James G Dolan1, Emily Boohaker2, Jeroan Allison3, Thomas F Imperiale4. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY (JGD) 2. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL (EB) 3. University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA (JA) 4. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine; Regenstrief Institute, Inc.; and Center of Excellence for Implementation of Evidence-based Medicine, Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN (TFI).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current US colorectal cancer screening guidelines that call for shared decision making regarding the choice among several recommended screening options are difficult to implement. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an established method well suited for supporting shared decision making. Our study goal was to determine whether a streamlined form of MCDA using rank-order-based judgments can accurately assess patients' colorectal cancer screening priorities. METHODS: We converted priorities for 4 decision criteria and 3 subcriteria regarding colorectal cancer screening obtained from 484 average-risk patients using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in a prior study into rank-order-based priorities using rank order centroids. We compared the 2 sets of priorities using Spearman rank correlation and nonparametric Bland-Altman limits of agreement analysis. We assessed the differential impact of using the rank-order-based versus the AHP-based priorities on the results of a full MCDA comparing 3 currently recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies. Generalizability of the results was assessed using Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Correlations between the 2 sets of priorities for the 7 criteria ranged from 0.55 to 0.92. The proportions of differences between rank-order-based and AHP-based priorities that were more than ±0.15 ranged from 1% to 16%. Differences in the full MCDA results were minimal, and the relative rankings of the 3 screening options were identical more than 88% of the time. The Monte Carlo simulation results were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Rank-order-based MCDA could be a simple, practical way to guide individual decisions and assess population decision priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening strategies. Additional research is warranted to further explore the use of these methods for promoting shared decision making.
BACKGROUND: Current US colorectal cancer screening guidelines that call for shared decision making regarding the choice among several recommended screening options are difficult to implement. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an established method well suited for supporting shared decision making. Our study goal was to determine whether a streamlined form of MCDA using rank-order-based judgments can accurately assess patients' colorectal cancer screening priorities. METHODS: We converted priorities for 4 decision criteria and 3 subcriteria regarding colorectal cancer screening obtained from 484 average-risk patients using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in a prior study into rank-order-based priorities using rank order centroids. We compared the 2 sets of priorities using Spearman rank correlation and nonparametric Bland-Altman limits of agreement analysis. We assessed the differential impact of using the rank-order-based versus the AHP-based priorities on the results of a full MCDA comparing 3 currently recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies. Generalizability of the results was assessed using Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Correlations between the 2 sets of priorities for the 7 criteria ranged from 0.55 to 0.92. The proportions of differences between rank-order-based and AHP-based priorities that were more than ±0.15 ranged from 1% to 16%. Differences in the full MCDA results were minimal, and the relative rankings of the 3 screening options were identical more than 88% of the time. The Monte Carlo simulation results were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Rank-order-based MCDA could be a simple, practical way to guide individual decisions and assess population decision priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening strategies. Additional research is warranted to further explore the use of these methods for promoting shared decision making.
Authors: Grace A Lin; Meghan Halley; Katharine A S Rendle; Caroline Tietbohl; Suepattra G May; Laurel Trujillo; Dominick L Frosch Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; John E Wennberg; France Legare; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; Benjamin W Moulton; Karen R Sepucha; Andrea G Sodano; Jaime S King Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: David Arterburn; Robert Wellman; Emily Westbrook; Carolyn Rutter; Tyler Ross; David McCulloch; Matthew Handley; Charles Jung Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Deborah A Marshall; F Reed Johnson; Nathalie A Kulin; Semra Ozdemir; Judith M E Walsh; John K Marshall; Stephanie Van Bebber; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Health Econ Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Laura Panattoni; Charles E Phelps; Tracy A Lieu; Stacey Alexeeff; Suzanne O'Neill; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Scott D Ramsey Journal: Patient Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Monika Wagner; Dima Samaha; Hanane Khoury; William M O'Neil; Louis Lavoie; Liga Bennetts; Danielle Badgley; Sylvie Gabriel; Anthony Berthon; James Dolan; Matthew H Kulke; Mireille Goetghebeur Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 3.845