Factors that influence practitioners' interpretations of evidence from alternative medicine trials: A factorial vignette experiment embedded in a national survey

Jon C Tilburt, Franklin G. Miller, Sarah Jenkins, Ted J. Kaptchuk, Brian Clarridge, Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Farr A. Curlin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Clinical trial evidence in controversial areas such as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) must be approached with an open mind. Objective: To determine what factors may influence practitioners' interpretation of evidence from CAM trials. Research Design: In a mailed survey of 2400 US CAM and conventional medicine practitioners we included 2 hypothetical factorial vignettes of positive and negative research results for CAM clinical trials. Vignettes contained randomly varied journal (Annals of Internal Medicine vs. Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and CAM treatment type (acupuncture, massage, glucosamine, meditation, and reiki). Response items also included randomly varied patient circumstances-chronic refractory symptoms and the patient requesting CAM. Measures: All practitioners rated the effectiveness and their willingness to recommend the therapy for a described patient. We used logistic regression to determine the independent influence of the 4 factors on respondents' effectiveness and legitimacy judgments. Results: A total of 1561 practitioners responded (65%). Relative to Reiki, conventional medicine practitioners were most willing to recommend glucosamine (OR = 3.0; 95% CI [1.6-5.4]), than massage (1.9 [1.1-3.3]), acupuncture (1.3 [0.8-2.2]), and meditation (1.2 [0.7-2.0]). CAM practitioners rated acupuncture as effective more than other CAM therapies (OR = 5.8 [2.6-12.8] compared with Reiki), and were more willing to recommend acupuncture (OR = 12.3 [4.8-31.8]). When presented evidence of inefficacy, CAM practitioners were most willing to recommend acupuncture relative to other CAM therapies (OR = 15.5 [9.0-26.9]). Conclusions: Practitioners' judgments about CAM trial evidence depend on the type of treatments reported. Confirmation bias may play a role in the clinical translation of new evidence from clinical trials.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)341-348
Number of pages8
JournalMedical Care
Volume48
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2010

Fingerprint

Complementary Therapies
Therapeutic Touch
Acupuncture
Surveys and Questionnaires
Meditation
Massage
Glucosamine
Clinical Trials
Medicine
Acupuncture Therapy

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Clinical decision making
  • Complementary therapies
  • Evidence based medicine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Factors that influence practitioners' interpretations of evidence from alternative medicine trials : A factorial vignette experiment embedded in a national survey. / Tilburt, Jon C; Miller, Franklin G.; Jenkins, Sarah; Kaptchuk, Ted J.; Clarridge, Brian; Bolcic-Jankovic, Dragana; Emanuel, Ezekiel J.; Curlin, Farr A.

In: Medical Care, Vol. 48, No. 4, 04.2010, p. 341-348.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tilburt, Jon C ; Miller, Franklin G. ; Jenkins, Sarah ; Kaptchuk, Ted J. ; Clarridge, Brian ; Bolcic-Jankovic, Dragana ; Emanuel, Ezekiel J. ; Curlin, Farr A. / Factors that influence practitioners' interpretations of evidence from alternative medicine trials : A factorial vignette experiment embedded in a national survey. In: Medical Care. 2010 ; Vol. 48, No. 4. pp. 341-348.
@article{ddd4d62314724a9c9bb00f096390e96a,
title = "Factors that influence practitioners' interpretations of evidence from alternative medicine trials: A factorial vignette experiment embedded in a national survey",
abstract = "Background: Clinical trial evidence in controversial areas such as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) must be approached with an open mind. Objective: To determine what factors may influence practitioners' interpretation of evidence from CAM trials. Research Design: In a mailed survey of 2400 US CAM and conventional medicine practitioners we included 2 hypothetical factorial vignettes of positive and negative research results for CAM clinical trials. Vignettes contained randomly varied journal (Annals of Internal Medicine vs. Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and CAM treatment type (acupuncture, massage, glucosamine, meditation, and reiki). Response items also included randomly varied patient circumstances-chronic refractory symptoms and the patient requesting CAM. Measures: All practitioners rated the effectiveness and their willingness to recommend the therapy for a described patient. We used logistic regression to determine the independent influence of the 4 factors on respondents' effectiveness and legitimacy judgments. Results: A total of 1561 practitioners responded (65{\%}). Relative to Reiki, conventional medicine practitioners were most willing to recommend glucosamine (OR = 3.0; 95{\%} CI [1.6-5.4]), than massage (1.9 [1.1-3.3]), acupuncture (1.3 [0.8-2.2]), and meditation (1.2 [0.7-2.0]). CAM practitioners rated acupuncture as effective more than other CAM therapies (OR = 5.8 [2.6-12.8] compared with Reiki), and were more willing to recommend acupuncture (OR = 12.3 [4.8-31.8]). When presented evidence of inefficacy, CAM practitioners were most willing to recommend acupuncture relative to other CAM therapies (OR = 15.5 [9.0-26.9]). Conclusions: Practitioners' judgments about CAM trial evidence depend on the type of treatments reported. Confirmation bias may play a role in the clinical translation of new evidence from clinical trials.",
keywords = "Bias, Clinical decision making, Complementary therapies, Evidence based medicine",
author = "Tilburt, {Jon C} and Miller, {Franklin G.} and Sarah Jenkins and Kaptchuk, {Ted J.} and Brian Clarridge and Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic and Emanuel, {Ezekiel J.} and Curlin, {Farr A.}",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181ca3ee2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
pages = "341--348",
journal = "Medical Care",
issn = "0025-7079",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Factors that influence practitioners' interpretations of evidence from alternative medicine trials

