PST11 THE USE OF MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION METHODS IN HEALTH CARE. DOES METHOD USED INFLUENCE OUTCOME?

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how the choice of multicriteria decision method influences outcome (ranking criteria and criteria weights). Population. A convenience sample of 28 subjects, 12 healthy and 16 cognitively impaired. METHODS: Based on a literature review, 5 multicriteria methods were chosen for comparison including: Kepner-tregoe analysis (KTA), simple multi attribute rating technique (SMART), SMART using swing weights (SWING), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Conjoint Analysis (CA). Four attributes of treatment were identified (impact, duration, and end-result of treatment and associated risks). Subjects were asked to both rank and rate the importance of these attributes with each method. The order of methods was randomized and the total length of the interview was restricted to one hour. Some subjects therefore did not use all methods. Subjects were interviewed either once (n = 14) or twice (n = 14) (Only the results of the first measurement are presented) RESULTS: The highest percentages of rank reversals were found between CA and other methods (55–62%). The lowest percentage of rank reversals was between KTA and SMART (18%). The percentage of rank reversals was significantly higher in impaired population (An average of 54% compared to 36% in unimpaired population). When comparing actual weights, AHP and SMART correlate highly with all other methods except CA. CONCLUSIONS: The high percentages in rank reversal and divergent correlation between individual weights (especially CA compared to other methods) show that the method chosen influences outcome. This has to be taken into account when the ranks or weights are used in multi-criteria decision analysis to make actual treatment decisions. The dissimilar methodology of CA might explain the high percentages of rank-reversals and low correlation between this method and other. Also, the design of the survey might have influenced CA weights and ranking

Assessing collaborative efforts of making care fit for each patient – A systematic review

Introduction: For too many people, their care plans are designed without fully accounting for who they are, the lives they live, what matters to them or what they aspire to achieve. We aimed to summarize instruments capable of measuring dimensions of patient–clinician collaboration to make care fit. Methods: We systematically searched several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to September 2021 for studies using quantitative measures to assess, evaluate or rate the work of making care fit by any participant in real-life clinical encounters. Eligibility was assessed in duplicate. After extracting all items from relevant instruments, we coded them deductively on dimensions relevant to making care fit (as presented in a recent Making Care Fit Manifesto), and inductively on the main action described. Results: We included 189 papers, mostly from North America (N = 83, 44%) and in the context of primary care (N = 54, 29%). Half of the papers (N = 88, 47%) were published in the last 5 years. We found 1243 relevant items to assess efforts of making care fit, included within 151 instruments. Most items related to the dimensions ‘Patient-clinician collaboration: content’ (N = 396, 32%) and ‘Patient-clinician collaboration: manner’ (N = 382, 31%) and the least related to ‘Ongoing and iterative process’ (N = 22, 2%) and in ‘Minimally disruptive of patient lives’ (N = 29, 2%). The items referred to 27 specific actions. Most items referred to ‘Informing’ (N = 308, 25%) and ‘Exploring’ (N = 93, 8%), the fewest items referred to ‘Following up’, ‘Comforting’ and ‘Praising’ (each N = 3, 0.2%). Discussion: Measures of the work that patients and clinicians do together to make care fit focus heavily on the content of their collaborations, particularly on exchanging information. Other dimensions and actions previously identified as crucial to making care fit are assessed infrequently or not at all. The breadth of extant measures of making care fit and the lack of appropriate measures of this key construct limit both the assessment and the successful implementation of efforts to improve patient care. Patient Contribution: Patients and caregivers from the ‘Making care fit Collaborative’ were involved in drafting the dimensions relevant to patient–clinician collaboration

Benefit from preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment: disease-free patients' and oncologists' preferences

Preoperative radiotherapy (PRT) in resectable rectal cancer improves local control but increases probability of faecal incontinence and sexual dysfunction. Consensus was reached in 2001 in the Netherlands on a guideline advising PRT to new patients. Purpose was to assess at what benefit oncologists and rectal cancer patients prefer PRT followed by surgery to surgery alone, and how oncologists and patients value various treatment outcomes. Sixty-six disease-free patients and 60 oncologists (surgical, radiation, medical) were interviewed. Minimally desired benefit from PRT (local control) was assessed using the Treatment Tradeoff Method. Importance of survival, local control, faecal incontinence, and sexual dysfunction in determining treatment outcome preferences was assessed using Adaptive Conjoint Analysis. The range of required benefit from PRT varied widely within participant groups. Seventeen percent of patients would choose PRT at a 0% benefit; 11% would not choose PRT for the maximum benefit of 11%. Mean minimally desired benefit excluding these two groups was 4%. For oncologists, the required benefit was 5%. Also, how strongly participants valued treatment outcomes varied widely within groups. Of the four outcomes, participants considered incontinence most often as most important. Relative treatment outcome importance differed between specialties. Patients considered sexual functioning more important than oncologists. Large differences in treatment preferences exist between individual patients and oncologists. Oncologists should adequately inform their patients about the risks and benefits of PRT, and elicit patient preferences regarding treatment outcomes

Palliative chemotherapy or best supportive care? A prospective study explaining patients' treatment preference and choice

