IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v1y2008i1p11-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Concordance of Couples’ Prostate Cancer Screening Recommendations from a Decision Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Scott Cantor
  • Robert Volk
  • Murray Krahn
  • Alvah Cass
  • Jawaria Gilani
  • Susan Weller
  • Stephen Spann

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether different utilities for prostate cancer screening outcomes for couples, and husbands and wives separately, lead to incongruent screening recommendations. Methods: We evaluated survey results of 168 married couples from three family practice centers in Texas, USA. Utilities for eight adverse outcomes of prostate cancer screening and treatment were assessed using the time trade-off method. We assessed utilities separately for each partner and jointly for each couple. Using a previously published decision-analytic model of prostate cancer screening, we input the husband’s age (starting point) and utilities for outcomes from the husband’s, wife’s, and couple’s perspectives (to adjust for quality of life). Both group-level and individualized models were run. We also asked husbands (and wives) if they intended to be screened (or have their husbands screened) for prostate cancer in the future. Results: Husbands’ lower tolerance for adverse outcomes (lower utilities) was associated with lower quality-adjusted life expectancy (than their wives) for the choice of screening versus not screening. Depending on the perspective, 48 husbands (28.6%), 89 wives (53.0%), and 58 couples (34.5%) preferred screening in the individual decision-analytic models. Comparing the three perspectives, agreement in model recommendations was greatest between the husbands and the couples (82.1%), intermediate between the wives and couples (63.7%), and lowest between the husbands and wives (55.4%). Using group-aggregated utilities in the decision-analytic model tended to mask the variation in recommended strategies amongst individuals. There was no relationship between screening preferences from the model and the husbands’ and wives’ reported desire for screening, as the majority of subjects wanted screening. Conclusions: Discordant health preferences may yield conflicting recommendations for prostate cancer screening. The results have broad implications for informed healthcare decision making for couples. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2008

Suggested Citation

  • Scott Cantor & Robert Volk & Murray Krahn & Alvah Cass & Jawaria Gilani & Susan Weller & Stephen Spann, 2008. "Concordance of Couples’ Prostate Cancer Screening Recommendations from a Decision Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(1), pages 11-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:1:y:2008:i:1:p:11-19
    DOI: 10.2165/01312067-200801010-00004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/01312067-200801010-00004
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/01312067-200801010-00004?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark E. Cowen & Brian J. Miles & Daniel F. Cahill & R. Brian Giesler & J. Robert Beck & Michael W. Kattan, 1998. "The Danger of Applying Group-level Utilities in Decision Analyses of the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer in Individual Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(4), pages 376-380, October.
    2. Yarnall, K.S.H. & Pollak, K.I. & Østbye, T. & Krause, K.M. & Michener, J.L., 2003. "Primary care: Is there enough time for prevention?," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(4), pages 635-641.
    3. Simon N. Whitney, 2003. "A New Model of Medical Decisions: Exploring the Limits of Shared Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(4), pages 275-280, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. repec:mpr:mprres:7571 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Eugene C. Rich & Tim Lake & Christal Stone Valenzano, "undated". "Paying Wisely: Reforming Incentives to Promote Evidence-Based Decisions at the Point of Care," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 3e316f72b5724ac8b26e045c2, Mathematica Policy Research.
    3. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    4. Mohamed Mahmoud Fawzy & Ahmed Shawky Elsharkawy & Yasser Aly Khalifa & Abbas Atef hassan, 2024. "Contractor selection by using multi-criteria decision-making for Egyptian road maintenance," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 15(6), pages 2351-2365, June.
    5. Manuela Bombana & Michel Wensing & Lisa Wittenborn & Charlotte Ullrich, 2022. "Health Education about Lifestyle-Related Risk Factors in Gynecological and Obstetric Care: A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Providers’ Views in Germany," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-18, September.
    6. Abeer G Alharbi & M Mahmud Khan & Ronnie Horner & Heather Brandt & Cole Chapman, 2019. "Impact of Medicaid coverage expansion under the Affordable Care Act on mammography and pap tests utilization among low-income women," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, April.
    7. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Thomas C. Lehman & Holly Massett & Simon C. Lee & Andrew N. Freedman, 2009. "Laypersons' Responses to the Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 391-403, May.
    8. Freedman, Seth & Golberstein, Ezra & Huang, Tsan-Yao & Satin, David J. & Smith, Laura Barrie, 2021. "Docs with their eyes on the clock? The effect of time pressures on primary care productivity," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    9. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Tung-Manh Ho & Hong-Kong Nguyen & Thu-Trang Vuong, 2018. "Healthcare consumers’ sensitivity to costs: a reflection on behavioural economics from an emerging market," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Hui Zhang & Christian Wernz & Danny R. Hughes, 2018. "A Stochastic Game Analysis of Incentives and Behavioral Barriers in Chronic Disease Management," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 302-319, September.
    11. Miraldo, Marisa & Propper, Carol & Williams, Rachael I., 2018. "The impact of publicly subsidised health insurance on access, behavioural risk factors and disease management," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 135-151.
    12. Krishnan S. Anand & M. Faz{i}l Paç & Senthil Veeraraghavan, 2011. "Quality-Speed Conundrum: Trade-offs in Customer-Intensive Services," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 40-56, January.
    13. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Quang-Hoi Vu, 2016. "Sociodemographic factors and expenditure issues in Vietnamese consideration of periodic general health examination," Working Papers CEB 16-047, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    14. Pelletier-Fleury, Nathalie & Le Vaillant, Marc & Szidon, Philippe & Marie, Patrice & Raineri, Francois & Sicotte, Claude, 2007. "Preventive service delivery: A new insight into French general practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 268-276, October.
    15. Moss, Jennifer L. & Reiter, Paul L. & Rimer, Barbara K. & Brewer, Noel T., 2016. "Collaborative patient-provider communication and uptake of adolescent vaccines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 100-107.
    16. Matthew C. Harris & Yinan Liu & Ian McCarthy, 2020. "Capacity constraints and time allocation in public health clinics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(3), pages 324-336, March.
    17. Justin Ko & Hector Rodriguez & David Fairchild & Angie Rodday & Dana Safran, 2009. "Paying for Enhanced Service," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(2), pages 95-103, June.
    18. Jorge César Correia & Alain Golay & Sarah Lachat & Suman Bahadur Singh & Varsha Manandhar & Nilambar Jha & François Chappuis & David Beran & on behalf of the COHESION Project, 2019. "“If you will counsel properly with love, they will listen”: A qualitative analysis of leprosy affected patients’ educational needs and caregiver perceptions in Nepal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-15, February.
    19. Øvretveit, John & Hansson, Johan & Brommels, Mats, 2010. "An integrated health and social care organisation in Sweden: Creation and structure of a unique local public health and social care system," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(2-3), pages 113-121, October.
    20. Mark Helfand & Lauren Saxton, 2007. "Medical Decision Making and Electronic Publishing," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(2), pages 98-100, March.
    21. Matthew C. Harris & Yinan Liu & Ian McCarthy, 2019. "Capacity Constraints and the Provision of Public Services: The Case of Workers in Public Health Clinics," NBER Working Papers 25706, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:spr:patien:v:1:y:2008:i:1:p:11-19. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.