Determinants of patients' treatment preferences in a clinical trial
Identifieur interne : 003654 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 003653; suivant : 003655Determinants of patients' treatment preferences in a clinical trial
Auteurs : Manal A. Awad ; Stanley H. Shapiro ; James P. Lund ; Jocelyne S. FeineSource :
- Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology [ 0301-5661 ] ; 2000-04.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Brewin bradley, Clinical trial, Clinical trials, College degree, Community dent, Conventional dentures, Conventional treatment, Current prostheses, Edentulous patients, Gender, General satisfaction, Implant, Implant treatment, Implant treatments, Mcgill university faculty, Medical intervention, Odds ratios, Older patients, Oral prostheses, Other factors, Other hand, Overall satisfaction, Particular form, Particular treatment, Particular treatment modality, Patient preference, Patient preferences, Preference, Preference groups, Preferred treatment, Present prostheses, Present study, Prosthesis, Randomised, Randomized, Reference outcome category, Standard treatment, Strong preference, Strong preferences, Study designs, Surgical procedure, Treatment modality, Treatment outcome, Treatment preference, Treatment preferences, University degree, Visual analogue scale.
- Teeft :
- Brewin bradley, Clinical trial, Clinical trials, College degree, Community dent, Conventional dentures, Conventional treatment, Current prostheses, Edentulous patients, Gender, General satisfaction, Implant, Implant treatment, Implant treatments, Mcgill university faculty, Medical intervention, Odds ratios, Older patients, Oral prostheses, Other factors, Other hand, Overall satisfaction, Particular form, Particular treatment, Particular treatment modality, Patient preference, Patient preferences, Preference, Preference groups, Preferred treatment, Present prostheses, Present study, Prosthesis, Randomised, Randomized, Reference outcome category, Standard treatment, Strong preference, Strong preferences, Study designs, Surgical procedure, Treatment modality, Treatment outcome, Treatment preference, Treatment preferences, University degree, Visual analogue scale.
Abstract
Abstract – Several researchers have suggested that patients' preferences for a particular form of treatment should be taken into account in clinical trials. Preferences may influence the outcome of treatment, especially in trials when patients cannot be blinded to the type of treatment received and the outcome is based on patients' evaluations of therapy. Participants in this study were 136 edentulous patients who took part in a randomised controlled clinical trial comparing two types of treatments for edentulism: conventional dentures and implant‐supported prostheses. Prior to receiving treatment, subjects were required to complete a questionnaire regarding their satisfaction with their present prostheses. In addition, they were asked to indicate which treatment they would prefer if given a choice. The objective of this study was to determine whether there are important differences among study participants between patients who have a treatment preference and those who do not. The effects of satisfaction with pre‐treatment prostheses, age, gender and level of education on preferences were examined. Level of satisfaction with the original dentures and level of education were significant predictors of preference. Compared to subjects who rated their satisfaction with their current condition as ‘low’, the odds ratios associated with having a preference for implant treatment were 0.31 (95% CI: 0.09 to 0.96) for subjects who rated their prostheses in the ‘medium’ range and 0.11 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.41) for those who rated in the ‘high’ range. In addition, subjects with high levels of education were significantly less likely to have a preference for either conventional or implant treatments (OR=0.18, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.77 and OR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.76, respectively) compared to those with low education. Neither age nor gender was a significant predictor of preference. We suggest that study designs which incorporate patients' preferences must take into account possible differences between preference groups that might confound the relationship between preference and the outcome of interest.
