Skip to main content
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 2004 Feb;54(499):93–96.

What influences participants' treatment preference and can it influence outcome? Results from a primary care-based randomised trial for shoulder pain.

Elaine Thomas 1, Peter R Croft 1, Susan M Paterson 1, Krysia Dziedzic 1, Elaine M Hay 1
PMCID: PMC1314800  PMID: 14965386

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In randomised clinical trials (RCTs), outcome may be influenced by the opinions of the participants about the efficacy of treatments. AIM: To examine how initial treatment preferences of participants in a shoulder pain trial affected functional outcome and future treatment preferences. DESIGN OF STUDY: Observational cohort study nested within a multicentre, pragmatic RCT of steroid injection versus physiotherapy for unilateral shoulder pain. SETTING: Nine general practices in north Staffordshire. METHOD: Two hundred and seven adults were randomised in the trial. Disability scores and preferences of the participants for the trial treatments were elicited at two points: prior to randomisation and 6 months post-randomisation. A good functional outcome was defined as at least a halving in the disability score at the 6 months follow-up point. RESULTS: Pre-randomisation preferences were: 40% for injection and 20% for physiotherapy, and 40% gave no preference. A good outcome was achieved in a higher percentage of participants who gave a pre-randomisation treatment preference compared with those who did not (62% compared with 48% percentage difference = 14%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1 to 27%) with similar percentages in each preferred treatment group. However, receiving the preferred treatment did not confer any additional benefit in those who expressed a preference (receiving preferred treatment = 56%; not receiving preferred treatment = 69%). At 6 months post-randomisation, participants with a good, as opposed to poor, outcome were more likely to report as their preferred treatment the one to which they had been randomised, irrespective of pre-randomisation preference and whether the preferred treatment was received. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that preferences prior to treatment can affect outcome, but that treatment outcome is a stronger influence on post-treatment preferences. We present some empirical evidence to support the statement that treatment preferences can have important effects on the results of RCTs.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (27.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bowling A., Ebrahim S. Measuring patients' preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk. Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 (Suppl 1):i2–i8. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100002... [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bradley C. Designing medical and educational intervention studies. A review of some alternatives to conventional randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care. 1993 Feb;16(2):509–518. doi: 10.2337/diacare.16.2.509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brewin C. R., Bradley C. Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1989 Jul 29;299(6694):313–315. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6694.313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Croft P., Pope D., Zonca M., O'Neill T., Silman A. Measurement of shoulder related disability: results of a validation study. Ann Rheum Dis. 1994 Aug;53(8):525–528. doi: 10.1136/ard.53.8.525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hay E. M., Thomas E., Paterson S. M., Dziedzic K., Croft P. R. A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of local corticosteroid injection and physiotherapy for the treatment of new episodes of unilateral shoulder pain in primary care. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003 May;62(5):394–399. doi: 10.1136/ard.62.5.394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kalauokalani D., Cherkin D. C., Sherman K. J., Koepsell T. D., Deyo R. A. Lessons from a trial of acupuncture and massage for low back pain: patient expectations and treatment effects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001 Jul 1;26(13):1418–1424. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200107010-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. McPherson K., Britton A. R., Wennberg J. E. Are randomized controlled trials controlled? Patient preferences and unblind trials. J R Soc Med. 1997 Dec;90(12):652–656. doi: 10.1177/014107689709001205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Moffett J. K., Torgerson D., Bell-Syer S., Jackson D., Llewlyn-Phillips H., Farrin A., Barber J. Randomised controlled trial of exercise for low back pain: clinical outcomes, costs, and preferences. BMJ. 1999 Jul 31;319(7205):279–283. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7205.279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Rücker G. A two-stage trial design for testing treatment, self-selection and treatment preference effects. Stat Med. 1989 Apr;8(4):477–485. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780080411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Torgerson D. J., Klaber-Moffett J., Russell I. T. Patient preferences in randomised trials: threat or opportunity? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996 Oct;1(4):194–197. doi: 10.1177/135581969600100403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Torgerson D. J., Sibbald B. Understanding controlled trials. What is a patient preference trial? BMJ. 1998 Jan 31;316(7128):360–360. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7128.360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. van der Windt D. A., Koes B. W., van Aarst M., Heemskerk M. A., Bouter L. M. Practical aspects of conducting a pragmatic randomised trial in primary care: patient recruitment and outcome assessment. Br J Gen Pract. 2000 May;50(454):371–374. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES