2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/157846
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Influence of Accounting for Treatment Preference on Study Participation
Abstract:
Influence of Accounting for Treatment Preference on Study Participation
Conference Sponsor:Western Institute of Nursing
Conference Year:2006
Author:Miranda, Joyal, RN, BScN, MN, PhD(c)
P.I. Institution Name:University of Toronto
Title:Doctoral Student
Contact Address:171 Gladstone Avenue, Toronto, ON, M6J-3L3, Canada
Contact Telephone:416-946-8183
Co-Authors:Souraya Sidani, PhD, RN
Background: Obtaining the required sample size in intervention evaluation studies is critical for maintaining adequate statistical power, reducing the likelihood of type 2 error, and enhancing validity of conclusions. The number of persons who participate in experimental studies has been decreasing in recent years. Multiple factors affect the persons' decision to enroll in the study, such as transportation, personal attributes, and characteristics of the intervention. Participants' preference for treatment options offered in the experimental study has recently been cited as a deterrent to enrollment. The partially randomized or preference trial has the potential of enhancing recruitment and enrollment in intervention evaluation studies. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of accounting for treatment preference, a key feature of preference trials, on enrollment in intervention evaluation studies. Design: This substudy is part of an ongoing multi-site methodological study. In each site, a different research design was used and different treatment options were offered. The designs were: randomized controlled trial (RCT), waiting-list control (WLC) group, and preference trial. The treatment consisted of behavioral interventions for managing persistent insomnia. The specific treatment options offered under the different designs varied. An experimental and comparison options, considered unequally attractive, were offered under the RCT, WLC, and a preference trial. Two experimental options, considered equally attractive, were offered under a preference trial. Sample: The target population consisted of adults (21 years or older) with persistent insomnia, defined as difficulty falling asleep and/or staying asleep, of at least 3-month duration. Persons with psychological or cognitive impairment were excluded. Potential participants were recruited through advertisement in local newsletters, newspapers, and Internet. A total of 1910 persons expressed interest in the study across the sites. Variables and Analysis: The variables of interest were participation rate, and reasons for refusal to enroll in the study. Participation rate was computed as the number of persons who enrolled in the study and completed initial screening out of the total number of those who expressed interest. Reasons for non-participation were recorded verbatim and content analyzed. Results: The participation rate was lowest under the RCT design (57.5%) and highest under the WLC design (99.7%). In the preference trial, the participation rate was lower when two equally attractive (60.8%), as compared to unequally attractive (96.9%) treatments were offered. The reasons for non-participation did not differ across designs and were primarily related to personal circumstances of participants. Conclusions: The findings provide some evidence suggesting that accounting for participant preferences when allocating participants to treatment groups can enhance recruitment and enrollment in studies evaluating behavioral interventions.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Western Institute of Nursing

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleInfluence of Accounting for Treatment Preference on Study Participationen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/157846-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Influence of Accounting for Treatment Preference on Study Participation</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Western Institute of Nursing</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2006</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Miranda, Joyal, RN, BScN, MN, PhD(c)</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">University of Toronto</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Doctoral Student</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">171 Gladstone Avenue, Toronto, ON, M6J-3L3, Canada</td></tr><tr class="item-phone"><td class="label">Contact Telephone:</td><td class="value">416-946-8183</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">joyal.miranda@utoronto.ca</td></tr><tr class="item-co-authors"><td class="label">Co-Authors:</td><td class="value">Souraya Sidani, PhD, RN</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Background: Obtaining the required sample size in intervention evaluation studies is critical for maintaining adequate statistical power, reducing the likelihood of type 2 error, and enhancing validity of conclusions. The number of persons who participate in experimental studies has been decreasing in recent years. Multiple factors affect the persons' decision to enroll in the study, such as transportation, personal attributes, and characteristics of the intervention. Participants' preference for treatment options offered in the experimental study has recently been cited as a deterrent to enrollment. The partially randomized or preference trial has the potential of enhancing recruitment and enrollment in intervention evaluation studies. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of accounting for treatment preference, a key feature of preference trials, on enrollment in intervention evaluation studies. Design: This substudy is part of an ongoing multi-site methodological study. In each site, a different research design was used and different treatment options were offered. The designs were: randomized controlled trial (RCT), waiting-list control (WLC) group, and preference trial. The treatment consisted of behavioral interventions for managing persistent insomnia. The specific treatment options offered under the different designs varied. An experimental and comparison options, considered unequally attractive, were offered under the RCT, WLC, and a preference trial. Two experimental options, considered equally attractive, were offered under a preference trial. Sample: The target population consisted of adults (21 years or older) with persistent insomnia, defined as difficulty falling asleep and/or staying asleep, of at least 3-month duration. Persons with psychological or cognitive impairment were excluded. Potential participants were recruited through advertisement in local newsletters, newspapers, and Internet. A total of 1910 persons expressed interest in the study across the sites. Variables and Analysis: The variables of interest were participation rate, and reasons for refusal to enroll in the study. Participation rate was computed as the number of persons who enrolled in the study and completed initial screening out of the total number of those who expressed interest. Reasons for non-participation were recorded verbatim and content analyzed. Results: The participation rate was lowest under the RCT design (57.5%) and highest under the WLC design (99.7%). In the preference trial, the participation rate was lower when two equally attractive (60.8%), as compared to unequally attractive (96.9%) treatments were offered. The reasons for non-participation did not differ across designs and were primarily related to personal circumstances of participants. Conclusions: The findings provide some evidence suggesting that accounting for participant preferences when allocating participants to treatment groups can enhance recruitment and enrollment in studies evaluating behavioral interventions.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T20:15:37Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T20:15:37Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipWestern Institute of Nursingen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.