Literature DB >> 29611458

A Personalized Approach of Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening Options.

M Gabriela Sava1, James G Dolan2, Jerrold H May3, Luis G Vargas3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current colorectal cancer screening guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force endorse multiple options for average-risk patients and recommend that screening choices should be guided by individual patient preferences. Implementing these recommendations in practice is challenging because they depend on accurate and efficient elicitation and assessment of preferences from patients who are facing a novel task.
OBJECTIVE: To present a methodology for analyzing the sensitivity and stability of a patient's preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening options and to provide a starting point for a personalized discussion between the patient and the health care provider about the selection of the appropriate screening option.
METHODS: This research is a secondary analysis of patient preference data collected as part of a previous study. We propose new measures of preference sensitivity and stability that can be used to determine if additional information provided would result in a change to the initially most preferred colorectal cancer screening option.
RESULTS: Illustrative results of applying the methodology to the preferences of 2 patients, of different ages, are provided. The results show that different combinations of screening options are viable for each patient and that the health care provider should emphasize different information during the medical decision-making process.
CONCLUSION: Sensitivity and stability analysis can supply health care providers with key topics to focus on when communicating with a patient and the degree of emphasis to place on each of them to accomplish specific goals. The insights provided by the analysis can be used by health care providers to approach communication with patients in a more personalized way, by taking into consideration patients' preferences before adding their own expertise to the discussion.

Entities:  

Keywords:  analytic hierarchy process (AHP); colorectal cancer screening; patient–health care provider communication; personalized medicine; sensitivity and stability analysis for AHP models

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29611458      PMCID: PMC6112617          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18763802

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  9 in total

1.  Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Paul C Schroy; Karen Emmons; Ellen Peters; Julie T Glick; Patricia A Robinson; Maria A Lydotes; Shamini Mylvanaman; Stephen Evans; Christine Chaisson; Michael Pignone; Marianne Prout; Peter Davidson; Timothy C Heeren
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Are patients capable of using the analytic hierarchy process and willing to use it to help make clinical decisions?

Authors:  J G Dolan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Patients' preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  James G Dolan; Emily Boohaker; Jeroan Allison; Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  James G Dolan; Susan Frisina
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Cancer Statistics, 2017.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  A demonstration of shared decision making in primary care highlights barriers to adoption and potential remedies.

Authors:  Mark W Friedberg; Kristin Van Busum; Richard Wexler; Megan Bowen; Eric C Schneider
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 6.301

8.  Can Streamlined Multicriteria Decision Analysis Be Used to Implement Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening?

Authors:  James G Dolan; Emily Boohaker; Jeroan Allison; Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 9.  Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting.

Authors:  Katharina Schmidt; Ines Aumann; Ines Hollander; Kathrin Damm; J-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 2.796

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.