Url:
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.028002119.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:6E3341811285D421CE00074FDA5BD1DECD37023BLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Determinants of patients' treatment preferences in a clinical trial</title><author><name sortKey="Awad, Manal A" sort="Awad, Manal A" uniqKey="Awad M" first="Manal A." last="Awad">Manal A. Awad</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Shapiro, Stanley H" sort="Shapiro, Stanley H" uniqKey="Shapiro S" first="Stanley H." last="Shapiro">Stanley H. Shapiro</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Joint Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Occupational Health,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lund, James P" sort="Lund, James P" uniqKey="Lund J" first="James P." last="Lund">James P. Lund</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Université de Montréal, Centre de recherche en science neurologiques, Monatreal, Quebec, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Feine, Jocelyne S" sort="Feine, Jocelyne S" uniqKey="Feine J" first="Jocelyne S." last="Feine">Jocelyne S. Feine</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Joint Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Occupational Health,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:6E3341811285D421CE00074FDA5BD1DECD37023B</idno><date when="2000" year="2000">2000</date><idno type="doi">10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.028002119.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/6E3341811285D421CE00074FDA5BD1DECD37023B/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">003654</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">003654</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Determinants of patients' treatment preferences in a clinical trial</title><author><name sortKey="Awad, Manal A" sort="Awad, Manal A" uniqKey="Awad M" first="Manal A." last="Awad">Manal A. Awad</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Shapiro, Stanley H" sort="Shapiro, Stanley H" uniqKey="Shapiro S" first="Stanley H." last="Shapiro">Stanley H. Shapiro</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Joint Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Occupational Health,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lund, James P" sort="Lund, James P" uniqKey="Lund J" first="James P." last="Lund">James P. Lund</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Université de Montréal, Centre de recherche en science neurologiques, Monatreal, Quebec, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Feine, Jocelyne S" sort="Feine, Jocelyne S" uniqKey="Feine J" first="Jocelyne S." last="Feine">Jocelyne S. Feine</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Joint Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Occupational Health,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology</title><title level="j" type="alt">COMMUNITY DENTISTRY ORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY</title><idno type="ISSN">0301-5661</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0528</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">28</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="119">119</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="125">125</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-04">2000-04</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0301-5661</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0301-5661</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Brewin bradley</term><term>Clinical trial</term><term>Clinical trials</term><term>College degree</term><term>Community dent</term><term>Conventional dentures</term><term>Conventional treatment</term><term>Current prostheses</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Gender</term><term>General satisfaction</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant treatment</term><term>Implant treatments</term><term>Mcgill university faculty</term><term>Medical intervention</term><term>Odds ratios</term><term>Older patients</term><term>Oral prostheses</term><term>Other factors</term><term>Other hand</term><term>Overall satisfaction</term><term>Particular form</term><term>Particular treatment</term><term>Particular treatment modality</term><term>Patient preference</term><term>Patient preferences</term><term>Preference</term><term>Preference groups</term><term>Preferred treatment</term><term>Present prostheses</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Randomised</term><term>Randomized</term><term>Reference outcome category</term><term>Standard treatment</term><term>Strong preference</term><term>Strong preferences</term><term>Study designs</term><term>Surgical procedure</term><term>Treatment modality</term><term>Treatment outcome</term><term>Treatment preference</term><term>Treatment preferences</term><term>University degree</term><term>Visual analogue scale</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Brewin bradley</term><term>Clinical trial</term><term>Clinical trials</term><term>College degree</term><term>Community dent</term><term>Conventional dentures</term><term>Conventional treatment</term><term>Current prostheses</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Gender</term><term>General satisfaction</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant treatment</term><term>Implant treatments</term><term>Mcgill university faculty</term><term>Medical intervention</term><term>Odds ratios</term><term>Older patients</term><term>Oral prostheses</term><term>Other factors</term><term>Other hand</term><term>Overall satisfaction</term><term>Particular form</term><term>Particular treatment</term><term>Particular treatment modality</term><term>Patient preference</term><term>Patient preferences</term><term>Preference</term><term>Preference groups</term><term>Preferred treatment</term><term>Present prostheses</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Randomised</term><term>Randomized</term><term>Reference outcome category</term><term>Standard treatment</term><term>Strong preference</term><term>Strong preferences</term><term>Study designs</term><term>Surgical procedure</term><term>Treatment modality</term><term>Treatment outcome</term><term>Treatment preference</term><term>Treatment preferences</term><term>University degree</term><term>Visual analogue scale</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Abstract – Several researchers have suggested that patients' preferences for a particular form of treatment should be taken into account in clinical trials. Preferences may influence the outcome of treatment, especially in trials when patients cannot be blinded to the type of treatment received and the outcome is based on patients' evaluations of therapy. Participants in this study were 136 edentulous patients who took part in a randomised controlled