Item does not contain fulltextIn palliative cancer treatment, the choice between palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care may be difficult. In the decision-making process, giving information as well as patients' values and preferences become important issues. Patients, however, may have a treatment preference before they even meet their medical oncologist. An insight into the patient's decision-making process can support clinicians having to inform their patients. Patients (n=207) with metastatic cancer, aged 18 years or older, able to speak Dutch, for whom palliative chemotherapy was a treatment option, were eligible for the study. We assessed the following before they consulted their medical oncologist: (1) socio-demographic characteristics, (2) disease-related variables, (3) quality-of-life indices, (4) attitudes and (5) preferences for treatment, information and participation in decision-making. The actual treatment decision, assessed after it had been made, was the main study outcome. Of 207 eligible patients, 140 patients (68%) participated in the study. At baseline, 68% preferred to undergo chemotherapy rather than wait watchfully. Eventually, 78% chose chemotherapy. Treatment preference (odds ratio (OR)=10.3, confidence interval (CI) 2.8-38.0) and a deferring style of decision-making (OR=4.9, CI 1.4-17.2) best predicted the actual treatment choice. Treatment preference (total explained variance=38.2%) was predicted, in turn, by patients' striving for length of life (29.5%), less striving for quality of life (6.1%) and experienced control over the cause of disease (2.6%). Patients' actual treatment choice was most strongly predicted by their preconsultation treatment preference. Since treatment preference is positively explained by striving for length of life, and negatively by striving for quality of life, it is questionable whether the purpose of palliative treatment is made clear. This, paradoxically, emphasises the need for further attention to the process of information giving and shared decision-making

Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: patients' utilities and treatment preferences

To assess patients' utilities for health state outcomes after transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer and to investigate the patients' treatment preferences for either procedure. The study group consisted of 48 patients who had undergone either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy. In an interview they were presented with eight possible health states following oesophagectomy. Visual Analogue Scale and standard gamble techniques were used to measure utilities. Treatment preference for either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy was assessed. Highest scores were found for the patients' own current health state (Visual Analogue Scale: 0.77; standard gamble: 0.97). Lowest scores were elicited for the health state ‘irresectable tumour’ (Visual Analogue Scale: 0.13; standard gamble: 0.34). The Visual Analogue Scale method produced lower estimates (P<0.001) than the standard gamble method for all health states. Most patient characteristics and clinical factors did not correlate with the utilities. Ninety-five per cent of patients who underwent a transthoracic procedure and 52% of patients who underwent a transhiatal resection would prefer the transthoracic treatment. No significant associations between any patient characteristics or clinical characteristics and treatment preference were found. Utilities after transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy were robust because they generally did not vary by patient or clinical characteristics. Overall, most patients preferred the transthoracic procedure

Mechanisms of improved survival from intensive followup in colorectal cancer: a hypothesis

A meta-analysis of six randomised trials demonstrated that intensive followup in colorectal cancer was associated with an absolute reduction in all-cause 5-year mortality of 10% (95% confidence interval (CI): 4–16) – however, only two percent (95% CI: 0–5) was attributable to cure from salvage re-operations. We postulate that other factors, such as increased psychological well-being and/or altered lifestyle, and/or improved treatment of coincidental disease may contribute to the remaining lives saved, and form important future research questions

Patient's needs and preferences in routine follow-up after treatment for breast cancer

The purpose of the study was to analyse the needs of women who participated in a routine follow-up programme after treatment for primary breast cancer. A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a postal questionnaire among women without any sign of relapse during the routine follow-up period. The questionnaire was sent 2-4 years after primary surgical treatment. Most important to patients was information on long-term effects of treatment and prognosis, discussion of prevention of breast cancer and hereditary factors and changes in the untreated breast. Patients preferred additional investigations (such as X-ray and blood tests) to be part of routine follow-up visits. Less satisfaction with interpersonal aspects and higher scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scale were related to stronger preferences for additional investigation. Receiving adjuvant hormonal or radiotherapy was related to a preference for a more intensive follow-up schedule. There were no significant differences between patients treated with mastectomy compared to treated with breast-conserving therapy. During routine follow-up after a diagnosis of breast cancer, not all patients needed all types of information. When introducing alternative follow-up schedules, individual patients' information needs and preferences should be identified early and incorporated into the follow-up routine care, to target resources and maximise the likelihood that positive patient outcomes will result

Women’s preference for laparoscopic or abdominal hysterectomy

In the present study, women’s preferences on advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH) have been studied. Patients’ preferences were evaluated in individual, structured interviews in women scheduled for hysterectomy and questionnaires in nurses. Forty-three patients and 39 nurses were included. After general information, 84% of patients and 74% of nurses preferred LH over AH. This preference did not change after supplying more detailed information or after hysterectomy. The avoidance of complications was indicated as the most important factor in the decision. More than half of the women evaluated a difference of 1% as the maximum acceptable risk of major complications. When confronted with scenarios based on current evidence, both patients and nurses prefer LH over AH. This study supports further implementation of LH in clinical practice. The actual major complication rate in hysterectomy, however, is perceived as high

The relationship between smoking and quality of life in advanced lung cancer patients: a prospective longitudinal study.

PURPOSE: Smoking is a major cause of lung cancer, and continued smoking may compromise treatment efficacy and quality of life (health-related quality of life (HRQoL)) in patients with advanced lung cancer. Our aims were to determine (i) preference for treatments which promote quality over length of life depending on smoking status, (ii) the relationship between HRQoL and smoking status at diagnosis (T1), after controlling for demographic and clinical variables, and (iii) changes in HRQoL 6 months after diagnosis (T2) depending on smoking status. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-six patients with advanced lung cancer were given questionnaires to assess HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30), time-trade-off for life quality versus quantity (QQQ) and smoking history (current, former or never smoker) at diagnosis (T1) and 6 months later (T2). Medical data were extracted from case records. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 202 (68.2 %) patients at T1 and 114 (53.3 %) at T2. Patients favoured treatments that would enhance quality of life over increased longevity. Those who continued smoking after diagnosis reported worse HRQoL than former smokers or those who never smoked. Smoking status was a significant independent predictor of coughing in T1 (worse in smokers) and cognitive functioning in T2 (better in never smokers). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking by patients with advanced lung cancer is associated with worse symptoms on diagnosis and poorer HRQoL for those who continue smoking. The results have implications to help staff explain the consequences of smoking to patients