Author
Listed:
- Patti A. Groome
- Tom A. Hutchinson
- Pierre Tousignant
Abstract
For an illness whose treatment options lead to similar survival, quality-of-life issues determine the choice. If the patient has not yet experienced the treatments, then the information provided regarding the options plays a crucial role in the patient's choice. The authors interviewed 43 people who are intimately involved with the treatments for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (ten physicians, 11 nurses, and 22 patients) with a view to determining what information needs to be considered when choosing between the various treatment options for this illness. They compared the three groups based on the items obtained from the interviews to deter mine whether the inclusion of patients in the process changed the content of the treatment descriptions. They were also interested in determining whether the use of the frequency with which an item is mentioned in the interviews is a valid measure of its relative importance to other items. 1,269 relevant items were obtained from the interviews and categorized into 51 areas of concern (subject domains). The health professionals (physicians and nurses) were found to have mentioned seven subject domains more often than the patients, and no domain was mentioned more often by the patients than by the health professionals. The frequency that an item was mentioned was correlated (r = 0.55) with direct measures of its importance. These results imply that careful consultation with health professionals to determine the content of a decision analysis or informational materials that address treatment choice is sufficient to address patient concerns and that items can be chosen for inclusion based on the relative frequencies with which they are mentioned. Key words: end-stage renal dis ease ; treatment choice; decision analysis; informed consent. (Med Decis Making 1994; 14:91-97)
Suggested Citation
Patti A. Groome & Tom A. Hutchinson & Pierre Tousignant, 1994.
"Content of a Decision Analysis for Treatment Choice in End-stage Renal Disease,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 91-97, February.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:14:y:1994:i:1:p:91-97
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400111
Download full text from publisher
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:sae:medema:v:14:y:1994:i:1:p:91-97. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.