corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 5352

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Nikles CJ, Clavarino AM, Del Mar CB.
Using n-of-1 trials as a clinical tool to improve prescribing.
Br J Gen Pract 2005 Mar; 55:(512):175-80
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/rcgp/bjgp/2005/00000055/00000512/art00004?token=005d1ffc0c8db86dc67676568293c62207d673f582f6b6d383a4b3b257b507b425f246a433b316373425cf34c897f


Abstract:

BACKGROUND: N-of-1 trials are within-patient, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over comparisons of two drugs for chronic illnesses. We have investigated the use of these, offered to doctors as individualised medication effectiveness tests (IMETs), as a tool to improve drug prescribing. AIM: To examine patient perspectives and experiences of n-of-1 trials. DESIGN OF STUDY: We provided n-of-1 trials for osteoarthritis (OA), comparing paracetamol and ibuprofen; and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), comparing dexamphetamine or methylphenidate and placebo. Patients or their carers were surveyed before and after the trials by questionnaire, and after the trial by semistructured interview with thematic analysis. SETTING: Australian community-based patients and practitioners. METHOD: Forty-two patients with OA and 21 carers of patients with ADHD, for whom the effectiveness of proposed or existing medication was uncertain, completed the questionnaires, and 25 patients/carers (11 with OA and 14 with ADHD) participated in semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Patients in this purposive sample were generally very satisfied with the n-of-1 trial process. Their participation led to increased knowledge, awareness and understanding of their condition, their bodies’ response to it, and its management. Some of this arose specifically from use of daily symptom diaries. This led to a sense of empowerment and control as well as improved individually-focused care. CONCLUSIONS: N-of-1 trials appeared to empower these patients as a result of both collecting information about their responses to different treatment options, and participating actively in subsequent therapeutic decisions. They are a patient-centred intervention that may improve medication management in suitable chronic diseases.

Keywords:
Acetaminophen/administration & dosage* Adolescent Adult Aged Analgesics, Non-Narcotic/administration & dosage* Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/drug therapy* Central Nervous System Stimulants/administration & dosage* Child Clinical Trials Comparative Study Dextroamphetamine/administration & dosage* Double-Blind Method Humans Ibuprofen/administration & dosage* Methylphenidate/administration & dosage* Middle Aged Osteoarthritis/drug therapy* Patient Education Patient Satisfaction Patient-Centered Care Prescriptions, Drug Questionnaires Randomized Controlled Trials Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Treatment Outcome

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909