James G Dolan1, Peter J Veazie1. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are well-suited to serve as the foundation for clinical decision support systems. To do so, however, they need to be appropriate for use in busy clinical settings. We compared decision-making processes and outcomes of patient-level analyses done with a range of multicriteria methods that vary in ease of use and intensity of decision support, 2 factors that could affect their ease of implementation into practice. METHODS: We conducted a series of Internet surveys to compare the effects of 5 multicriteria methods that differ in user interface and required user input format on decisions regarding selection of a preferred method for lowering the risk of cardiovascular disease. The study sample consisted of members of an online Internet panel maintained by Fluidsurveys, an Internet survey company. Study outcomes were changes in preferred option, decision confidence, preparation for decision making, the Values Clarification and Decisional Uncertainty subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale, and method ease of use. RESULTS: The frequency of changes in the preferred option ranged from 9% to 38%, P < 0.001, and rose progressively as the level of decision support provided by the MCDM method increased. The proportion of respondents who rated the method as easy ranged from 57% to 79% and differed significantly among MCDM methods, P = 0.003, but was not consistently related to intensity of decision support or ease of use. CONCLUSION: Decision support based on MCDM methods is not necessarily limited by decreases in ease of use. This result suggests that it is possible to develop decision support tools using sophisticated multicriteria techniques suitable for use in routine clinical care settings.
BACKGROUND: Multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are well-suited to serve as the foundation for clinical decision support systems. To do so, however, they need to be appropriate for use in busy clinical settings. We compared decision-making processes and outcomes of patient-level analyses done with a range of multicriteria methods that vary in ease of use and intensity of decision support, 2 factors that could affect their ease of implementation into practice. METHODS: We conducted a series of Internet surveys to compare the effects of 5 multicriteria methods that differ in user interface and required user input format on decisions regarding selection of a preferred method for lowering the risk of cardiovascular disease. The study sample consisted of members of an online Internet panel maintained by Fluidsurveys, an Internet survey company. Study outcomes were changes in preferred option, decision confidence, preparation for decision making, the Values Clarification and Decisional Uncertainty subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale, and method ease of use. RESULTS: The frequency of changes in the preferred option ranged from 9% to 38%, P < 0.001, and rose progressively as the level of decision support provided by the MCDM method increased. The proportion of respondents who rated the method as easy ranged from 57% to 79% and differed significantly among MCDM methods, P = 0.003, but was not consistently related to intensity of decision support or ease of use. CONCLUSION: Decision support based on MCDM methods is not necessarily limited by decreases in ease of use. This result suggests that it is possible to develop decision support tools using sophisticated multicriteria techniques suitable for use in routine clinical care settings.
Entities:
Keywords:
cardiovascular disease prevention; decision making; decision making techniques; decision support; multicriteria decision making; patient-centered care; shared decision making
Authors: Carol Bennett; Ian D Graham; Elizabeth Kristjansson; Stephen A Kearing; Kate F Clay; Annette M O'Connor Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-06-26
Authors: Marilyn M Schapira; Cindy M Walker; Tamara Miller; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Pamela S Ganschow; Elizabeth A Jacobs; Diana Imbert; Maria O'Connell; Joan M Neuner Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2014
Authors: Suzanne K Linder; Paul R Swank; Sally W Vernon; Patricia D Mullen; Robert O Morgan; Robert J Volk Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2011-02-05
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: Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: John W Peabody; Jeff Luck; Peter Glassman; Sharad Jain; Joyce Hansen; Maureen Spell; Martin Lee Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-11-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Lucas M Bachmann; Andrea Mühleisen; Annekatrin Bock; Gerben ter Riet; Ulrike Held; Alfons G H Kessels Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2008-07-30 Impact factor: 4.615