Patient preferences and performance bias in a weight loss trial with a usual care arm

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 95, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 243-247

  McCambridge, Jim ^a   Sorhaindo, Annik ^a   Quirk, Alan ^b   Nanchahal, Kiran ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Behavior change; Disappointment; Patient counseling; Patient preferences; Performance bias; Research participation; Weight loss

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR CHANGE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONTROLLED STUDY; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT COUNSELING; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERFORMANCE BIAS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; STATISTICAL BIAS; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; WEIGHT REDUCTION; ADULT; COUNSELING; FEMALE; INTERVENTION STUDY; INTERVIEW; MALE; OBESITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT EDUCATION; PSYCHOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

ADULT; COUNSELING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVENTION STUDIES; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; OBESITY; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; WEIGHT LOSS;

EID: 84897109340     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: 18735134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Higgins J.P.T., Altman D.G., Sterne J.A.C. On behalf of the Cochrane statistical methods group and the Cochrane bias methods group. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510 (updated March 2011): the Cochrane collaboration 2011, Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. J.P.T. Higgins, S. Green (Eds.).
2. Wolfenden L., Wyse R.J., Britton B.I., Campbell K.J., Hodder R.K., Stacey F.G., et al. Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged 5 years and under. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 11:CD008552.
3. Cook T.D., Campbell D.T. Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings 1979, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
4. Kypri K., McCambridge J., Wilson A., Attia J., Sheeran P., Bowe S., et al. Effects of study design and allocation on participant behaviour - ESDA: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2011, 12:42.
5. Pocock S.J. Clinical trials: a practical approach 1983, John Wiley & Sons, Chicester.
6. Brewin C.R., Bradley C. Patient preferences and randomized clinical trials. Brit Med J 1989, 299:313-315.
7. Patients' preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. Brit Med J 2008, 337:a1864. Preference Collaborative Review Group.
8. 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, 293:1089-1099.
9. Zelen M. Randomized consent designs for clinical trials: an update. Stat Med 1990, 9:654-656.
10. Adamson J., Cockayne S., Puffer S., Torgerson D.J. Review of randomised trials using the post-randomised consent (Zelen's) design. Contemp Clin Trials 2006, 27:305-319.
11. Robinson E.J., Kerr C., Stevens A., Lilford R., Braunholtz D., Edwards S. Lay conceptions of the ethical and scientific justifications for random allocation in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med 2004, 58:811-824.
12. Robinson E.J., Kerr C.E., Stevens A.J., Lilford R.J., Braunholtz D.A., Edwards S.J., et al. Lay public's understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 2005, 9:1-192. [iii-iv].
13. Mills N., Donovan J.L., Wade J., Hamdy F.C., Neal D.E., Lane J.A. Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:1127-1136.
14. Wade J., Donovan J.L., Lane J.A., Neal D.E., Hamdy F.C. It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials. Soc Sci Med 2009, 68:2018-2028.
15. Donovan J.L., Lane J.A., Peters T.J., Brindle L., Salter E., Gillatt D., et al. Development of a complex intervention improved randomization and informed consent in a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:29-36.
16. Featherstone K., Donovan J.L. Why don't they just tell me straight, why allocate it? The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med 2002, 55:709-719.
17. Snowdon C., Garcia J., Elbourne D. Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med 1997, 45:1337-1355.
18. Chalmers I. Comparing like with like: some historical milestones in the evolution of methods to create unbiased comparison groups in therapeutic experiments. Int J Epidemiol 2001, 30:1156-1164.
19. McCambridge J., Kypri K., Elbourne D. In randomisation we trust? Possible problems in experimenting with people in behavioural intervention trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2013, [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.09.004.
20. Sarantakos S. Social research 2005, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire.
21. Nanchahal K., Power T., Holdsworth E., Hession M., Sorhaindo A., Griffiths U., et al. A pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care of the Camden Weight Loss (CAMWEL) programme. Brit Med J Open 2012, 2. 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000793.
22. Spanou C., Simpson S.A., Hood K., Edwards A., Cohen D., Rollnick S., et al. Preventing disease through opportunistic, rapid engagement by primary care teams using behaviour change counselling (PRE-EMPT): protocol for a general practice-based cluster randomised trial. BMC Fam Pract 2010, 11:69.
23. Oakley A., Strange V., Bonell C., Allen E., Stephenson J. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. Brit Med J 2006, 332:413-416.
24. Joffe H. Thematic analysis. Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: a guide for students and practitioners 2012, John Wiley & Sons, Oxford. D. Harper, A.R. Thompson (Eds.).
25. McCann S.K., Campbell M.K., Entwistle V.A. Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials 2010, 11:31.
26. Canvin K., Jacoby A. Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial. Trials 2006, 7:32.
27. Kerr C.E., Robinson E.J., Lilford R.J., Edwards S.J., Braunholtz D.A., Stevens A.J. The impact of describing clinical trial treatments as new or standard. Patient Educ Couns 2004, 53:107-113.
28. Madsen S.M., Holm S., Davidsen B., Munkholm P., Schlichting P., Riis P. Ethical aspects of clinical trials: the attitudes of participants in two non-cancer trials. J Intern Med 2000, 248:463-474.
29. Howick J. Questioning the methodologic superiority of 'placebo' over 'active' controlled trials. Am J Bioeth 2009, 9:34-48.
30. McCambridge J., Butor-Bhavsar K., Witton J., Elbourne D. Can research assessments themselves cause bias in behaviour change trials? A systematic review of evidence from Solomon 4-group studies. PLoS One 2011, 6:e25223.
31. McCambridge J., Kypri K. Can simply answering research questions change behaviour? Systematic review and meta analyses of brief alcohol intervention trials. PLoS One 2011, 6:e23748.
32. McCambridge J., de Bruin M., Witton J. The effects of demand characteristics on research participant behaviours in non-laboratory settings: a systematic review. PLoS One 2012, 7:e39116.
33. McCambridge J., Witton J., Elbourne D.R. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect. J Clin Epidemiol 2013, [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015.
34. Colagiuri B. Participant expectancies in double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials: potential limitations to trial validity. Clin Trials 2010, 7:246-255.
35. French D.P., Sutton S. Reactivity of measurement in health psychology: how much of a problem is it? What can be done about it?. Brit J Health Psychol 2010, 15:453-468.