Trial reportPsychological methods2012
Estimating the causal effect of randomization versus treatment preference in a doubly randomized preference trial.
Trial report in Psychological methods, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of Treatment Preference in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis.The patient · 2019Pooled it
- Impact of immediately loaded implant-supported maxillary full-arch dental prostheses: a systematic review.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2019Pooled it
- The Role of Choice in Weight Loss Strategies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Nutrients · 2018Pooled it
- Effectiveness of psychological treatments for depressive disorders in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of family medicinePooled it
- Personalized prediction of response to three meditation practices: A randomized controlled trial.Behaviour research and therapy · 2026Trial
- Does Giving Parents Their Choice of Interventions for Child Behavior Problems Improve Child Outcomes?Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2019Trial
- Do Parent Preferences for Child Conduct Problem Interventions Impact Parenting Outcomes? A Pilot Study in Community Children's Mental Health Settings.Journal of marital and family therapy · 2018Trial
- Effects of treatment, choice, and preference on health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018Trial
- A randomized preference trial to inform personalization of a parent training program implemented in community mental health clinics.Translational behavioral medicine · 2016Trial
- Effect of Allowing Choice of Diet on Weight Loss: A Randomized Trial.Annals of internal medicine · 2015Trial
- Design, analysis, and interpretation of treatment response heterogeneity in personalized nutrition and obesity treatment research.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2023 · on this mapReview
- Three Flavorings for a Soup to Cure what Ails Mental Health Services.Administration and policy in mental health · 2020Article
- What are the statistical implications of treatment non-compliance in cluster randomized trials: A simulation study.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- Moving Toward a Precision-Based, Personalized Framework for Prevention Science: Introduction to the Special Issue.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2019Article
- Benchmark validation of statistical models: Application to mediation analysis of imagery and memory.Psychological methods · 2018Article
- Generalizability in the family-to-family education program randomized waitlist-control trial.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2013Article
- SMART Binary: New Sample Size Planning Resources for SMART Studies with Binary Outcome Measurements.Multivariate behavioral researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although randomized studies have high internal validity, generalizability of the estimated causal effect from randomized clinical trials to real-world clinical or educational practice may be limited. We consider the implication of randomized assignment to treatment, as compared with choice of preferred treatment as it occurs in real-world conditions. Compliance, engagement, or motivation may be better with a preferred treatment, and this can complicate the generalizability of results from randomized trials. The doubly randomized preference trial (DRPT) is a hybrid randomized and nonrandomized design that allows for estimation of the causal effect of randomization versus treatment preference. In the DRPT, individuals are first randomized to either randomized assignment or choice assignment. Those in the randomized assignment group are then randomized to treatment or control, and those in the choice group receive their preference of treatment versus control. Using the potential outcomes framework, we apply the algebra of conditional independence to show how the DRPT can be used to derive an unbiased estimate of the causal effect of randomization versus preference for each of the treatment and comparison conditions. Also, we show how these results can be implemented using full matching on the propensity score. The methodology is illustrated with a DRPT of introductory psychology students who were randomized to randomized assignment or preference of mathematics versus vocabulary training. We found a small to moderate benefit of preference versus randomization with respect to the mathematics outcome for those who received mathematics training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.