T2 - A factorial vignette experiment embedded in a national survey

AU - Tilburt, Jon C

AU - Miller, Franklin G.

AU - Jenkins, Sarah

AU - Kaptchuk, Ted J.

AU - Clarridge, Brian

AU - Bolcic-Jankovic, Dragana

AU - Emanuel, Ezekiel J.

AU - Curlin, Farr A.

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - Background: Clinical trial evidence in controversial areas such as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) must be approached with an open mind. Objective: To determine what factors may influence practitioners' interpretation of evidence from CAM trials. Research Design: In a mailed survey of 2400 US CAM and conventional medicine practitioners we included 2 hypothetical factorial vignettes of positive and negative research results for CAM clinical trials. Vignettes contained randomly varied journal (Annals of Internal Medicine vs. Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and CAM treatment type (acupuncture, massage, glucosamine, meditation, and reiki). Response items also included randomly varied patient circumstances-chronic refractory symptoms and the patient requesting CAM. Measures: All practitioners rated the effectiveness and their willingness to recommend the therapy for a described patient. We used logistic regression to determine the independent influence of the 4 factors on respondents' effectiveness and legitimacy judgments. Results: A total of 1561 practitioners responded (65%). Relative to Reiki, conventional medicine practitioners were most willing to recommend glucosamine (OR = 3.0; 95% CI [1.6-5.4]), than massage (1.9 [1.1-3.3]), acupuncture (1.3 [0.8-2.2]), and meditation (1.2 [0.7-2.0]). CAM practitioners rated acupuncture as effective more than other CAM therapies (OR = 5.8 [2.6-12.8] compared with Reiki), and were more willing to recommend acupuncture (OR = 12.3 [4.8-31.8]). When presented evidence of inefficacy, CAM practitioners were most willing to recommend acupuncture relative to other CAM therapies (OR = 15.5 [9.0-26.9]). Conclusions: Practitioners' judgments about CAM trial evidence depend on the type of treatments reported. Confirmation bias may play a role in the clinical translation of new evidence from clinical trials.

AB - Background: Clinical trial evidence in controversial areas such as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) must be approached with an open mind. Objective: To determine what factors may influence practitioners' interpretation of evidence from CAM trials. Research Design: In a mailed survey of 2400 US CAM and conventional medicine practitioners we included 2 hypothetical factorial vignettes of positive and negative research results for CAM clinical trials. Vignettes contained randomly varied journal (Annals of Internal Medicine vs. Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and CAM treatment type (acupuncture, massage, glucosamine, meditation, and reiki). Response items also included randomly varied patient circumstances-chronic refractory symptoms and the patient requesting CAM. Measures: All practitioners rated the effectiveness and their willingness to recommend the therapy for a described patient. We used logistic regression to determine the independent influence of the 4 factors on respondents' effectiveness and legitimacy judgments. Results: A total of 1561 practitioners responded (65%). Relative to Reiki, conventional medicine practitioners were most willing to recommend glucosamine (OR = 3.0; 95% CI [1.6-5.4]), than massage (1.9 [1.1-3.3]), acupuncture (1.3 [0.8-2.2]), and meditation (1.2 [0.7-2.0]). CAM practitioners rated acupuncture as effective more than other CAM therapies (OR = 5.8 [2.6-12.8] compared with Reiki), and were more willing to recommend acupuncture (OR = 12.3 [4.8-31.8]). When presented evidence of inefficacy, CAM practitioners were most willing to recommend acupuncture relative to other CAM therapies (OR = 15.5 [9.0-26.9]). Conclusions: Practitioners' judgments about CAM trial evidence depend on the type of treatments reported. Confirmation bias may play a role in the clinical translation of new evidence from clinical trials.

KW - Bias

KW - Clinical decision making

KW - Complementary therapies

KW - Evidence based medicine

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77950240325&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77950240325&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181ca3ee2

DO - 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181ca3ee2

M3 - Article

C2 - 20355265

AN - SCOPUS:77950240325

VL - 48

SP - 341

EP - 348

JO - Medical Care

JF - Medical Care

SN - 0025-7079

IS - 4

ER -