clinical trial comparing two types of treatments for edentulism: conventional dentures and implant‐supported prostheses. Prior to receiving treatment, subjects were required to complete a questionnaire regarding their satisfaction with their present prostheses. In addition, they were asked to indicate which treatment they would prefer if given a choice. The objective of this study was to determine whether there are important differences among study participants between patients who have a treatment preference and those who do not. The effects of satisfaction with pre‐treatment prostheses, age, gender and level of education on preferences were examined. Level of satisfaction with the original dentures and level of education were significant predictors of preference. Compared to subjects who rated their satisfaction with their current condition as ‘low’, the odds ratios associated with having a preference for implant treatment were 0.31 (95% CI: 0.09 to 0.96) for subjects who rated their prostheses in the ‘medium’ range and 0.11 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.41) for those who rated in the ‘high’ range. In addition, subjects with high levels of education were significantly less likely to have a preference for either conventional or implant treatments (OR=0.18, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.77 and OR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.76, respectively) compared to those with low education. Neither age nor gender was a significant predictor of preference. We suggest that study designs which incorporate patients' preferences must take into account possible differences between preference groups that might confound the relationship between preference and the outcome of interest.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>randomised</json:string><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>randomized</json:string><json:string>conventional treatment</json:string><json:string>clinical trial</json:string><json:string>clinical trials</json:string><json:string>implant treatment</json:string><json:string>treatment preferences</json:string><json:string>preference</json:string><json:string>study designs</json:string><json:string>general satisfaction</json:string><json:string>patient preferences</json:string><json:string>college degree</json:string><json:string>treatment preference</json:string><json:string>standard treatment</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>present prostheses</json:string><json:string>community dent</json:string><json:string>particular form</json:string><json:string>treatment outcome</json:string><json:string>surgical procedure</json:string><json:string>medical intervention</json:string><json:string>odds ratios</json:string><json:string>brewin bradley</json:string><json:string>gender</json:string><json:string>current prostheses</json:string><json:string>strong preference</json:string><json:string>strong preferences</json:string><json:string>preferred treatment</json:string><json:string>patient preference</json:string><json:string>oral prostheses</json:string><json:string>preference groups</json:string><json:string>visual analogue scale</json:string><json:string>overall satisfaction</json:string><json:string>implant treatments</json:string><json:string>particular treatment</json:string><json:string>reference outcome category</json:string><json:string>treatment modality</json:string><json:string>university degree</json:string><json:string>conventional dentures</json:string><json:string>older patients</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>mcgill university faculty</json:string><json:string>particular treatment modality</json:string><json:string>other factors</json:string><json:string>other hand</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Manal A. Awad</name><affiliations><json:string>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Stanley H. Shapiro</name><affiliations><json:string>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Joint Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Occupational Health,</json:string><json:string>Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research,</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>James P. Lund</name><affiliations><json:string>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</json:string><json:string>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology,</json:string><json:string>Université de Montréal, Centre de recherche en science neurologiques, Monatreal, Quebec, Canada</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Jocelyne S. Feine</name><affiliations><json:string>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</json:string><json:string>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Joint Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Occupational Health,</json:string><json:string>Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research,</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>clinical trials</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>oral prostheses</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>study designs</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>treatment preferences</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>com9o046</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-7XRMHPPZ-8</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Abstract – Several researchers have suggested that patients' preferences for a particular form of treatment should be taken into account in clinical trials. Preferences may influence the outcome of treatment, especially in trials when patients cannot be blinded to the type of treatment received and the outcome is based on patients' evaluations of therapy. Participants in this study were 136 edentulous patients who took part in a randomised controlled clinical trial comparing two types of treatments for edentulism: conventional dentures and implant‐supported prostheses. Prior to receiving treatment, subjects were required to complete a questionnaire regarding their satisfaction with their present prostheses. In addition, they were asked to indicate which treatment they would prefer if given a choice. The objective of this study was to determine whether there are important differences among study participants between patients who have a treatment preference and those who do not. The effects of satisfaction with pre‐treatment prostheses, age, gender and level of education on preferences were examined. Level of satisfaction with the original dentures and level of education were significant predictors of preference. Compared to subjects who rated their satisfaction with their current condition as ‘low’, the odds ratios associated with having a preference for implant treatment were 0.31 (95% CI: 0.09 to 0.96) for subjects who rated their prostheses in the ‘medium’ range and 0.11 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.41) for those who rated in the ‘high’ range. In addition, subjects with high levels of education were significantly less likely to have a preference for either conventional or implant treatments (OR=0.18, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.77 and OR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.76, respectively) compared to those with low education. Neither age nor gender was a significant predictor of preference. We suggest that study designs which incorporate patients' preferences must take into account possible differences between preference groups that might confound the relationship between preference and the outcome of interest.