Literature DB >> 9917022

Patient or physician preferences for decision analysis: the prenatal genetic testing decision.

P S Heckerling1, M S Verp, N Albert.   

Abstract

The choice between amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal genetic testing involves tradeoffs of the benefits and risks of the tests. Decision analysis is a method of explicitly weighing such tradeoffs. The authors examined the relationship between prenatal test choices made by patients and the choices prescribed by decision-analytic models based on their preferences, and separate models based on the preferences of their physicians. Preferences were assessed using written scenarios describing prenatal testing outcomes, and were recorded on linear rating scales. After adjustment for sociodemographic and obstetric confounders, test choice was significantly associated with the choice of decision models based on patient preferences (odds ratio 4.44; Cl, 2.53 to 7.78), but not with the choice of models based on the preferences of the physicians (odds ratio 1.60; Cl, 0.79 to 3.26). Agreement between decision analyses based on patient preferences and on physician preferences was little better than chance (kappa = 0.085+/-0.063). These results were robust both to changes in the decision-analytic probabilities and to changes in the model structure itself to simulate non-expected utility decision rules. The authors conclude that patient but not physician preferences, incorporated in decision models, correspond to the choice of amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling made by the patient. Nevertheless, because patient preferences were assessed after referral for genetic testing, prospective preference-assessment studies will be necessary to confirm this association.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 9917022     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900109

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


  3 in total

1.  Choosing the surgical mortality threshold for high risk patients with stage Ia non-small cell lung cancer: insights from decision analysis.

Authors:  J Dowie; M Wildman
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 9.139

2.  Obstetrical outcome valuations by patients, professionals, and laypersons: differences within and between groups using three valuation methods.

Authors:  Denise Bijlenga; Erwin Birnie; Ben Wj Mol; Gouke J Bonsel
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2011-11-12       Impact factor: 3.007

3.  Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Holly O Witteman; Ruth Ndjaboue; Gratianne Vaisson; Selma Chipenda Dansokho; Bob Arnold; John F P Bridges; Sandrine Comeau; Angela Fagerlin; Teresa Gavaruzzi; Melina Marcoux; Arwen Pieterse; Michael Pignone; Thierry Provencher; Charles Racine; Dean Regier; Charlotte Rochefort-Brihay; Praveen Thokala; Marieke Weernink; Douglas B White; Celia E Wills; Jesse Jansen
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 2.583

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.