The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions--challenges for doctors.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Say RE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC192849 | biostudies-literature | 2003 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions--challenges for doctors.
Say Rebecca E RE Thomson Richard R
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20030901 7414
Similar Datasets
Project description:To assess the influence of patient preferences and urologist recommendations in treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate cancer.We enrolled 257 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <20; Gleason score 6 or 7) seen by urologists (primarily residents and fellows) in 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers. We measured patients' baseline preferences prior to their urology appointments, including initial treatment preference, cancer-related anxiety, and interest in sex. In longitudinal follow-up, we determined which treatment patients received. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the factors that predicted treatment received (active treatment v. active surveillance) and urologist recommendations. We also conducted a directed content analysis of recorded clinical encounters to determine if urologists discussed patients' interest in sex.Patients' initial treatment preferences did not predict receipt of active treatment versus surveillance, ??2(4) = 3.67, P = 0.45. Instead, receipt of active treatment was predicted primarily by urologists' recommendations, ??2(2) = 32.81, P < 0.001. Urologists' recommendations, in turn, were influenced heavily by medical factors (age and Gleason score) but were unrelated to patient preferences, ??2(6) = 0, P = 1. Urologists rarely discussed patients' interest in sex (<15% of appointments).Patients' treatment decisions were based largely on urologists' recommendations, which, in turn, were based on medical factors (age and Gleason score) and not on patients' personal views of the relative pros and cons of treatment alternatives.
| S-EPMC5587215 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background. Network meta-analyses (NMAs) that compare treatments for a given condition allow physicians to identify which treatments have higher or lower probabilities of reducing the risks of disease complications or increasing the risks of treatment side effects. Translating these data into personalized treatment plans requires integration of NMA data with patient-specific pretreatment risk estimates and preferences regarding treatment objectives and acceptable risks. Methods. We introduce a modeling framework to integrate data probabilistically from NMAs with data on individualized patient risk estimates for disease outcomes, treatment preferences (such as willingness to incur greater side effects for increased life expectancy), and risk preferences. We illustrate the modeling framework by creating personalized plans for antipsychotic drug treatment and evaluating their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Results. Compared with treating all patients with the drug that yields the greatest quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) on average (amisulpride), personalizing the selection of antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia patients over the next 5 years would be expected to yield 0.33 QALYs (95% credible interval [crI]: 0.30-0.37) per patient at an incremental cost of $4849/QALY gained (95% crI: dominant-$12,357), versus 0.29 and 0.04 QALYs per patient when accounting for only risks or preferences, respectively, but not both. Limitations. The analysis uses a linear, additive utility function to reflect patient treatment preferences and does not consider potential variations in patient time discounting. Conclusions. Our modeling framework rigorously computes what physicians normally have to do mentally. By integrating 3 key components of personalized medicine-evidence on efficacy, patient risks, and patient preferences-the modeling framework can provide personalized treatment decisions to improve patient health outcomes.
| S-EPMC6895439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Often affecting knee joints, osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common type of arthritis and by 2020 is predicted to become the fourth leading cause of disability globally. Without cure, medication management is symptomatic, mostly with simple analgesics such as acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and glucosamine sulfate. Adherence to arthritis medications is generally low. Intentional non-adherence, that is deliberate decision-making about the use of analgesics, occurs in OA patients. To date, a limited number of studies have explored medication-taking decisions in people with OA nor the extent to which individuals' trade off one treatment factor for another in their decision-making using quantitative techniques. This study aimed to estimate the relative influence of medication-related factors and respondent characteristics on decisions to continue medications among people with symptomatic OA.A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among participants attending end-of-study visits in the Long-term Evaluation of Glucosamine Sulfate (LEGS) study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00513422). The paper-based survey was used to estimate the relative importance of seven medication specific factors (pain efficacy, mode of action, dose frequency, treatment schedule, side effects, prescription, and out-of-pocket costs) and respondent characteristics on decisions to continue medications.188 (response rate 37%) completed surveys were returned. Four of the seven medication factors (side effects, out-of-pocket costs, mode of action, treatment schedule) had a significant effect on the choice to continue medication; patient characteristics did not. Assuming equivalent pain efficacy and disease-modifying properties for glucosamine, the positive relative likelihood of continuing with sustained-release acetaminophen was equivalent to glucosamine. By contrast, the negative relative likelihood of NSAID continuation was mostly driven by the side effect profile. The predicted probability of continuing with glucosamine decreased with increasing out-of-pocket costs.This study has characterised the complexity of medication-taking decisions that potentially underpin intentional non-adherent behaviour for people with symptomatic OA. In particular, medication risks and cost were important and ought to be borne into considerations in interpreting clinical trial evidence for practice. Ultimately addressing these factors may be the way forward to realising the full potential of health and economic benefits from the efficacious and safe use of OA medications.
