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. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    2. Michael J. Fell & Alexandra Schneiders & David Shipworth, 2019. "Consumer Demand for Blockchain-Enabled Peer-to-Peer Electricity Trading in the United Kingdom: An Online Survey Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-25, October.
    3. Michele Cantarella & Chiara Strozzi, 2021. "Workers in the crowd: the labor market impact of the online platform economy [An evaluation of instrumental variable strategies for estimating the effects of catholic schooling]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(6), pages 1429-1458.
    4. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    5. Su Keng Tan & Wai Keung Leung & Alexander Tin Hong Tang & Roger A Zwahlen, 2017. "Effects of mandibular setback with or without maxillary advancement osteotomies on pharyngeal airways: An overview of systematic reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, October.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Iranzu Mugueta-Aguinaga & Begonya Garcia-Zapirain, 2017. "FRED: Exergame to Prevent Dependence and Functional Deterioration Associated with Ageing. A Pilot Three-Week Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Milagros Molero-Zafra & María Teresa Mitjans-Lafont & María Jesús Hernández-Jiménez & Marián Pérez-Marín, 2022. "Psychological Intervention in Women Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse: An Open Study—Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing EMDR Psychotherapy and Trauma-Based Cognitive Therapy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-16, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Xiaoxuan Gong & Shaowen Tang & Jiangjin Li & Xiwen Zhang & Xiaoyi Tian & Shuren Ma, 2017. "Antithrombotic therapy strategies for atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-13, October.
    13. 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.
    14. Park, JungKun & Ahn, Jiseon & Thavisay, Toulany & Ren, Tianbao, 2019. "Examining the role of anxiety and social influence in multi-benefits of mobile payment service," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 140-149.
    15. 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.
    16. Juliane Piasseschi de Bernardin Gonçalves & Giancarlo Lucchetti & Paulo Rossi Menezes & Homero Vallada, 2017. "Complementary religious and spiritual interventions in physical health and quality of life: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, October.
    17. Chunhao Wei & Han Chen & Yee Ming Lee, 2022. "COVID-19 preventive measures and restaurant customers’ intention to dine out: the role of brand trust and perceived risk," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 16(3), pages 581-600, September.
    18. Jovana Kuzmanovic Pficer & Slobodan Dodic & Vojkan Lazic & Goran Trajkovic & Natasa Milic & Biljana Milicic, 2017. "Occlusal stabilization splint for patients with temporomandibular disorders: Meta-analysis of short and long term effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, February.
    19. Weißbach Rafael, 2016. "Kommentar zu „Die Interpretation des p-Wertes – Grundsätzliche Missverständnisse“," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 236(5), pages 577-580, October.
    20. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.

    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.