Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

Is treatment outcome improved if patients match themselves to treatment options? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Authors: Morten Ellegaard Hell, William R. Miller, Bent Nielsen, Anette Søgaard Nielsen

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Research on matching patients to treatment has shown that matching grounded in expert views is little better than allocating patients by chance. Furthermore, there is growing emphasis on involving patients in their own treatment as a key to health behavior change. Research on the benefit of having patients choose their treatment from among options, in contrast to being assigned to a treatment by experts, has been limited. Consequently, we designed a rigorous test of patient self-matching to determine whether it does improve retention, adherence, and outcome in alcoholism treatment.

Methods/design

The present study is being conducted as a randomized controlled trial. Four hundred consecutive patients aged 18 years or older will be enrolled and randomized to either self-matching or expert-matching to one of five different treatment approaches. All patients entering the alcohol outpatient clinic in Odense are offered the opportunity to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria are cognitive dysfunction as measured with the Mini Mental State Examination, and non-Danish- or non-English-speaking individuals. The following instruments will be administered at intake to provide standardized measures of alcohol problems: the Addiction Severity Index, Timeline Followback, the World Health Organization quality of life questionnaire, the NEO Five-Factor Inventory 3, and the Personal Happiness Form. For each outcome measure, two analyses will be conducted. Intention-to-treat analyses (ITT) will be carried out with all patients, regardless of whether they complete the interventions or are reinterviewed. Regarding incomplete data, multiple imputations will be used together with ITT analysis. Completer analyses will also be carried out with patients who complete their respective interventions. The primary outcome is decrease in number of monthly excessive drinking days 6 months after initiation of treatment. Secondary outcomes are compliance and 2 quality of life. The influence of personality traits on outcome will also be examined in both groups.

