Comparing 3 techniques for eliciting patient values for decision making about prostate-specific antigen screening: A randomized controlled trial

JAMA Internal Medicine

Volumn 173, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 362-368

  Pignone, Michael Patrick ^a,b   Howard, Kirsten ^c   Brenner, Alison Tytell ^d   Crutchfield, Trisha Melinda ^a   Hawley, Sarah Tropman ^e   Lewis, Carmen Lynn ^a,b   Sheridan, Stacey Lynn ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANCER MORTALITY; CAUCASIAN; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL AND STATISTICAL PROCEDURES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; UNITED STATES; VALUES CLARIFICATION METHOD;

AGED; AUSTRALIA; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; ETHNIC GROUPS; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT NAVIGATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84874858640     PISSN: 21686106     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2651     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. American Cancer Society Cancer Facts&Figures 2012. http://www.cancer .org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc -031941.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2012.
2. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(11): 981-990.
3. Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(11): 762-771.
4. Braddock CH III, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999;282(24): 2313-2320.
5. Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, et al International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333 (7565): 417. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE.
6. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(10):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3.
7. Sheridan SL, Felix K, Pignone MP, Lewis CL. Information needs of men regarding prostate cancer screening and the effect of a brief decision aid. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;54(3): 345-351.
8. O'Connor AM, Bennett C, Stacey D, et al. Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5): 554-574.
9. Elwyn G, O'Connor AM, Bennett C, et al. Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi). PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0004705.
10. Wilson TD, Schooler JW. Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;60(2): 181-192.
11. Fagerlin A, Pignone M, Abhyankar P, et al. Clarifying and expressing values. In: Volk R, Llewellyn-Thomas H, eds. 2012 Update of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's Background Document. International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration website. 2012. http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS-Chapter-D.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2012.
12. Frosch DL, Bhatnagar V, Tally S, Hamori CJ, Kaplan RM. Internet patient decision support: a randomized controlled trial comparing alternative approaches for men considering prostate cancer screening. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(4): 363-369.
13. Pignone MP, Brenner AT, Hawley S, et al. Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening.JGen Intern Med. 2012;27(1): 45-50.
14. Howard K, Barratt A, Mann GJ, Patel MI. A model of prostate-specific antigen screening outcomes for low- to high-risk men: information to support informed choices. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(17): 1603-1610.
15. Howard K, Salkeld G. Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value Health. 2009;12(2): 354-363.
16. Howard K, Salkeld GP, Mann GJ, Patel MI, Cunich M, Pignone MP. The COMPASS Study: Community Preferences for Prostate Cancer Screening: protocol for a quantitative preference study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(1):e000587. doi: 10 .1136/bmjopen-2011-000587.
17. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8): 661-677.
18. Bridges JF, Kinter ET, Kidane L, Heinzen RR, McCormick C. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982-2007. Patient. 2008;1(4): 273-282.
19. Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health - how are studies being designed and reported? an update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3(4): 249-256.
20. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health - a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4): 403-413.
21. Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res. 1996;33(3): 307-317.
22. Sándor Z, Wedel M. Profile construction in experimental choice designs formixed logit models. Marketing Sci. 2002;21(4): 455-475. doi: 10.1287/mksc.21.4.455 .131.
23. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
24. Hensher DA, Greene WH. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation. 2003;30(2): 133-176.
25. Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V. Rationalising the "irrational": a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 2009;18(3): 321-336.
26. de Bekker-Grob EW, Hol L, Donkers B, et al. Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Value Health. 2010;13(2): 315-323.
27. Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(2): 120-134.