Patient Preferences and Performance Bias in a Weight Loss Trial with a Usual Care Arm

Overview

Journal Patient Educ Couns

Publisher Elsevier

Specialties Health Services
Nursing

Date 2014 Feb 5

PMID 24492159

Citations 21

Authors

Jim McCambridge

Annik Sorhaindo

Alan Quirk

Kiran Nanchahal

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: This qualitative study examines performance bias, i.e. unintended differences between groups, in the context of a weight loss trial in which a novel patient counseling program was compared to usual care in general practice.

Methods: 14/381 consecutive interviewees (6 intervention group, 8 control group) within the CAMWEL (Camden Weight Loss) effectiveness trial process study were asked about their engagement with various features of the research study and a thematic content analysis undertaken.

Results: Decisions to participate were interwoven with decisions to change behavior, to the extent that for many participants the two were synonymous. The intervention group were satisfied with their allocation. The control group spoke of their disappointment at having been offered usual care when they had taken part in the trial to access new forms of help. Reactions to disappointment involved both movements toward and away from behavior change.

Conclusion: There is a prima facie case that reactions to disappointment may introduce bias, as they lead the randomized groups to differ in ways other than the intended experimental contrast.

Practice Implications: In-depth qualitative studies nested within trials are needed to understand better the processes through which bias may be introduced.

Citing Articles

The difference in all-cause mortality between COVID-19 patients treated with standard of care plus placebo and those treated with standard of care alone: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of immunomodulatory kinase inhibitors.

Tseng P, Zeng B, Hsu C, Thompson T, Stubbs B, Hsueh P J R Soc Med. 2023; 117(2):57-68.

PMID: 37971412 PMC: 10949870. DOI: 10.1177/01410768231202657.

Innovative Bariatric Procedures and Ethics in Bariatric Surgery: the IFSO Position Statement.

Haddad A, Kow L, Herrera M, Cohen R, Himpens J, Greve J Obes Surg. 2022; 32(10):3217-3230.

PMID: 35922610 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-022-06220-8.

What is the impact of daily oral supplementation of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) plus calcium on the incidence of hip fracture in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Manoj P, Derwin R, George S Int J Older People Nurs. 2022; 18(1):e12492.

PMID: 35842938 PMC: 10078370. DOI: 10.1111/opn.12492.

Effectiveness of a digital intervention versus alcohol information for online help-seekers in Sweden: a randomised controlled trial.

Bendtsen M, Asberg K, McCambridge J BMC Med. 2022; 20(1):176.

PMID: 35578276 PMC: 9112593. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02374-5.

Effects of a waiting list control design on alcohol consumption among online help-seekers: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Bendtsen M, Gunnarsson K, McCambridge J BMJ Open. 2021; 11(8):e049810.

PMID: 34446493 PMC: 8395291. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049810.

References

Madsen S, 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. 2001; 248(6):463-74. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2796.2000.00755.x. View

Featherstone K, Donovan J . "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(5):709-19. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00197-6. View

Brewin C, Bradley C . Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1989; 299(6694):313-5. PMC: 1837157. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.299.6694.313. View

McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne D . Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 67(3):267-77. PMC: 3969247. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015. View

French D, Sutton S . Reactivity of measurement in health psychology: how much of a problem is it? What can be done about it?. Br J Health Psychol. 2010; 15(Pt 3):453-68. DOI: 10.1348/135910710X492341. View

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(10):e25223. PMC: 3198466. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025223. View

. Patients' preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008; 337:a1864. PMC: 2659956. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a1864. View

Zelen M . Randomized consent designs for clinical trials: an update. Stat Med. 1990; 9(6):645-56. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780090611. View

Kypri K, McCambridge J, Wilson A, Attia J, Sheeran P, Bowe S . Effects of Study Design and Allocation on participant behaviour--ESDA: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2011; 12:42. PMC: 3045904. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-42. View

10.

Wade J, Donovan J, Athene Lane J, Neal D, Hamdy F . 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(11):2018-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023. View

11.

Wolfenden L, Wyse R, Britton B, Campbell K, Hodder R, Stacey F . Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged 5 years and under. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 11:CD008552. PMC: 4160655. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008552.pub2. View

12.

Mills N, Donovan J, Wade J, Hamdy F, Neal D, Athene Lane J . Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(10):1127-36. PMC: 3167372. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.017. View

13.

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. PMC: 1770934. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-7-32. View

14.

Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J . Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ. 2006; 332(7538):413-6. PMC: 1370978. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.332.7538.413. View

15.

Robinson E, Kerr C, Stevens A, Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Edwards S . Lay public's understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005; 9(8):1-192, iii-iv. DOI: 10.3310/hta9080. View

16.

Colagiuri B . Participant expectancies in double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials: potential limitations to trial validity. Clin Trials. 2010; 7(3):246-55. DOI: 10.1177/1740774510367916. View

17.

Adamson J, Cockayne S, Puffer S, Torgerson D . Review of randomised trials using the post-randomised consent (Zelen's) design. Contemp Clin Trials. 2006; 27(4):305-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2005.11.003. View

18.

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(9):1337-55. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00063-4. View

19.

King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M . Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005; 293(9):1089-99. DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.9.1089. View

20.

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(6):e39116. PMC: 3378517. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039116. View