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.718</score><pdfWordCount>3718</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>23723</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>7</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595 x 794 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>316</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>2120</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Determinants of patients' treatment preferences in a clinical trial</title><pmid><json:string>10730720</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0528</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0301-5661</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1600-0528</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CDOE</json:string></publisherId><volume>28</volume><issue>2</issue><pages><first>119</first><last>125</last><total>7</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2000</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research</json:string><json:string>Welfare Canada NHRDP Grant</json:string><json:string>University Faculty of Medicine</json:string><json:string>Canada Tel</json:string><json:string>Canada Inc</json:string><json:string>Canadian Medical Research Council Grant</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder><json:string>Canadian Medical Research Council Grant</json:string></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Nobel Biocare</json:string><json:string>Jocelyne S. Feine</json:string><json:string>Stanley H. Shapiro</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Lund</json:string><json:string>Montreal</json:string><json:string>Canada</json:string><json:string>Quebec</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Awad et al.</json:string><json:string>Henshaw et al.</json:string><json:string>Hack et al.</json:string><json:string>Cooper et al.</json:string><json:string>Till et al.</json:string><json:string>McPherson et al.</json:string><json:string>Feine et al.</json:string><json:string>Wennberg et al.</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-7XRMHPPZ-8</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - social science</json:string><json:string>2 - public, environmental & occupational health</json:string><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health</json:string><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2000</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2000</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.028002119.x</json:string></doi><id>6E3341811285D421CE00074FDA5BD1DECD37023B</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6E3341811285D421CE00074FDA5BD1DECD37023B/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6E3341811285D421CE00074FDA5BD1DECD37023B/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/6E3341811285D421CE00074FDA5BD1DECD37023B/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Determinants of patients' treatment preferences in a clinical trial</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-04"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Determinants of patients' treatment preferences in a clinical trial</title><title level="a" type="short">Patients' treatment preferences and study designs</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Manal A.</forename><surname>Awad</surname></persName><affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Stanley H.</forename><surname>Shapiro</surname></persName><affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Joint Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Occupational Health,</affiliation><affiliation>Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research,</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">James P.</forename><surname>Lund</surname></persName><affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</affiliation><affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology,</affiliation><affiliation>Université de Montréal, Centre de recherche en science neurologiques, Monatreal, Quebec, Canada<address><country key="CA"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Jocelyne S.</forename><surname>Feine</surname></persName><affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</affiliation><affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Joint Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Occupational Health,</affiliation><affiliation>Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research,</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">6E3341811285D421CE00074FDA5BD1DECD37023B</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-7XRMHPPZ-8</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.028002119.x</idno><idno type="supplier">com9o046</idno><idno type="unit">CDOE280207</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CDOE.CDOE280207.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology</title><title level="j" type="alt">COMMUNITY DENTISTRY ORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY</title><idno type="pISSN">0301-5661</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0528</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0528</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/com.2000.28.issue-2</idno><idno type="product">CDOE</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">28</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="119">119</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="125">125</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-04"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p>Several researchers have suggested that patients' preferences for a particular form of treatment should be taken into account in clinical trials. Preferences may influence the outcome of treatment, especially in trials when patients cannot be blinded to the type of treatment received and the outcome is based on patients' evaluations of therapy. Participants in this study were 136 edentulous patients who took part in a randomised controlled clinical trial comparing two types of treatments for edentulism: conventional dentures and implant‐supported prostheses. Prior to receiving treatment, subjects were required to