Restricted mean survival time versus conventional effect summary for treatment decision-making: A mixed-methods study

被引:1
|
作者
Shi, Sandra M. [1 ]
Palmer, Jennifer A. [2 ]
Newmeyer, Natalie [1 ]
Carroll, Danette [1 ]
Steinberg, Nessa [1 ]
Olivieri-Mui, Brianne [1 ,3 ]
Kim, Dae Hyun [1 ]
机构
[1] Hebrew SeniorLife, Hinda & Arthur Marcus Inst Aging Res, Boston, MA USA
[2] Boston Univ, Sch Med, Sect Gen Internal Med, Boston, MA 02118 USA
[3] Northeastern Univ, Bouve Coll Hlth Sci, Dept Hlth Sci, Boston, MA 02115 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
evidence communication; hypertension; mixed methods; restricted mean survival time; VALIDATION; MORTALITY; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1111/jgs.18107
中图分类号
R592 [老年病学]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 100203 ;
摘要
Background: Treatment effect is typically summarized in terms of relative risk reduction or number needed to treat ("conventional effect summary"). Restricted mean survival time (RMST) summarizes treatment effect in terms of a gain or loss in event-free days. Older adults' preference between the two effect summary measures has not been studied. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study using a quantitative survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews. For the survey, we enrolled 102 residents with hypertension at five senior housing facilities (mean age 81.3 years, 82 female, 95 white race). We randomly assigned respondents to either RMST-based (n = 49) or conventional decision aid (n = 53) about the benefits and harms of intensive versus standard blood pressure-lowering strategies and compared decision conflict scale (DCS) responses (range: 0 [no conflict] to 100 [maximum conflict]; <25 is associated with implementing decisions). We used a purposive sample of 23 survey respondents stratified by both their random assignment and DCS from the survey. Inductive qualitative thematic analysis explored complementary perspectives on preferred ways of summarizing treatment effects. Results: The mean (standard deviation) total DCS was 22.0 (14.3) for the conventional decision aid group and 16.7 (14.1) for the RMST-based decision aid group (p = 0.06), but the proportion of participants with a DCS <25 was higher in the RMST-based group (26 [49.1%] vs 34 [69.4%]; p = 0.04). Qualitative interviews suggested that, regardless of effect summary measure, older individuals' preference depended on their ability to clearly comprehend quantitative information, clarity of presentation in the visual aid, and inclusion of desired information. Conclusions: When choosing a blood pressure-lowering strategy, older adults' perceived uncertainty may be reduced with a time-based effect summary, although our study was underpowered to detect a statistically significant
引用
收藏
页码:528 / 537
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt
    Royston, Patrick
    Parmar, Mahesh K. B.
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2011, 30 (19) : 2409 - 2421
  • [42] Who should decide for local health services? A mixed methods study of preferences for decision-making in the decentralized Philippine health system
    Harvy Joy Liwanag
    Kaspar Wyss
    BMC Health Services Research, 20
  • [43] "It's just not easy to understand": A mixed methods study of health insurance literacy and insurance plan decision-making in cancer survivors
    Williams, Courtney P.
    Platter, Heather N.
    Davidoff, Amy J.
    Vanderpool, Robin C.
    Pisu, Maria
    de Moor, Janet S.
    CANCER MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (14): : 15424 - 15434
  • [44] Who should decide for local health services? A mixed methods study of preferences for decision-making in the decentralized Philippine health system
    Liwanag, Harvy Joy
    Wyss, Kaspar
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2020, 20 (01)
  • [45] Telehealth-Based Family Conferences with Implementation of Shared Decision Making Concepts and Humanistic Communication Approach: A Mixed-Methods Prospective Cohort Study
    Chou, Tzu-Jung
    Wu, Yu-Rui
    Tsai, Jaw-Shiun
    Cheng, Shao-Yi
    Yao, Chien-An
    Peng, Jen-Kuei
    Chiu, Tai-Yuan
    Huang, Hsien-Liang
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2021, 18 (20)
  • [46] Decision-making and improvements in health-related quality of life in patients with kidney stones: comparing surgery versus observation using a mixed methods analysis
    Forbes, Connor M.
    Bonnet, Kemberlee
    Bryant, Tracy
    Schlundt, David G.
    Cavanaugh, Kerri L.
    Hsi, Ryan S.
    UROLITHIASIS, 2022, 50 (05) : 567 - 576
  • [47] A National Study: the Effect of Egyptian Married Women's Decision-Making Autonomy on the use of Modern Family Planning Methods
    Alsumri, Hana H.
    AFRICAN JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, 2015, 19 (04): : 68 - 77
  • [48] Do patients with high versus low treatment and illness burden have different needs? A mixed-methods study of patients living on dialysis
    Boehmer, Kasey R.
    Pine, Kathleen H.
    Whitman, Samantha
    Organick, Paige
    Thota, Anjali
    Suarez, Nataly R. Espinoza
    LaVecchia, Christina M.
    Lee, Alexander
    Behnken, Emma
    Thorsteinsdottir, Bjorg
    Pawar, Aditya S.
    Beck, Annika
    Lorenz, Elizabeth C.
    Albright, Robert C.
    PLOS ONE, 2021, 16 (12):
  • [49] Feminizing care pathways: Mixed-methods study of reproductive options, decision making, pregnancy, post-natal care and parenting amongst women with kidney disease
    Mc Laughlin, Leah
    Jones, Caron
    Neukirchinger, Barbara
    Noyes, Jane
    Stone, Judith
    Williams, Helen
    Williams, Denitza
    Rapado, Rose
    Phillips, Rhiannon
    Griffin, Sian
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2023, 79 (08) : 3127 - 3146
  • [50] Involving Patients in the Development and Evaluation of an Educational and Training Experiential Intervention (ETEI) to Improve Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Treatment Decision-making and Post-operative Self-care: a Mixed Methods Approach
    Mohamed, Nihal
    Leung, Tung Ming
    Shah, Qainat N.
    Pisipati, Sailaja
    Berry, Donna L.
    Benn, Emma K. T.
    Lee, Cheryl T.
    Hall, Simon
    Mehrazin, Reza
    Sfakianos, John
    JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION, 2020, 35 (04) : 808 - 818