IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v20y2000i4p394-402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Preference-based Treatment Thresholds and Recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Malcolm Man-Son-Hing

    (Address correspondence to Dr. Man-Son-Hing: Geriatric Assessment Unit, Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada. K1Y 4E9; telephone: (613) 761-5110; fax: (613) 761-5334; e-mail:)

  • Andreas Laupacis

    (Address correspondence to Dr. Man-Son-Hing: Geriatric Assessment Unit, Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada. K1Y 4E9; telephone: (613) 761-5110; fax: (613) 761-5334; e-mail:)

  • Annette M. O'Connor

    (Address correspondence to Dr. Man-Son-Hing: Geriatric Assessment Unit, Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada. K1Y 4E9; telephone: (613) 761-5110; fax: (613) 761-5334; e-mail:)

  • Douglas Coyle

    (Address correspondence to Dr. Man-Son-Hing: Geriatric Assessment Unit, Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada. K1Y 4E9; telephone: (613) 761-5110; fax: (613) 761-5334; e-mail:)

  • Renee Berquist

    (Address correspondence to Dr. Man-Son-Hing: Geriatric Assessment Unit, Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada. K1Y 4E9; telephone: (613) 761-5110; fax: (613) 761-5334; e-mail:)

  • Finlay McAlister

    (Address correspondence to Dr. Man-Son-Hing: Geriatric Assessment Unit, Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada. K1Y 4E9; telephone: (613) 761-5110; fax: (613) 761-5334; e-mail:)

Abstract

Background. Decision analysis (DA) and the probability-tradeoff technique (PTOT) are patient preference-based methods of determining optimal therapy for individuals. Using aspirin therapy for the primary prevention of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) in elderly persons as an example, the objective of this study was to determine whether group-level treatment thresholds and individual-level treatment recommendations derived using PTOT are identical to those of DA incorporating the patients' own values. Methods. Persons in a pilot study of the efficacy of aspirin in the prevention of stroke and MI were asked to participate. Participant values and utilities for pertinent health states (e.g., minor and major stroke, MI, major bleeding episode) were determined. Then, in three hypothetical clinical situations in which the chance of stroke or MI was varied, PTOT was used to directly determine treatment thresholds for aspirin therapy (i.e., the smallest reduction in MI or stroke risk for which participants would be willing to take aspirin). Using DA modeling, with the same probabilities of events as in the PTOT exercise and incorporating participants' own values, treatment thresholds for the three clinical situations were determined. The thresholds determined by the two approaches were compared. Finally, based on these treatment thresholds, using the best estimates of the efficacy of aspirin to prevent first-time stroke and MI, PTOT and DA treatment recommendations for individual participants were compared. Results. The 42 participants reported that a major stroke was the least desirable health state, followed by MI, minor stroke, and major bleeding. The minimum risk reduction required to take aspirin was greater for MI prevention compared with stroke prevention. For the two clinical situations in which the hypothetical efficacy of aspirin to prevent stroke was varied, treatment thresholds for the PTOT versus DA approaches differed (p

Suggested Citation

  • Malcolm Man-Son-Hing & Andreas Laupacis & Annette M. O'Connor & Douglas Coyle & Renee Berquist & Finlay McAlister, 2000. "Patient Preference-based Treatment Thresholds and Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(4), pages 394-402, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:4:p:394-402
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000403
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0002000403
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0002000403?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:20:y:2000:i:4:p:394-402. 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.

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