| S-EPMC3660275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the relationship between influential factors and treatment decisions among men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa).MethodsWe identified men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry diagnosed with localized PCa between 2018-2020 who completed Personal Patient Profile-Prostate. We analyzed the proportion of active surveillance (AS) between men who stated future bladder, bowel, and sexual problems (termed influential factors) had "a lot of influence" on their treatment decisions versus other responses. We also assessed the relationship between influential factors, confirmatory testing results and choice of AS.ResultsA total of 509 men completed Personal Patient Profile-Prostate. Treatment decisions aligned with influential factors for 88% of men with favorable risk and 49% with unfavorable risk PCa. A higher proportion of men who identified bladder, bowel and sexual concerns as having "a lot of influence" on their treatment decision chose AS, compared with men with other influential factors, although not statistically significant (44% vs 35%, P = .11). Similar results were also found when men were stratified based on PCa risk groups (favorable risk: 78% vs 67%; unfavorable risk: 17% vs 9%, respectively). Despite a small sample size, a higher proportion of men with non-reassuring confirmatory testing selected AS if influential factors had "a lot of influence" compared to "no influence" on their treatment decisions.ConclusionMen's concerns for future bladder, bowel, and sexual function problems, as elicited by a decision aid, may help explain treatment selection that differs from traditional clinical recommendation.
| S-EPMC8429102 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeUse of genomic testing, especially multimarker panels, is increasing in the United States. Not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance, which can result in substantial patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Little is known about oncologists' treatment decisions with respect to patient insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing.MethodsWe identified 1,049 oncologists who used multimarker tumor panels from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Separate multivariable ordinal logistic regressions examined associations of oncologist-, practice-, and area-level characteristics and oncologists' ratings of importance (very, somewhat, or a little/not important) of insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing in treatment decisions, adjusting for oncologist years of experience, sex, race and ethnicity, specialty, use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests, region, tumor boards, patient insurance mix, and area-level socioeconomic characteristics.ResultsAmong oncologists, 47.3%, 32.7%, and 20.0% reported that patient insurance coverage for genomic testing was very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively, in treatment decisions. In addition, 56.9%, 28.0%, and 15.2% reported that OOP costs for testing were very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively. In adjusted analyses, oncologists who used NGS tests were more likely to report patient insurance and OOP costs as important (odds ratio [OR], 2.00 [95% CI, 1.16 to 3.45] and OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.22 to 3.68], respectively) in treatment decisions compared with oncologists who did not use these tests, as were oncologists who treated solid tumors, rather than only hematological cancers. More years of experience and higher percentages of Medicaid or self-paid/uninsured patients in the practice were associated with reporting insurance coverage (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.89]) and OOP costs (OR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.13 to 2.01]) as important. Oncologists in practices with molecular tumor boards for genomic tests were less likely to report coverage (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.85]) and OOP costs (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.97]) as important than their counterparts in practices without these tumor boards.ConclusionMost oncologists rate patient health insurance and OOP costs for genomic tests as important considerations in subsequent treatment recommendations. Modifiable factors associated with these ratings can inform interventions to support patient-physician decision making about care.
| S-EPMC11742181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTo assess bounds of shared decision making in orthopaedic surgery, we conducted an exploratory study to examine the extent to which patients want to be involved in decision making in the management of a musculoskeletal condition.MethodsOne hundred fifteen patients at an orthopaedic surgery clinic were asked to rate preferred level of involvement in 25 common theoretical clinical decisions (passive [0], semipassive [1 to 4], equally shared involvement between patient and surgeon [5], semiactive [6 to 9], active [10]).ResultsPatients preferred semipassive roles in 92% of decisions assessed. Patients wanted to be most involved in scheduling surgical treatments (4.75 ± 2.65) and least involved in determining incision sizes (1.13 ± 1.98). No difference exists in desired decision-making responsibility between patients who had undergone orthopaedic surgery previously and those who had not. Younger and educated patients preferred more decision-making responsibility. Those with Medicare desired more passive roles.DiscussionDespite the importance of shared decision making on delivering patient-centered care, our results suggest that patients do not prefer to share all decisions.
