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

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.

Personalise antidepressant treatment for unipolar depression combining individual choices, risks and big data (PETRUSHKA): rationale and protocol

“…Incorporate preferences and values of clinicians and patients to identify the desired clinical outcome,29 30 considering both efficacy and adverse events (for instance, some patients may want to avoid sedation while others tremor or sexual dysfunction).…”

Patient Education and Engagement through Social Media

“…Health literacy is indicative of a patient’s ability to comprehend healthcare information to make informed decisions with the aim to achieve critical literacy with patients exerting control over their decision-making processes [ 13 , 14 ]. This can be achieved by giving patients the tools to make independent choices, such as by helping patients understand various aspects of their care [ 15 ]. Clear material, presented in a readily-accessible platform, can amplify the patients’ voice and aide in reaching shared decisions [ 16 ].…”

The economic costs of protests and policy recommendations for preventing them: the case of Hong Kong

“…For example, Cox et al (1976) show that private sector corporations have already been using focus groups to develop pricing, advertising, packaging of consumer products as early as the 1970s. Similarly, in the public sector, Hopkin et al (2019) applied such measures, along with a network meta-analysis, in their design of a new patient tool (an online decision-making platform) for cholesterol drug users.…”