QHC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McPherson, K
Right arrow Articles by Britton, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McPherson, K
Right arrow Articles by Britton, A
Quality in Health Care 2001;10: i61-i66
© 2001 Quality in Health Care


II. Patients' and clinicians' preference

Preferences and understanding their effects on health*

K McPherson, professor of public health epidemiology1, A Britton, lecturer2

1 Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1 7HT, UK
2 Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK

Professor K McPherson k.mcpherson{at}lshtm.ac.uk Abstract

Preference for a particular intervention may, possibly via complicated pathways, itself confer an outcome advantage which will be subsumed in unblind randomised trials as part of the measured effectiveness of the intervention. Where more attractive interventions are compared with less attractive ones, any difference could therefore be a consequence of attractiveness and not its intrinsic worth. For health promotion interventions this is clearly important, but we cannot tell how important it is for therapeutic interventions without special studies to measure or refute such effects. These are difficult to do and are complex. Until the therapeutic effects of preference itself are more clearly understood, understanding the true therapeutic effects will be compromised, at least in principle.

Key Words: patient preference; randomised controlled trials; measurement




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Postgrad. Med. J.Home page
F. Moss
Doctors and their education: CPD in the modern and changing world
Postgrad. Med. J., January 1, 2008; 84(987): 1 - 1.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
A. Bowling and G. Rowe
"You decide doctor". What do patient preference arms in clinical trials really mean?
J Epidemiol Community Health, November 1, 2005; 59(11): 914 - 915.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. PsychiatryHome page
G. DUNN, M. MARACY, C. DOWRICK, J. L. AYUSO-MATEOS, O. S. DALGARD, H. PAGE, V. LEHTINEN, P. CASEY, C. WILKINSON, J. L. VAZQUEZ-BARQUERO, et al.
Estimating psychological treatment effects from a randomised controlled trial with both non-compliance and loss to follow-up
The British Journal of Psychiatry, October 1, 2003; 183(4): 323 - 331.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2001 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.