Discussion

The debate on matching patients to treatment has been going on for decades. This study will cast light on this issue by focusing on patients’ choice and thereby clarifying if patients’ perceived autonomy yields better outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03278821. Registered on 12 September 2017.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stock R, Tusler M. Do increases in patient activation result in improved self-management behaviors? Health Serv Res. 2007;42:1443–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, Tusler M. Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004;39:1005–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press; 1985.CrossRef
4.
Deci EL, Ryan RM. Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Can Psychol. 2008;49:14–23. A published erratum appears in Can Psychol. 2008;49:262CrossRef
5.
Deci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can Psychol. 2008;49:182–5.CrossRef
6.
Project MATCH Research Group. Project MATCH (Matching Alcoholism Treatment to Client Heterogeneity): rationale and methods for a multisite clinical trial matching patients to alcoholism treatment. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1993;17:1130–45.CrossRef
7.
Miller WR, Hester RK. Matching problem drinkers with optimal treatments. In: Miller WR, Heather N, editors. Treating addictive behaviors: processes of change. New York: Plenum Press; 1986. p. 175–203.CrossRef
8.
Project MATCH Research Group. Project MATCH secondary a priori hypotheses. Addiction. 1997;92:1671–98.CrossRef
9.
Allen J, Mattson M, Miller W, Tonigan J, Connors G, Rychtarik R, Randall C, Anton R, Kadden R, Litt M. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity. J Stud Alcohol. 1997;58:7–29.CrossRef
10.
UKATT Research Team. Effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomised UK Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT). BMJ. 2005;331:541.CrossRef
11.
Gastfriend DR, editor. Addiction treatment matching: research foundations of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) criteria. Binghamton: Haworth Press; 2004.
12.
Institute of Medicine, Committee on Treatment of Alcohol Problems. Broadening the base of treatment for alcohol problems. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1990.
13.
Hoffmann NG, Halikas JA, Mee-Lee D, Northern Ohio Treatment Directors Association. The Cleveland Admission, Discharge & Transfer Criteria: model for chemical dependency treatment programs. Cleveland: Greater Cleveland Hospital Association; 1987.
14.
Hoffman NG, Halikas JA, Mee-Lee D, Weedman RD. Patient placement criteria for the treatment of psychoactive substance use disorders. Chevy Chase: American Society of Addiction Medicine; 1993.
15.
Mee-Lee D; American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). ASAM patient placement criteria for the treatment of substance-related disorders. Chevy Chase: ASAM; 2001.
16.
American Society of Addiction Medicine. Patient placement criteria for the treatment of substance-related disorders. Chevy Chase: Author; 1996.
17.
McKay JR, McLellan AT, Alterman AI. An evaluation of the Cleveland criteria for inpatient treatment of substance abuse. Am J Psychiatry. 1992;149:1212–8.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Sharon E, Krebs C, Turner W, Desai N, Binus G, Penk W, Gastfriend DR. Predictive validity of the ASAM patient placement criteria for hospital utilization. J Addict Dis. 2004;22:79–93.CrossRef
19.
Angarita GA, Reif S, Pirard S, Lee S, Sharon E, Gastfriend DR. No-show for treatment in substance abuse patients with comorbid symptomatology: validity results from a controlled trial of the ASAM patient placement criteria. J Addict Med. 2007;1:79–87.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Magura S, Staines G, Kosanke N, Rosenblum A, Foote J, DeLuca A, Bali P. Predictive validity of the ASAM patient placement criteria for naturalistically matched vs. mismatched alcoholism patients. Am J Addict. 2003;12:386–97.CrossRefPubMed
21.
McKay JR, Cacciola JS, McLellan AT, Alterman A, Wirtz P. An initial evaluation of the psychosocial dimensions of the American Society of Addiction Medicine criteria for inpatient versus intensive outpatient substance abuse rehabilitation. J Stud Alcohol. 1997;58:239–52.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Merkx MJ, Schippers GM, Koeter MJ, Vuijk PJ, Oudejans S, De Vries CC, Van Den Brink W. Allocation of substance use disorder patients to appropriate levels of care: feasibility of matching guidelines in routine practice in Dutch treatment centres. Addiction. 2007;102:466–74.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Stallvik M, Gastfriend DR, Nordahl HM. Matching patients with substance use disorder to optimal level of care with the ASAM criteria software. J Subst Use. 2015;20:389–98.CrossRef
24.
Bühringer G. Allocating treatment options to patient profiles: clinical art or science? Addiction. 2006;101:646–52.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Bergmark A. On treatment mechanisms—what can we learn from the COMBINE study? Addiction. 2008;103:703–5.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Friedrichs A, Spies M, Härter M, Buchholz A. Patient preferences and Shared Decision Making in the treatment of substance use disorders: a systematic review of the literature. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0145817.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Bernstein SM, Stoduto G. Adding a choice-based program for tobacco smoking to an abstinence-based addiction treatment program. J Subst Abus Treat. 1999;17:167–73.CrossRef
28.
McCrady BS, Epstein EE, Cook S, Jensen NK, Ladd BO. What do women want? Alcohol treatment choices, treatment entry and retention. Psychol Addict Behav. 2011;25:521–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Miller WR, Forcehimes AA, Zweben A. Treating addiction: a guide for professionals. New York: Guilford Press; 2011.
30.
Nielsen AS, Nielsen B, Andersen K, Roessler KK, Bühringer G, Bogenschutz M, Ekstrøm CT, Søgaard J, R.R. Group. The RESCueH programme: testing new non-pharmacologic interventions for alcohol use disorders: rationale and methods. Eur Addict Res. 2016;22:306–17.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Nielsen B, Nielsen AS, Wraae O. Factors associated with compliance of alcoholics in outpatient treatment. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2000;188:101–7.CrossRefPubMed
32.
McCrae RR. The five-factor model and its assessment in clinical settings. J Pers Assess. 1991;57:399–14.CrossRefPubMed
33.
McLellan AT; National Institute on Drug Abuse. Guide to the Addiction Severity Index: background, administration, and field testing results. Rockville: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration; 1985.
34.
Sobell LC, Brown J, Leo GI, Sobell MB. The reliability of the Alcohol Timeline Followback when administered by telephone and by computer. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1996;42:49–54.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:299–310.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Costa PT, RR MC. NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1989.
37.
Miller WR, Arciniega LT. Combined behavioral intervention manual: a clinical research guide for therapists treating people with alcohol abuse and dependence. COMBINE monograph series vol. 1. Bethesda: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 2004.
38.
Miller WR, Miller WR, Manuel JK, Miller WR, Manuel JK. How large must a treatment effect be before it matters to practitioners? An estimation method and demonstration. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2008;27:524–8.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Is treatment outcome improved if patients match themselves to treatment options? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Authors
Morten Ellegaard Hell
William R. Miller
Bent Nielsen
Anette Søgaard Nielsen
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2592-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue

Study protocol

The HYSTER study: the effect of intracervically administered terlipressin versus placebo on the number of gaseous emboli and fluid intravasation during hysteroscopic surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial

Study protocol

Rapid agitation control with ketamine in the emergency department (RACKED): a randomized controlled trial protocol

Research

Effects of a peer-led Walking In ScHools intervention (the WISH study) on physical activity levels of adolescent girls: a cluster randomised pilot study

Research

Choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial – the development of the DELTA2 guidance

Research

The effect of optimised patient information materials on recruitment in a lung cancer screening trial: an embedded randomised recruitment trial

Study protocol

The Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (ADMET 2): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial