Literature DB >> 8014724

Prescribing propensity: influence of life-expectancy gains and drug costs.

J E Hux1, C M Levinton, C D Naylor.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether physician willingness to prescribe drugs for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is influenced by information about the resultant life-expectancy gains (presented in one of two formats) and about drug costs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mailed survey (four versions randomly allocated) asking physicians to assess hypothetical preventive interventions with outcomes expressed either as averaged or as stratified gains in life expectancy (e.g., average gain of 15 weeks, versus 5% of treated patients gain 2 to 6 years, 10% gain up to 2 years, and 85% remain unchanged). Both costs and gains were varied to high and low values. The subjects rated their willingness to prescribe treatments on an 11-point scale from "strongly oppose" to "strongly favor." PARTICIPANTS: Internists randomly selected from two Canadian academic centers (n = 330).
RESULTS: 231 usable responses were received (76% of the deliverable questionnaires). For low-yield scenarios typical of very effective primary prevention strategies, the physicians gave significantly higher ratings in response to stratified life-expectancy data than to equivalent averaged data (p < 0.0001). The same trend was not observed for high-yield scenarios (p = NS). The ratings were strongly influenced by cost: 34% of the physicians reversed their treatment decisions in response to a tenfold price increase. Despite this, the rankings of the treatments differed from those expected on the basis of cost-effectiveness criteria (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Physician enthusiasm for a therapy designed to prolong life expectancy may be influenced by the format in which that life-expectancy gain is presented. Knowledge of drug cost also affects physicians' choices, but their greater focus on treatment effects causes their rankings to depart from those expected with cost-effectiveness criteria.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8014724     DOI: 10.1007/bf02600123

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  15 in total

1.  Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions.

Authors:  L Forrow; W C Taylor; R M Arnold
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.965

Review 2.  Optimistic biases about personal risks.

Authors:  N D Weinstein
Journal:  Science       Date:  1989-12-08       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Discrepancy between medical decisions for individual patients and for groups.

Authors:  D A Redelmeier; A Tversky
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1990-04-19       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies.

Authors:  B J McNeil; S G Pauker; H C Sox; A Tversky
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1982-05-27       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Ego bias, reverse ego bias, and physicians' prognostic.

Authors:  R M Poses; D K McClish; C Bekes; W E Scott; J N Morley
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 7.598

6.  Choosing between apples and apples: physicians' choices of prescription drugs that have similar side effects and efficacies.

Authors:  K T Safavi; R A Hayward
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1992 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  The benefits of treating hyperlipidemia to prevent coronary heart disease. Estimating changes in life expectancy and morbidity.

Authors:  S A Grover; M Abrahamowicz; L Joseph; C Brewer; L Coupal; S Suissa
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-02-12       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer.

Authors:  B J McNeil; R Weichselbaum; S G Pauker
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1978-12-21       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?

Authors:  C D Naylor; E Chen; B Strauss
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1992-12-01       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Cholesterol lowering and mortality: the importance of considering initial level of risk.

Authors:  G D Smith; F Song; T A Sheldon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-05-22
View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians.

Authors:  P McGettigan; K Sly; D O'Connell; S Hill; D Henry
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Understanding and expressing "Risk".

Authors:  Mahmoud Elbarbary
Journal:  J Saudi Heart Assoc       Date:  2010-05-11

Review 3.  Suitable trial designs and cohorts for preventive breast cancer agents.

Authors:  Kathrin Strasser-Weippl; Paul E Goss
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 66.675

4.  Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews.

Authors:  T Fahey; S Griffiths; T J Peters
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-10-21

5.  American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update on the use of pharmacologic interventions including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition for breast cancer risk reduction.

Authors:  Kala Visvanathan; Rowan T Chlebowski; Patricia Hurley; Nananda F Col; Mary Ropka; Deborah Collyar; Monica Morrow; Carolyn Runowicz; Kathleen I Pritchard; Karen Hagerty; Banu Arun; Judy Garber; Victor G Vogel; James L Wade; Powel Brown; Jack Cuzick; Barnett S Kramer; Scott M Lippman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Applying the results of clinical trials to patients to general practice: perceived problems, strengths, assumptions, and challenges for the future.

Authors:  T Fahey
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Patients' prerogatives and perceptions of benefit.

Authors:  F Kee
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-04-13

8.  How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure.

Authors:  Jan L Brozek; Gordon H Guyatt; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 3.186

9.  Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: a descriptive pilot study.

Authors:  J M Fortin; L K Hirota; B E Bond; A M O'Connor; N F Col
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2001-08-01       Impact factor: 2.796

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.