PURPOSE: We propose a strategic, computer based, prostate cancer decision making model based on the analytic hierarchy process. We developed a model that improves physician-patient joint decision making and enhances the treatment selection process by making this critical decision rational and evidence based. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups (patient and physician-expert) completed a clinical study comparing an initial disease management choice with the highest ranked option generated by the computer model. Participants made pairwise comparisons to derive priorities for the objectives and subobjectives related to the disease management decision. The weighted comparisons were then applied to treatment options to yield prioritized rank lists that reflect the likelihood that a given alternative will achieve the participant treatment goal. Aggregate data were evaluated by inconsistency ratio analysis and sensitivity analysis, which assessed the influence of individual objectives and subobjectives on the final rank list of treatment options. RESULTS: Inconsistency ratios less than 0.05 were reliably generated, indicating that judgments made within the model were mathematically rational. The aggregate prioritized list of treatment options was tabulated for the patient and physician groups with similar outcomes for the 2 groups. Analysis of the major defining objectives in the treatment selection decision demonstrated the same rank order for the patient and physician groups with cure, survival and quality of life being more important than controlling cancer, preventing major complications of treatment, preventing blood transfusion complications and limiting treatment cost. Analysis of subobjectives, including quality of life and sexual dysfunction, produced similar priority rankings for the patient and physician groups. Concordance between initial treatment choice and the highest weighted model option differed between the groups with the patient group having 59% concordance and the physician group having only 42% concordance. CONCLUSIONS: This study successfully validated the usefulness of a computer based prostate cancer management decision making model to produce individualized, rational, clinically appropriate disease management decisions without physician bias.
PURPOSE: We propose a strategic, computer based, prostate cancer decision making model based on the analytic hierarchy process. We developed a model that improves physician-patient joint decision making and enhances the treatment selection process by making this critical decision rational and evidence based. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups (patient and physician-expert) completed a clinical study comparing an initial disease management choice with the highest ranked option generated by the computer model. Participants made pairwise comparisons to derive priorities for the objectives and subobjectives related to the disease management decision. The weighted comparisons were then applied to treatment options to yield prioritized rank lists that reflect the likelihood that a given alternative will achieve the participant treatment goal. Aggregate data were evaluated by inconsistency ratio analysis and sensitivity analysis, which assessed the influence of individual objectives and subobjectives on the final rank list of treatment options. RESULTS: Inconsistency ratios less than 0.05 were reliably generated, indicating that judgments made within the model were mathematically rational. The aggregate prioritized list of treatment options was tabulated for the patient and physician groups with similar outcomes for the 2 groups. Analysis of the major defining objectives in the treatment selection decision demonstrated the same rank order for the patient and physician groups with cure, survival and quality of life being more important than controlling cancer, preventing major complications of treatment, preventing blood transfusion complications and limiting treatment cost. Analysis of subobjectives, including quality of life and sexual dysfunction, produced similar priority rankings for the patient and physician groups. Concordance between initial treatment choice and the highest weighted model option differed between the groups with the patient group having 59% concordance and the physician group having only 42% concordance. CONCLUSIONS: This study successfully validated the usefulness of a computer based prostate cancer management decision making model to produce individualized, rational, clinically appropriate disease management decisions without physician bias.
Authors: Henk Broekhuizen; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Janine A van Til; J Marjan Hummel; Maarten J IJzerman Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 4.981