Analyzing symptom management trials

the value of both intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches.

Barbara Given, Charles W. Given, Alla Sikorskii, Mei You, Ruth McCorkle, Victoria Champion

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Two analytical approaches are described for a randomized trial testing interventions for symptom management. DESIGN: To compare an intention-to-treat with a perprotocol approach. SETTING: Patients were accrued from six cancer centers. SAMPLE: 94 men and 140 women with solid tumors were accrued. METHODS: An intention-to-treat approach (as randomized) and per-protocol analyses (at least one symptom reaching threshold and one follow-up intervention) were compared. The analysis determines how each approach affects results. A two-arm, six-contact, eight-week trial was implemented. In one arm, nurses followed a cognitive behavioral protocol. In the second arm, a non-nurse coach referred patients to a symptom management guide. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Trial arm; summed severity scores; interference-based severity categories at intake, 10 weeks, and 16 weeks; site; and stage of cancer. FINDINGS: Each arm produced a reduction in severity at 10 and 16 weeks with no differences between arms. In the per-protocol analyses, symptoms reported at the first contact required more time to resolve. Older patients exposed to the nurse arm resolved in fewer contacts. CONCLUSIONS: The intention-to-treat analyses indicated that both arms were successful but offered few insights into how symptoms or patients influenced severity. Per-protocol analyses (intervention and dose), when, and which strategies affected symptoms. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Each analytical strategy serves a purpose. Intention-to-treat defines the success of a trial. Per-protocol analyses allow nurses to pose clinical questions about response and dose of the intervention. Nurses should participate in analyses of interventions to understand the conditions where interventions are successful.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalOncology Nursing Forum
Volume36
Issue number6
StatePublished - Nov 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Nurses
Neoplasms
Intention to Treat Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology(nursing)

Cite this

Analyzing symptom management trials : the value of both intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches. / Given, Barbara; Given, Charles W.; Sikorskii, Alla; You, Mei; McCorkle, Ruth; Champion, Victoria.

In: Oncology Nursing Forum, Vol. 36, No. 6, 11.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Given, Barbara ; Given, Charles W. ; Sikorskii, Alla ; You, Mei ; McCorkle, Ruth ; Champion, Victoria. / Analyzing symptom management trials : the value of both intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches. In: Oncology Nursing Forum. 2009 ; Vol. 36, No. 6.
@article{e8d1813cad4849fcb524ee7a24a65405,
title = "Analyzing symptom management trials: the value of both intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches.",
abstract = "PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Two analytical approaches are described for a randomized trial testing interventions for symptom management. DESIGN: To compare an intention-to-treat with a perprotocol approach. SETTING: Patients were accrued from six cancer centers. SAMPLE: 94 men and 140 women with solid tumors were accrued. METHODS: An intention-to-treat approach (as randomized) and per-protocol analyses (at least one symptom reaching threshold and one follow-up intervention) were compared. The analysis determines how each approach affects results. A two-arm, six-contact, eight-week trial was implemented. In one arm, nurses followed a cognitive behavioral protocol. In the second arm, a non-nurse coach referred patients to a symptom management guide. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Trial arm; summed severity scores; interference-based severity categories at intake, 10 weeks, and 16 weeks; site; and stage of cancer. FINDINGS: Each arm produced a reduction in severity at 10 and 16 weeks with no differences between arms. In the per-protocol analyses, symptoms reported at the first contact required more time to resolve. Older patients exposed to the nurse arm resolved in fewer contacts. CONCLUSIONS: The intention-to-treat analyses indicated that both arms were successful but offered few insights into how symptoms or patients influenced severity. Per-protocol analyses (intervention and dose), when, and which strategies affected symptoms. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Each analytical strategy serves a purpose. Intention-to-treat defines the success of a trial. Per-protocol analyses allow nurses to pose clinical questions about response and dose of the intervention. Nurses should participate in analyses of interventions to understand the conditions where interventions are successful.",
author = "Barbara Given and Given, {Charles W.} and Alla Sikorskii and Mei You and Ruth McCorkle and Victoria Champion",
year = "2009",
month = "11",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
journal = "Oncology Nursing Forum",
issn = "1538-0688",
publisher = "Oncology Nursing Society",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Analyzing symptom management trials

T2 - the value of both intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches.

AU - Given, Barbara

AU - Given, Charles W.

AU - Sikorskii, Alla

AU - You, Mei

AU - McCorkle, Ruth

AU - Champion, Victoria

PY - 2009/11

Y1 - 2009/11

N2 - PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Two analytical approaches are described for a randomized trial testing interventions for symptom management. DESIGN: To compare an intention-to-treat with a perprotocol approach. SETTING: Patients were accrued from six cancer centers. SAMPLE: 94 men and 140 women with solid tumors were accrued. METHODS: An intention-to-treat approach (as randomized) and per-protocol analyses (at least one symptom reaching threshold and one follow-up intervention) were compared. The analysis determines how each approach affects results. A two-arm, six-contact, eight-week trial was implemented. In one arm, nurses followed a cognitive behavioral protocol. In the second arm, a non-nurse coach referred patients to a symptom management guide. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Trial arm; summed severity scores; interference-based severity categories at intake, 10 weeks, and 16 weeks; site; and stage of cancer. FINDINGS: Each arm produced a reduction in severity at 10 and 16 weeks with no differences between arms. In the per-protocol analyses, symptoms reported at the first contact required more time to resolve. Older patients exposed to the nurse arm resolved in fewer contacts. CONCLUSIONS: The intention-to-treat analyses indicated that both arms were successful but offered few insights into how symptoms or patients influenced severity. Per-protocol analyses (intervention and dose), when, and which strategies affected symptoms. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Each analytical strategy serves a purpose. Intention-to-treat defines the success of a trial. Per-protocol analyses allow nurses to pose clinical questions about response and dose of the intervention. Nurses should participate in analyses of interventions to understand the conditions where interventions are successful.

AB - PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Two analytical approaches are described for a randomized trial testing interventions for symptom management. DESIGN: To compare an intention-to-treat with a perprotocol approach. SETTING: Patients were accrued from six cancer centers. SAMPLE: 94 men and 140 women with solid tumors were accrued. METHODS: An intention-to-treat approach (as randomized) and per-protocol analyses (at least one symptom reaching threshold and one follow-up intervention) were compared. The analysis determines how each approach affects results. A two-arm, six-contact, eight-week trial was implemented. In one arm, nurses followed a cognitive behavioral protocol. In the second arm, a non-nurse coach referred patients to a symptom management guide. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Trial arm; summed severity scores; interference-based severity categories at intake, 10 weeks, and 16 weeks; site; and stage of cancer. FINDINGS: Each arm produced a reduction in severity at 10 and 16 weeks with no differences between arms. In the per-protocol analyses, symptoms reported at the first contact required more time to resolve. Older patients exposed to the nurse arm resolved in fewer contacts. CONCLUSIONS: The intention-to-treat analyses indicated that both arms were successful but offered few insights into how symptoms or patients influenced severity. Per-protocol analyses (intervention and dose), when, and which strategies affected symptoms. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Each analytical strategy serves a purpose. Intention-to-treat defines the success of a trial. Per-protocol analyses allow nurses to pose clinical questions about response and dose of the intervention. Nurses should participate in analyses of interventions to understand the conditions where interventions are successful.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=75449091451&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=75449091451&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 36

JO - Oncology Nursing Forum

JF - Oncology Nursing Forum

SN - 1538-0688

IS - 6

ER -