scholarly journals Evidence for Health Decision Making — Beyond Randomized, Controlled Trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 377 (5) ◽  
pp. 465-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R. Frieden
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Health Decision

scholarly journals Shared decision making for men facing prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol Volume 13 ◽  
pp. 1153-1174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nahara Anani Martínez-González ◽  
Andreas Plate ◽  
Stefan Markun ◽  
Oliver Senn ◽  
Thomas Rosemann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Prostate Cancer Treatment ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Clinical and Imaging Assessment, Staging and Decision Making in Laryngeal Cancers

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-183
Author(s):  
Rakesh Badhe
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Oncological Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Cancer of the larynx has numerous implications—respiration, swallowing and speech, besides disability, vocational, recreational, etc. There are numerous treatment options which have been proven to be effective with randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis’. Often, the choice of modality offered to the patient is tailored to the patient's requirements as regard to his/her domestic, vocational and recreational environment. Although we may have a plethora of options for patients belonging to each stage of the disease, there are certain guidelines which must be adhered to in order to prevent any compromise of oncological safety. This article focuses on the planning of the treatment options based on various assessment modalities.

scholarly journals Quality of Stroke Patient Information Applied in Randomized Controlled Trials—Literature Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna C. Alegiani ◽  
Anne C. Rahn ◽  
Anke Steckelberg ◽  
Götz Thomalla ◽  
Christoph Heesen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Stroke Patient ◽  
Patient Information ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Information Materials

Background: Strokes have a huge impact on patients' quality of life. Although there are potentially effective secondary preventions and treatment options for stroke patients, adherence is mostly low. Low disease and treatment-related knowledge and, consequently, a lack of informed decision-making in stroke patients may contribute to this problem. However, stroke patient information did not seem to have relevant effects on patients' knowledge in randomized controlled trials. One contributing factor may be the lack of thoroughly developed patient information materials.Methods: We aimed to evaluate the quality of patient information materials for stroke patients by using randomized controlled trials, applying quality criteria for evidence-based patient information (EBPI). We conducted a literature search (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL). To be included in the review, research had to be randomized controlled trials that provided stroke patient information, were published in English, and had knowledge assessed as the primary endpoint. Authors of primary studies were contacted and asked for information materials applied.Results: We screened 15,507 hits and identified 30 eligible studies. Information materials were available for only eight studies. Analyses revealed that all available materials had important shortcomings concerning EBPI quality criteria [concerning, for example, structural information (e.g., reporting conflicts of interest), content information (e.g., reporting sources of information), or comprehensive descriptions of treatment effects and side effects]. Frequently, treatment effects were reported only narratively without providing absolute numbers, values, or frequencies.Conclusion: Quality of materials differed, but none sufficiently fulfilled EBPI quality criteria. Unsatisfactory trial results concerning patient knowledge and patient involvement in decision-making may at least partially be explained by limitations of the provided materials. Future patient information should consider EBPI quality criteria.

1. Economics and behaviour

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Michelle Baddeley
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Reliable Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Natural Experiments ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Financial Behaviour ◽  
Analytical Power

Why is there so much interest in behavioural economics and how is it different? ‘Economics and behaviour’ explains how behavioural economists bring economics together with insights from other disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology. Using this multidisciplinary approach, behavioural economists enrich our understanding of economic and financial behaviour, without necessarily abandoning the analytical power often associated with conventional economics. Behavioural economists assume there are some limits to rational decision-making and draw on the concepts of bounded, ecological, and selective rationality. Behavioural economists also need to find relevant and reliable data including experimental and neuroscientific data. Natural experiments and randomized controlled trials are explained.

scholarly journals Recruitment challenges in stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials: a qualitative exploration of trialists’ perspectives using Framework analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (8) ◽  
pp. 1122-1133
Author(s):  
Kris McGill ◽  
Jodie McGarry ◽  
Catherine Sackley ◽  
Jon Godwin ◽  
Avril Nicoll ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Stroke Rehabilitation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Research Governance ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Framework Analysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Objective: To explore the underlying reasons for recruitment difficulties to stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials from the perspective of trialists. Design: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and Framework analysis. Participants: Twenty multidisciplinary stroke rehabilitation trialists across 13 countries with a range of clinical and research experience. Methods: Twenty semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out. Purposeful sampling ensured a range of opinions were gathered from across the international stroke rehabilitation research community. Using Framework analysis, the analytical framework was formed by three researchers and tested before being applied to the total dataset. Results: Three themes described the trialists’ perception of the underlying reasons for recruitment difficulties: (i) decision making, (ii) importance of recruiters and (iii) a broken system. Trialists described frequently disregarding evidence in favour of prior research experiences when planning randomized controlled trial recruitment. All felt that the relationship between the research and clinical teams was vital to ensure recruiters prioritized and found value in recruitment to the trial. Experienced trialists were frustrated by the lack of reporting of the reality of running trials, research governance demands and the feeling that they had to deliberately underestimate recruitment timeframes to secure funding. Conclusion: Stroke rehabilitation trialists described recruitment difficulties which may be related to their experiential based recruitment decision making, a lack of understanding of how best to incentivize and maintain relationships with recruiters and unrealistic bureaucratic expectations both in terms of gaining funding and research governance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document