Literature DB >> 7717368

Design and validation of a bedside decision instrument to elicit a patient's preference concerning allogenic bone marrow transplantation in chronic myeloid leukemia.

C Sebban1, G Browman, A Gafni, G Norman, M Levine, D Assouline, D Fiere.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to design and validate a bedside decision instrument to be used by patients with chronic myeloid leukemia and their physicians in deciding between the therapeutic alternatives of bone marrow transplantation and conservative management during the early phase of disease. A decision board was constructed containing detailed scenarios associated with the treatment alternatives, together with estimates of survival probabilities at various periods of followup. The instrument was tested on 42 healthy hospital personnel and validated by measuring the extent to which systematic alterations in the scenarios with respect to toxicities and survival probabilities produced predicted shifts in treatment preferences. A subgroup of respondents was randomized to receive information through the decision board alone or a shorter and less informative version of the instrument, followed by the decision board. The direction and strength of stated preferences were compared, together with satisfaction for these preferences. The direction and strength of preferences between bone marrow transplantation or conservative chemotherapy were influenced in a predictable way by changes in the toxicity and survival descriptions in the scenarios. Using the test-retest method in 16 subjects, the stated preferences were found to be highly reliable (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.87). The mean level of satisfaction with the stated preference, on a scale from not at all satisfied = 1 to very satisfied = 5, was higher for those exposed to the decision board (3.7, SD 1.06) compared with those presented with the short version (2.95, SD 0.67) (P < 0.01). The results demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of the instrument in healthy individuals. The preferences elicited by the instrument appear to be reliable and valid according to prespecified constructs of the relation between the information provided and the preferences predicted. These results support further testing of this approach in actual patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7717368     DOI: 10.1002/ajh.2830480403

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hematol        ISSN: 0361-8609            Impact factor:   10.047


  11 in total

1.  Alternatives to the QALY measure for economic evaluations.

Authors:  A Gafni
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Emotions and scope effects in the monetary valuation of health.

Authors:  María V Avilés Blanco; Raúl Brey; Jorge Araña; José Luis Pinto Prades
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-03-24

3.  The role of patients' meta-preferences in the design and evaluation of decision support systems.

Authors:  Jack Dowie
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Induction of labour versus expectant management for prelabour rupture of the membranes at term: an economic evaluation. TERMPROM Study Group. Term Prelabour Rupture of the Membranes.

Authors:  A Gafni; R Goeree; T L Myhr; M E Hannah; G Blackhouse; A R Willan; J A Weston; E E Wang; E D Hodnett; S A Hewson; D Farine; A Ohlsson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1997-12-01       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Putting your money where your mouth is: willingness to pay for dental gel.

Authors:  Debora Matthews; Angela Rocchi; Amiram Gafni
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  A systematic review of information in decision aids.

Authors:  Deb Feldman-Stewart; Sarah Brennenstuhl; Kathryn McIssac; Joan Austoker; Agathe Charvet; Paul Hewitson; Karen R Sepucha; Tim Whelan
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Eliciting patients' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: development and validation of a bedside decision-making instrument in a French Regional Cancer Centre.

Authors:  Marie-Odile Carrère; Nora Moumjid-Ferdjaoui; Marie Charavel; Alain Brémond
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Lessons learned from the Decision Board: a unique and evolving decision aid.

Authors:  Tim Whelan; Amiram Gafni; Cathy Charles; Mark Levine
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 9.  On what basis should the effectiveness of decision aids be judged?

Authors:  Andrew D M Kennedy
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Factors Influencing Pregnant Women's Use of Patient Decision Aids and Decision Making on Prenatal Screening: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Razieh Zahedi; Leila Nemati-Anaraki; Shahram Sedghi; Mamak Shariat
Journal:  J Family Reprod Health       Date:  2020-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.