Towards Patient-Centered Clinical Trial Designs

Abstract

Rationale, aims and objectives: Evidence shows a trend towards low enrollment in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), which negatively affect validity of conclusions. Low enrollment is associated with different factors, but has recently been attributed to an increasing proportion of patients expressing concerns about randomization. In this paper, we summarize the evidence on reasons for non-enrollment, and we propose preference-based and shared decision-making as alternative methods for allocating patients to treatments in effectiveness and comparative effectiveness trials.Methods: This paper is a narrative review of available literature.Results: Converging findings of quantitative and qualitative studies revealed three interrelated and frequently mentioned reasons for declining enrollment in RCTs: 1) concerns about randomization related to the lack of understanding of equipoise, lack of appreciation of the scientific merits of randomization, and unfavorable perceptions of randomization as not reflecting methods of treatment selection used in practice; 2) preferences for treatments under evaluation, which contribute to unwillingness to be randomized; and 3) desires for involvement in treatment decision-making, which are not respected with randomization.Conclusions: Alternative methods for treatment allocation are needed to make effectiveness and comparative effectiveness trials attractive to patients. Preference-based and shared decision-making are viable methods that respectively represent the informed choice and the collaborative choice styles of treatment selection commonly used in practice. The extent to which these two methods of treatment allocation enhance enrollment should be further investigated.