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.

Keywords

decision aid decision making network meta-analysis patient preferences statins

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Fowler

Levin

Sepucha

KR.

Informing and involving patients to improve the quality of medical decisions. Health Aff. 2011;30(4):699–706. Available from: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0003

Elwyn

O’Connor

Stacey

Volk

Edwards

Coulter

Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. Br Med J. 2006;333(7565):417–9.

Stacey

Légaré

Lewis

et al . Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431. Available from: https://doi-wiley-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5

Del Fiol

Workman

Gorman

PN.

Clinical questions raised by clinicians at the point of care. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):s710. Available from: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.368

Krumholz

HM.

Treatment of cholesterol in 2017. JAMA. 2017;318(5):417. Available from: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jama.2017.6753

Naci

Brugts

Fleurence

Tsoi

Toor

Ades

AE.

Comparative benefits of statins in the primary and secondary prevention of major coronary events and all-cause mortality: a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and active-comparator trials. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2013;20(4):641–57.

Naci

Brugts

Ades

Comparative tolerability and harms of individual statins: a study-level network meta-analysis of 246 955 participants from 135 randomized, controlled trials. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(4):390–9.

Yudkin

Kavanagh

McCormack

JP.

Guidelines for treating risk factors should include tools for shared decision making. BMJ. 2016;i3147. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmj.i3147

Naci

Communication of treatment rankings obtained from network meta-analysis using data visualization. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016;9(5):605–8. Available from: http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/lookup/doi/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.002874

10.

Elwyn

Stiel

Durand

M-A

Boivin

The design of patient decision support interventions: addressing the theory-practice gap. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(4):565–74. Available from: https://doi-wiley-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01517.x

11.

Durand

M-A

Stiel

Boivin

Elwyn

Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;71(1):125–35. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0738399107004880

12.

Fischhoff

Goitein

Shapira

Subjective expected utility: a model of decision-making. Adv Psychol. 1983;16:183–207. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0166411508621998

13.

Polinski

Kesselheim

Frolkis

Wescott

Allen-Coleman

Fischer

MA.

A matter of trust: patient barriers to primary medication adherence. Health Educ Res. 2014;29(5):755–63. Available from: https://academic-oup-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/her/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/her/cyu023

14.

Schulz

Altman

Moher

CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340(mar23 1):c332. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.c332

15.

Salanti

Ades

Ioannidis

JPA

. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(2):163–71. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0895435610001691

16.

Chaimani

Higgins

JPT

Mavridis

Spyridonos

Salanti

Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e76654. Available from: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076654

17.

Trevena

Zikmund-Fisher

Edwards

et al . Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(suppl 2):S7. Available from: http://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S7

18.

PROTECT Work Package 5 Group. Review of visualisation methods for the representation of benefit-risk assessment of medication: Stage 2 of 2. London: Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European ConsorTium; 2013.

19.

O’Connor

AM.

User Manual: Decisional Conflict Scale (10 Item Question Format). Ottawa (Canada): Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 1993.

20.

Linder

Swank

Vernon

Mullen

Morgan

Volk

RJ.

Validity of a low literacy version of the Decisional Conflict Scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85(3):521–4. Available from: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.012

21.

O’Connor

AM.

User Manual: Decision Self-Efficacy Scale. Ottawa (Canada): Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 1995.

22.

Graham

O’Connor

AM.

User Manual: Preparation for Decision Making. Ottawa (Canada): Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 1995.

23.

Bennett

Graham

Kristjansson

Kearing

Clay

O’Connor

AM.

Validation of a preparation for decision making scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(1):130–3. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0738399109002328

24.

StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp; 2015.

25.

Weymiller

AJ.

Helping patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus make treatment decisions. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(10):1076. Available from: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/archinte.167.10.1076

26.

Mann

Ponieman

Montori

Arciniega

McGinn

The statin choice decision aid in primary care: a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(1):138–40. Available from: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.008

27.

Scalia

Durand

Kremer

Faber

Elwyn

Online, interactive option grid patient decision aids and their effect on user preferences. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1):56–68.

28.

Mearns

Sobieraj

White

et al . Comparative efficacy and safety of antidiabetic drug regimens added to metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):1–28.

29.

Cipriani

Furukawa

Salanti

Chaimani

Atkinson

Ogawa

et al . Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2018;391(10128): P1357–66. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673617328027

30.

Leucht

Cipriani

Spineli

et al . Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet. 2013;382 (9896):951–62.

31.

Choi

Berkowitz

Yudkin

Naci

Basu

Personalizing second-line type 2 diabetes treatment selection: combining network meta-analysis, individualized risk, and patient preferences for unified decision support. Med Decis Making. In press.

32.

Tervonen

Naci

Van Valkenhoef

et al . Applying multiple criteria decision analysis to comparative benefit-risk assessment. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(7):859–71.

33.

Naci

Van Valkenhoef

Higgins

JPT

Fleurence

Ades

AE.

Evidence-based prescribing: Combining network meta-analysis with multicriteria decision analysis to choose among multiple drugs. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7(5):787–92.

34.

Mbuagbaw

Rochwerg

Jaeschke

et al . Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):79. Available from: http://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-017-0473-z

35.

Berinsky

Huber

Lenz

GS.

Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Polit Anal. 2012;20(3):351–68. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700013875/type/journal_article

36.

Trenaman

Munro

Almeida

Ayas

Hicklin

Bansback

Development of a patient decision aid prototype for adults with obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Breath. 2016;20(2):653–61. Available from: https://link-springer-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s11325-015-1269-9

37.

Manigault

Handley

Whillock

SR.

Assessment of unconscious decision aids applied to complex patient-centered medical decisions. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e37. Available from: http://www.jmir.org/2015/2/e37/

38.

Rezai

Chin

Bassett-Gunter

Burns

Developing persuasive health messages for a behavior-change-support-system that promotes physical activity. Proc Int Symp Hum Factors Ergon Heal Care. 2017;6(1):89–95. Available from: https://journals-sagepub-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/10.1177/2327857917061020

39.

Elliott

Turner

Clavisi

et al . Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med. 2014;11(2):e1001603. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603

40.

Vandvik

Brignardello-Petersen

Guyatt

GH.

Living cumulative network meta-analysis to reduce waste in research: a paradigmatic shift for systematic reviews?

BMC Med. 2016;14(1):59. Available from: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0596-4

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.64 MB