complete a questionnaire regarding their satisfaction with their present prostheses. In addition, they were asked to indicate which treatment they would prefer if given a choice. The objective of this study was to determine whether there are important differences among study participants between patients who have a treatment preference and those who do not. The effects of satisfaction with pre‐treatment prostheses, age, gender and level of education on preferences were examined. Level of satisfaction with the original dentures and level of education were significant predictors of preference. Compared to subjects who rated their satisfaction with their current condition as ‘low’, the odds ratios associated with having a preference for implant treatment were 0.31 (95% CI: 0.09 to 0.96) for subjects who rated their prostheses in the ‘medium’ range and 0.11 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.41) for those who rated in the ‘high’ range. In addition, subjects with high levels of education were significantly less likely to have a preference for either conventional or implant treatments (OR=0.18, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.77 and OR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.76, respectively) compared to those with low education. Neither age nor gender was a significant predictor of preference. We suggest that study designs which incorporate patients' preferences must take into account possible differences between preference groups that might confound the relationship between preference and the outcome of interest.<hi rend="bold">Abstract –</hi></p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">clinical trials</term><term xml:id="k2">oral prostheses</term><term xml:id="k3">study designs</term><term xml:id="k4">treatment preferences</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Article</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change>undefined</change><change>[object Object]</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6E3341811285D421CE00074FDA5BD1DECD37023B/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley component found"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisherName><publisherLoc>Copenhagen</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0528</doi><issn type="print">0301-5661</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0528</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CDOE"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="COMMUNITY DENTISTRY ORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY">Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="04002"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/com.2000.28.issue-2</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="28">28</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="2">2</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2000-04">April 2000</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0011900" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.028002119.x</doi><idGroup><id type="supplier" value="com9o046"></id><id type="unit" value="CDOE280207"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="7"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Article</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2002-01-04"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2002-01-04"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:Header result:Header" date="2010-03-09"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-08"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="119">119</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="125">125</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Jocelyne S. Feine, McGill University, 3640 University Street, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2B2, Canada
Tel: +514 398 7203
Fax: +514 398 8900
e‐mail: <email>feine@med.mcgill.ca</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CDOE.CDOE280207.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 27 August 1999</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="0"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="4435"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Determinants of patients' treatment preferences in a clinical trial</title><title type="shortAuthors">Awad et al.</title><title type="short">Patients' treatment preferences and study designs</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Manal A.</givenNames><familyName>Awad</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2 #a3"><personName><givenNames>Stanley H.</givenNames><familyName>Shapiro</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1 #a4 #a5"><personName><givenNames>James P.</givenNames><familyName>Lund</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a1 #a2 #a3"><personName><givenNames>Jocelyne S.</givenNames><familyName>Feine</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2"><unparsedAffiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Joint Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Occupational Health,</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3"><unparsedAffiliation>Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research,</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a4"><unparsedAffiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology,</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a5" countryCode="CA"><unparsedAffiliation>Université de Montréal, Centre de recherche en science neurologiques, Monatreal, Quebec, Canada</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">clinical trials</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">oral prostheses</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">study designs</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">treatment preferences</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Abstract –</b> Several researchers have suggested that patients' preferences for a particular form of treatment should be taken into account in clinical trials. Preferences may influence the outcome of treatment, especially in trials when patients cannot be blinded to the type of treatment received and the outcome is based on patients' evaluations of therapy. Participants in this study were 136 edentulous patients who took part in a randomised controlled clinical trial comparing two types of treatments for edentulism: conventional dentures and implant‐supported prostheses. Prior to receiving treatment, subjects were required to complete a questionnaire regarding their satisfaction with their present prostheses. In addition, they were asked to indicate which treatment they would prefer if given a choice. The objective of this study was to determine whether there are important differences among study participants between patients who have a treatment preference and those who do not. The effects of satisfaction with pre‐treatment prostheses, age, gender