IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v39y2009i3p209-217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Helping Men Decide About Scheduling a Prostate Cancer Screening Exam

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Liberatore

    (Department of Management and Operations, Villanova School of Business, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085)

  • Robert Nydick

    (Department of Management and Operations, Villanova School of Business, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085)

  • Constantine Daskalakis

    (Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Division of Biostatistics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107)

  • Elisabeth Kunkel

    (Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107)

  • James Cocroft

    (Department of Medical Oncology, Division of Population Science, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107)

  • Ronald Myers

    (Department of Medical Oncology, Division of Population Science, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107)

Abstract

This paper reports on the application of decision counseling based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to assist men in deciding whether or not to schedule a prostate cancer screening exam. The study is based on data that we collected from 129 men enrolled in the intervention arm of two randomized, controlled trials. First, we administered a baseline survey to gather data on participant sociodemographic characteristics and perceptions about prostate cancer and screening. Subsequently, a health educator conducted a session with each man to review an informational booklet on prostate cancer screening. Then, the health educator used an AHP-based decision process that identified the most important factors (both pro or con) that might influence prostate cancer screening preferences, clarified preferences related to scheduling a prostate screening exam, and elicited a scheduling decision. We performed univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify variables associated with the decision. Of the 129 men enrolled, 85 men (66 percent) decided to schedule a prostate cancer screening exam. Multivariable analyses showed that preference strengths and favorable perceptions of prostate cancer screening predicted the decision to screen.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Liberatore & Robert Nydick & Constantine Daskalakis & Elisabeth Kunkel & James Cocroft & Ronald Myers, 2009. "Helping Men Decide About Scheduling a Prostate Cancer Screening Exam," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 209-217, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:39:y:2009:i:3:p:209-217
    DOI: 10.1287/inte.1080.0395
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.1080.0395
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/inte.1080.0395?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank Castro & Leonard P. Caccamo & Kimbroe J. Carter & Barbara A. Erickson & William Johnson & Edward Kessler & Nathan P. Ritchey & Claudio A. Ruiz, 1996. "Sequential Test Selection in the Analysis of Abdominal Pain," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 178-183, June.
    2. Kimbroe J. Carter & Nathan P. Ritchey & Frank Castro & Leonard P. Caccamo & Edward Kessler & Barbara A. Erickson, 1999. "Analysis of Three Decision-making Methods," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(1), pages 49-57, January.
    3. Liberatore, Matthew J. & Nydick, Robert L., 2008. "The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 194-207, August.
    4. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    5. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    6. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 1998. "Diagnosis with Dependent Symptoms: Bayes Theorem and the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 46(4), pages 491-502, August.
    7. James G. Dolan, 1989. "Medical Decision Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 9(1), pages 51-56, February.
    8. James G. Dolan, 1995. "Are Patients Capable of Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Willing to Use It to Help Make Clinical Decisions?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(1), pages 76-80, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vahid Roshanaei & Bahman Naderi & Opher Baron & Dmitry Krass, 2024. "An Interactive Spreadsheet Model for Teaching Classification Using Logistic Regression," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 55-80, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liberatore, Matthew J. & Nydick, Robert L., 2008. "The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 194-207, August.
    2. M. Gabriela Sava & Luis G. Vargas & Jerrold H. May & James G. Dolan, 2020. "An analysis of the sensitivity and stability of patients’ preferences can lead to more appropriate medical decisions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 863-901, October.
    3. James G. Dolan & Emily Boohaker & Jeroan Allison & Thomas F. Imperiale, 2013. "Patients’ Preferences and Priorities Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 59-70, January.
    4. James Dolan, 2010. "Multi-Criteria Clinical Decision Support," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 229-248, December.
    5. Pu Ji & Hong-yu Zhang & Jian-qiang Wang, 2017. "Fuzzy decision-making framework for treatment selection based on the combined QUALIFLEX–TODIM method," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(14), pages 3072-3086, October.
    6. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Hongxun Xiang & Xia Heng & Boleng Zhai & Lichen Yang, 2024. "Digital and Culture: Towards More Resilient Urban Community Governance," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, May.
    8. Haddad, M. & Sanders, D. & Tewkesbury, G., 2020. "Selecting a discrete multiple criteria decision making method for Boeing to rank four global market regions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-15.
    9. Alessio Ishizaka & Enrique Mu, 2023. "What is so special about the analytic hierarchy and network process?," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 625-634, July.
    10. Johanna Vásquez & Sergio Botero, 2020. "Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, February.
    11. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    12. Mehmet Yüksel, 2019. "A Model Proposal for the Evaluation of Chemistry Education in the Context of Learning Environment," Asian Journal of Education and Training, Asian Online Journal Publishing Group, vol. 5(3), pages 488-494.
    13. Kułakowski, Konrad & Mazurek, Jiří & Ramík, Jaroslav & Soltys, Michael, 2019. "When is the condition of order preservation met?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(1), pages 248-254.
    14. Hasan, Mostafa & Büyüktahtakın, İ. Esra & Elamin, Elshami, 2019. "A multi-criteria ranking algorithm (MCRA) for determining breast cancer therapy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 83-101.
    15. Prin Boonkanit & Kridchai Suthiluck, 2023. "Developing a Decision-Making Support System for a Smart Construction and Demolition Waste Transition to a Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-27, June.
    16. Anna Rita Corvino & Pasquale Manco & Elpidio Maria Garzillo & Maria Grazia Lourdes Monaco & Alessandro Greco & Salvatore Gerbino & Francesco Caputo & Roberto Macchiaroli & Monica Lamberti, 2021. "Assessing Risks Awareness in Operating Rooms among Post-Graduate Students: A Pilot Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-12, March.
    17. Zorica Dodevska & Sandro Radovanović & Andrija Petrović & Boris Delibašić, 2023. "When Fairness Meets Consistency in AHP Pairwise Comparisons," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, January.
    18. BULUT, Merve & ÖZCAN, Evrencan, 2021. "A new approach to determine maintenance periods of the most critical hydroelectric power plant equipment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    19. Saud Alshehri & Yacine Rezgui & Haijiang Li, 2015. "Disaster community resilience assessment method: a consensus-based Delphi and AHP approach," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 78(1), pages 395-416, August.
    20. M Tavana, 2006. "A priority assessment multi-criteria decision model for human spaceflight mission planning at NASA," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1197-1215, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:39:y:2009:i:3:p:209-217. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.