Author
Listed:
- Paul S. Heckerling
- Marion S. Verp
- Nancy Albert
Abstract
The choice between amniocentesis and chononic 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 deci sion-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 signifi cantly associated with the choice of decision models based on patient preferences (odds ratio 4.44; CI, 2.53 to 7.78), but not with the choice of models based on the preferences of the physicians (odds ratio 1.60; CI, 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, prospec tive preference-assessment studies will be necessary to confirm this association. Key words: decision analysis; patient preferences; physician preferences; prenatal genetic testing. (Med Decis Making 1999;19:66-77)
Suggested Citation
Paul S. Heckerling & Marion S. Verp & Nancy Albert, 1999.
"Patient or Physician Preferences for Decision Analysis,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(1), pages 66-77, January.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:1:p:66-77
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900109
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:19:y:1999:i:1:p:66-77. 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.