3), pages 671-689, September.
    3. Gerben ter Riet & Paula Chesley & Alan G Gross & Lara Siebeling & Patrick Muggensturm & Nadine Heller & Martin Umbehr & Daniela Vollenweider & Tsung Yu & Elie A Akl & Lizzy Brewster & Olaf M Dekkers &, 2013. "All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-6, November.
    4. Spyridon N Papageorgiou & Georgios N Antonoglou & George K Sándor & Theodore Eliades, 2017. "Randomized clinical trials in orthodontics are rarely registered a priori and often published late or not at all," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, August.
    5. Eun-Hi Kong & Myoungsuk Kim & Seonho Kim, 2021. "Effects of a Web-Based Educational Program Regarding Physical Restraint Reduction in Long-Term Care Settings on Nursing Students: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-10, June.
    6. Stavros Petrou & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Helen Dakin & Louise Longworth & Mark Oppe & Robert Froud & Alastair Gray, 2015. "Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 1-8, August.
    7. Alexander P. L. Martindale & Carrie D. Llewellyn & Richard O. Visser & Benjamin Ng & Victoria Ngai & Aditya U. Kale & Lavinia Ferrante Ruffano & Robert M. Golub & Gary S. Collins & David Moher & Melis, 2024. "Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Maria Giné-Garriga & Carme Martin-Borràs & Anna Puig-Ribera & Carlos Martín-Cantera & Mercè Solà & Antonio Cuesta-Vargas & on behalf of the PPAF Group, 2013. "The Effect of a Physical Activity Program on the Total Number of Primary Care Visits in Inactive Patients: A 15-Month Randomized Controlled Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-8, June.
    9. Nahid Norouzi-Gheidari & Alejandro Hernandez & Philippe S. Archambault & Johanne Higgins & Lise Poissant & Dahlia Kairy, 2019. "Feasibility, Safety and Efficacy of a Virtual Reality Exergame System to Supplement Upper Extremity Rehabilitation Post-Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial and Proof of Principle," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    11. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    12. Juliusz Huber & Katarzyna Kaczmarek & Katarzyna Leszczyńska & Przemysław Daroszewski, 2022. "Post-Stroke Treatment with Neuromuscular Functional Electrostimulation of Antagonistic Muscles and Kinesiotherapy Evaluated with Electromyography and Clinical Studies in a Two-Month Follow-Up," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-17, January.
    13. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    14. Süreyya Kılıç & Sema Dereli Yılmaz, 2023. "Virtual Reality Headset Simulating a Nature Environment to Improve Health Outcomes in Pregnant Women: A Randomized-Controlled Trial," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 32(8), pages 1104-1114, November.
    15. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Denise Howel & Suzanne Moffatt & Catherine Haighton & Andrew Bryant & Frauke Becker & Melanie Steer & Sarah Lawson & Terry Aspray & Eugene M G Milne & Luke Vale & Elaine McColl & Martin White, 2019. "Does domiciliary welfare rights advice improve health-related quality of life in independent-living, socio-economically disadvantaged people aged ≥60 years? Randomised controlled trial, economic and p," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-31, January.
    17. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    18. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.
    19. Marlene De Fabritiis & Federica Trisolini & Gloria Bertuletti & Ionut Daniel Fagadau & Davide Ginelli & Katiuscia Pia Lalopa & Lisa Peverelli & Alessia Pirola & Gaia Sala & Marta Maisto & Fabio Madedd, 2022. "An Internet-Based Multi-Approach Intervention Targeting University Students Suffering from Psychological Problems: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-15, February.
    20. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:3:p:264-277. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.