TY - JOUR
T1 - Preference option randomized design (PORD) for comparative effectiveness research
T2 - Statistical power for testing comparative effect, preference effect, selection effect, intent-to-treat effect, and overall effect
AU - Heo, Moonseong
AU - Meissner, Paul
AU - Litwin, Alain H.
AU - Arnsten, Julia H.
AU - McKee, M. Diane
AU - Karasz, Alison
AU - McKinley, Paula
AU - Rehm, Colin D.
AU - Chambers, Earle C.
AU - Yeh, Ming Chin
AU - Wylie-Rosett, Judith
N1 - Funding Information:
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research described was supported in part by NIH/NCATS UL1TR001073, NIH/NHLBI K01HL125466, NIH/NIDA R01DA034086, PCORI HPC-1503-28122 and NIH/NIDDK P30DK111022.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2017.
PY - 2019/2/1
Y1 - 2019/2/1
N2 - Comparative effectiveness research trials in real-world settings may require participants to choose between preferred intervention options. A randomized clinical trial with parallel experimental and control arms is straightforward and regarded as a gold standard design, but by design it forces and anticipates the participants to comply with a randomly assigned intervention regardless of their preference. Therefore, the randomized clinical trial may impose impractical limitations when planning comparative effectiveness research trials. To accommodate participants’ preference if they are expressed, and to maintain randomization, we propose an alternative design that allows participants’ preference after randomization, which we call a “preference option randomized design (PORD)”. In contrast to other preference designs, which ask whether or not participants consent to the assigned intervention after randomization, the crucial feature of preference option randomized design is its unique informed consent process before randomization. Specifically, the preference option randomized design consent process informs participants that they can opt out and switch to the other intervention only if after randomization they actively express the desire to do so. Participants who do not independently express explicit alternate preference or assent to the randomly assigned intervention are considered to not have an alternate preference. In sum, preference option randomized design intends to maximize retention, minimize possibility of forced assignment for any participants, and to maintain randomization by allowing participants with no or equal preference to represent random assignments. This design scheme enables to define five effects that are interconnected with each other through common design parameters—comparative, preference, selection, intent-to-treat, and overall/as-treated—to collectively guide decision making between interventions. Statistical power functions for testing all these effects are derived, and simulations verified the validity of the power functions under normal and binomial distributions.
AB - Comparative effectiveness research trials in real-world settings may require participants to choose between preferred intervention options. A randomized clinical trial with parallel experimental and control arms is straightforward and regarded as a gold standard design, but by design it forces and anticipates the participants to comply with a randomly assigned intervention regardless of their preference. Therefore, the randomized clinical trial may impose impractical limitations when planning comparative effectiveness research trials. To accommodate participants’ preference if they are expressed, and to maintain randomization, we propose an alternative design that allows participants’ preference after randomization, which we call a “preference option randomized design (PORD)”. In contrast to other preference designs, which ask whether or not participants consent to the assigned intervention after randomization, the crucial feature of preference option randomized design is its unique informed consent process before randomization. Specifically, the preference option randomized design consent process informs participants that they can opt out and switch to the other intervention only if after randomization they actively express the desire to do so. Participants who do not independently express explicit alternate preference or assent to the randomly assigned intervention are considered to not have an alternate preference. In sum, preference option randomized design intends to maximize retention, minimize possibility of forced assignment for any participants, and to maintain randomization by allowing participants with no or equal preference to represent random assignments. This design scheme enables to define five effects that are interconnected with each other through common design parameters—comparative, preference, selection, intent-to-treat, and overall/as-treated—to collectively guide decision making between interventions. Statistical power functions for testing all these effects are derived, and simulations verified the validity of the power functions under normal and binomial distributions.
KW - Preference
KW - comparative effectiveness research
KW - decision making
KW - power
KW - randomization
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043718708&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85043718708&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0962280217734584
DO - 10.1177/0962280217734584
M3 - Article
C2 - 29121828
AN - SCOPUS:85043718708
SN - 0962-2802
VL - 28
SP - 626
EP - 640
JO - Statistical Methods in Medical Research
JF - Statistical Methods in Medical Research
IS - 2
ER -