and level of education on preferences were examined. Level of satisfaction with the original dentures and level of education were significant predictors of preference. Compared to subjects who rated their satisfaction with their current condition as ‘low’, the odds ratios associated with having a preference for implant treatment were 0.31 (95% CI: 0.09 to 0.96) for subjects who rated their prostheses in the ‘medium’ range and 0.11 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.41) for those who rated in the ‘high’ range. In addition, subjects with high levels of education were significantly less likely to have a preference for either conventional or implant treatments (OR=0.18, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.77 and OR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.76, respectively) compared to those with low education. Neither age nor gender was a significant predictor of preference. We suggest that study designs which incorporate patients' preferences must take into account possible differences between preference groups that might confound the relationship between preference and the outcome of interest.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Determinants of patients' treatment preferences in a clinical trial</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Patients' treatment preferences and study designs</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Determinants of patients' treatment preferences in a clinical trial</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Manal A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Awad</namePart><affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Stanley H.</namePart><namePart type="family">Shapiro</namePart><affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Joint Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Occupational Health,</affiliation><affiliation>Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research,</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">James P.</namePart><namePart type="family">Lund</namePart><affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</affiliation><affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology,</affiliation><affiliation>Université de Montréal, Centre de recherche en science neurologiques, Monatreal, Quebec, Canada</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jocelyne S.</namePart><namePart type="family">Feine</namePart><affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Dentistry,</affiliation><affiliation>McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Joint Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Occupational Health,</affiliation><affiliation>Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research,</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Copenhagen</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2000-04</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 27 August 1999</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2000</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">0</extent><extent unit="tables">0</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">0</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent><extent unit="words">4435</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Abstract – Several researchers have suggested that patients' preferences for a particular form of treatment should be taken into account in clinical trials. Preferences may influence the outcome of treatment, especially in trials when patients cannot be blinded to the type of treatment received and the outcome is based on patients' evaluations of therapy. Participants in this study were 136 edentulous patients who took part in a randomised controlled clinical trial comparing two types of treatments for edentulism: conventional dentures and implant‐supported prostheses. Prior to receiving treatment, subjects were required to complete a questionnaire regarding their satisfaction with their present prostheses. In addition, they were asked to indicate which treatment they would prefer if given a choice. The objective of this study was to determine whether there are important differences among study participants between patients who have a treatment preference and those who do not. The effects of satisfaction with pre‐treatment prostheses, age, gender and level of education on preferences were examined. Level of satisfaction with the original dentures and level of education were significant predictors of preference. Compared to subjects who rated their satisfaction with their current condition as ‘low’, the odds ratios associated with having a preference for implant treatment were 0.31 (95% CI: 0.09 to 0.96) for subjects who rated their prostheses in the ‘medium’ range and 0.11 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.41) for those who rated in the ‘high’ range. In addition, subjects with high levels of education were significantly less likely to have a preference for either conventional or implant treatments (OR=0.18, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.77 and OR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.76, respectively) compared to those with low education. Neither age nor gender was a significant predictor of preference. We suggest that study designs which incorporate patients' preferences must take into account possible differences between preference groups that might confound the relationship between preference and the outcome of interest.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>clinical trials</topic><topic>oral prostheses</topic><topic>study designs</topic><topic>treatment preferences</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0301-5661</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0528</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0528</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CDOE</identifier><part><date>2000</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>28</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>119</start><end>125</end><total>7</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">6E3341811285D421CE00074FDA5BD1DECD37023B</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-7XRMHPPZ-8</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.028002119.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">com9o046</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Munksgaard International Publishers</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6E3341811285D421CE00074FDA5BD1DECD37023B/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 003654 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 003654 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:6E3341811285D421CE00074FDA5BD1DECD37023B
|texte= Determinants of patients' treatment preferences in a clinical trial
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |