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 December 2024 : Editorial
Editorial: The 2024 Revision of the Declaration of Helsinki and its Continued Role as a Code of Ethics to Guide Medical ResearchDOI: 10.12659/MSM.947428
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e947428
In Press
Clinical Research
Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli and Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome: A Study of the 2022 Outbreak in TurkeyMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.946033
Clinical Research
Evaluating Lipiodol Efficacy in Proximal Tubal Occlusion Treatment: Single-Center Experience and Literature...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.946266
Review article
Impact of Traditional Chinese Medicine Antioxidants on Oxidative Stress and Drug-Induced Liver Injury: A Re...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.945147
Meta-Analysis
Reliability of Extraoral Scanners in Capturing 3D Geometry for Dental Prostheses: A Systematic ReviewMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.946470
Most Viewed Current Articles
17 Jan 2024 : Review article 6,956,909
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 1,969,236
Prevalence and Variability of Allergen-Specific Immunoglobulin E in Patients with Elevated Tryptase LevelsDOI :10.12659/MSM.937990
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937990
16 May 2023 : Clinical Research 696,965
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
07 Jan 2022 : Meta-Analysis 263,014
Efficacy and Safety of Light Therapy as a Home Treatment for Motor and Non-Motor Symptoms of Parkinson Dise...DOI :10.12659/MSM.935074
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e935074