Browsing by Subject "medical decision making"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access A Prospective Cohort Study of Medical Decision-Making Roles and Their Associations with Patient Characteristics and Patient-Reported Outcomes among Patients with Heart Failure.(Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2023-09) Ozdemir, Semra; Lee, Jia Jia; Yeo, Khung Keong; Sim, Kheng Leng David; Finkelstein, Eric Andrew; Malhotra, ChetnaObjective
Among patients with heart failure (HF), we examined 1) the evolution of patient involvement in decision making over 2 y, 2) the association of patient characteristics with decision-making roles, and 3) the association of decision-making roles with distress, spiritual well-being, and quality of physician communication.Methods
We administered the survey every 4 mo over 24 mo to patients with New York Heart Association class 3/4 symptoms recruited from inpatient clinics. The decision-making roles were categorized as no patient involvement, physician/family-led, joint (with family and/or physicians), patient-led, or patient-alone decision making. The associations between patient characteristics and decision-making roles were assessed using a mixed-effects ordered logistic regression, whereas those between patient outcomes and decision-making roles were investigated using mixed-effects linear regressions.Results
Of the 557 patients invited, 251 participated in the study. The most common roles in decision making at baseline assessment were "no involvement" (27.53%) and "patient-alone decision making" (25.10%). The proportions of different decision-making roles did not change over 2 y (P = 0.37). Older age (odds ratio [OR] = 0.97; P = 0.003) and being married (OR = 0.63; P = 0.035) were associated with lower involvement in decision making. Chinese ethnicity (OR = 1.91; P = 0.003), higher education (OR = 1.87; P = 0.003), awareness of terminal condition (OR = 2.00; P < 0.001), and adequate self-care confidence (OR = 1.74; P < 0.001) were associated with greater involvement. Compared with no patient involvement, joint (β = -0.58; P = 0.026) and patient-led (β = -0.59; P = 0.014) decision making were associated with lower distress, while family/physician-led (β = 4.37; P = 0.001), joint (β = 3.86; P < 0.001), patient-led (β = 3.46; P < 0.001), and patient-alone (β = 3.99; P < 0.001) decision making were associated with better spiritual well-being.Conclusion
A substantial proportion of patients was not involved in decision making. Patients should be encouraged to participate in decision making since it is associated with lower distress and better spiritual well-being.Highlights
The level of involvement in medical decision making did not change over time among patients with heart failure. A substantial proportion of patients were not involved in decision making throughout the 24-mo study period.Patients' involvement in decision making varied by age, ethnicity, education level, marital status, awareness of the terminal condition, and confidence in self-care.Compared with no patient involvement in decision making, joint and patient-led decision making were associated with lower distress, and any level of patient involvement in decision making was associated with better spiritual well-being.Item Open Access Quantifying the utility of taking pills for preventing adverse health outcomes: a cross-sectional survey.(BMJ Open, 2015-05-11) Hutchins, Robert; Pignone, Michael P; Sheridan, Stacey L; Viera, Anthony JOBJECTIVES: The utility value attributed to taking pills for prevention can have a major effect on the cost-effectiveness of interventions, but few published studies have systematically quantified this value. We sought to quantify the utility value of taking pills used for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Central North Carolina. PARTICIPANTS: 708 healthcare employees aged 18 years and older. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Utility values for taking 1 pill/day, assessed using time trade-off, modified standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods. RESULTS: Mean age of respondents was 43 years (19-74). The majority of the respondents were female (83%) and Caucasian (80%). Most (80%) took at least 2 pills/day. Mean utility values for taking 1 pill/day using the time trade-off method were: 0.9972 (95% CI 0.9962 to 0.9980). Values derived from the standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods were 0.9967 (0.9954 to 0.9979) and 0.9989 (95% CI 0.9986 to 0.9991), respectively. Utility values varied little across characteristics such as age, sex, race, education level or number of pills taken per day. CONCLUSIONS: The utility value of taking pills daily in order to prevent an adverse CVD health outcome is approximately 0.997.