Assessing the effect of patient and prescriber preference in trials of treatment of depression in general practice
Andrew ThornettMed Sci Monit 2001; 7(5): RA1086-1091 :: ID: 509356
Abstract
Preferences include the choices made by individuals when presented with options for treatment for depression, and the system of beliefs and views that underlies those choices. They are informed by the experience of previous treatment by individuals, their family and friends, information from medical professionals and the media, and incorporates biases and ideologies present within the population. Although the randomised controlled trial is generally considered to be the optimal method for evaluating the effectiveness of health care interventions, [1] patients may become less motivated to follow the treatment protocol if they are not allocated to their preferred treatment. Consequently, the relevant arms of the study may appear less effective as a result. Further, following an invitation to join a clinical trial, patients may refuse randomisation and be excluded from the trial if they have strong treatment preferences, leading to the introduction of bias and restricted ability to generalise the results, as participants may not be representative. Considerable demand has been shown by patients for psychological treatments for the treatment of depression in primary care. However, two recent studies have not demonstrated a relationship between being allowed to choose treatment and short-term depression outcome. These two studies explored primary care patients treated with antidepressants or counselling, and non-directive counselling, cognitive-behaviour therapy or usual general practitioner care. Further work is needed to determine the effects of preferences within different study designs and to explore the views of both professionals and patients using appropriate qualitative designs.
Keywords: preference, primary care, Depression
Editorial
01 March 2024 : Editorial
Editorial: First Regulatory Approvals for CRISPR-Cas9 Therapeutic Gene Editing for Sickle Cell Disease and Transfusion-Dependent β-ThalassemiaDOI: 10.12659/MSM.944204
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e944204
In Press
18 Mar 2024 : Clinical Research
Sexual Dysfunction in Women After Tibial Fracture: A Retrospective Comparative StudyMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.944136
21 Feb 2024 : Clinical Research
Potential Value of HSP90α in Prognosis of Triple-Negative Breast CancerMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.943049
22 Feb 2024 : Review article
Differentiation of Native Vertebral Osteomyelitis: A Comprehensive Review of Imaging Techniques and Future ...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.943168
23 Feb 2024 : Clinical Research
A Study of 60 Patients with Low Back Pain to Compare Outcomes Following Magnetotherapy, Ultrasound, Laser, ...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.943732
Most Viewed Current Articles
16 May 2023 : Clinical Research
Electrophysiological Testing for an Auditory Processing Disorder and Reading Performance in 54 School Stude...DOI :10.12659/MSM.940387
Med Sci Monit 2023; 29:e940387
17 Jan 2024 : Review article
Vaccination Guidelines for Pregnant Women: Addressing COVID-19 and the Omicron VariantDOI :10.12659/MSM.942799
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e942799
14 Dec 2022 : Clinical Research
Prevalence and Variability of Allergen-Specific Immunoglobulin E in Patients with Elevated Tryptase LevelsDOI :10.12659/MSM.937990
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937990
01 Jan 2022 : Editorial
Editorial: Current Status of Oral Antiviral Drug Treatments for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Non-Hospitalized Pa...DOI :10.12659/MSM.935952
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e935952