| S-EPMC8080702 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To explore the degree to which physicians report reliance on patient preferences when making medical decisions for hospitalized patients lacking decisional capacity.Cross-sectional survey.One academic and two community hospitals in a single metropolitan area.Two hundred eighty-one physicians who recently cared for hospitalized adults.A self-administered survey addressing physicians' beliefs about ethical principles guiding surrogate decision-making and physicians' recent decision-making experiences.Overall, 72.6% of physicians identified a standard related to patient preferences as the most important ethical standard for surrogate decision-making (61.2% identified advanced directives and 11.4% substituted judgment). Of the 73.3% of physicians who reported recently making a surrogate decision, 81.8% reported that patient preferences were highly important in decision-making, although only 29.4% reported that patient preference was the most important factor in the decision. Physicians were significantly more likely to base decisions on patient preferences when the patient was in the intensive care unit (odds ratio (OR)=2.92, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.15-7.45) and less likely when the patient was older (OR=0.76 for each decade of age, 95% CI=0.58-0.99). The presence of a living will, prior discussions with the patient, and the physicians' beliefs about ethical guidelines did not significantly predict the physicians' reliance on patient preferences.Although a majority of physicians identified patient preferences as the most important general ethical guideline for surrogate decision-making, they relied on a variety of factors when making treatment decisions for a patient lacking decisional capacity.
| S-EPMC3513265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore preferences for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). We hypothesized that OCD patients will select a combination of medication and psychotherapy as their most preferred choice overall.MethodThe authors designed a treatment-preference survey using 2 health economics methods, forced-choice and contingent-ranking methods, to elicit preferences for OCD treatment available in mainstream care (serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SRIs], exposure and response prevention [EX/RP], and their combination) and for novel treatments under development at OCD research clinics. This survey was given by telephone to 89 individuals with OCD who called the OCD research clinic at the New York State Psychiatric Institute between July 2008 and January 2009. Diagnosis of OCD was based on a telephone screening evaluation adapted from the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders.ResultsMost participants chose combination treatment (43%) or EX/RP (42%) over SRI medication (16%). Participants ranked investigational psychotherapy as their most-preferred novel treatment (endorsed by 48% of participants) and deep brain stimulation as their least-preferred novel treatment (endorsed by 77% of participants). Qualitative data suggest that prior treatment experience, concerns about medications, and logistical and practical concerns about treatment regimens affect preferences.ConclusionsPatients with OCD have identifiable treatment preferences. In this sample of convenience, most preferred either combination treatment or psychotherapy. Future studies should investigate prospectively what modifies these preferences and how these preferences affect treatment outcome.
| S-EPMC3109740 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEarly initiation of disease-modifying treatment (DMT) is associated with better disability outcomes in multiple sclerosis (MS). However, little is known of how treatment decisions affect socio-economic outcomes.ObjectiveTo estimate the long-term impact of early initiation of DMT on the income of MS patients.MethodsIn total, 3610 MS patients were included in this register-based cohort study. We measured the association between the time to treatment and the outcome, defined as time from treatment initiation to a 95% decrease in annual earnings compared to each patient´s baseline level. Additionally, the association between time to treatment and increase of social benefits (sickness absence, disability pension) was investigated. A Cox model was adjusted for sex, onset age, education, family situation, country of birth, living area, and disability.ResultsMS patients initiating treatment later had a higher risk of reaching the outcome- those who started treatment after 2 years from MS onset lost 95% of their earnings sooner (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.04-1.37). Furthermore, risk to receive an annual compensation of SEK 100,000 (≈EUR 10,500) was higher for the delayed treatment group.ConclusionEarly treatment initiation in MS is associated with better socioeconomic outcome, adding to previous studies showing benefits regarding disability.
| S-EPMC7564625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this research study is to explore ways to improve appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the elderly by attempting to target screening in those most likely to benefit and avoiding screening in those least likely to benefit.
| 2123633 | ecrin-mdr-crc