Rating the Preferences for Potential Harms of Treatments for Cardiovascular Disease

Guangxiang Zhang, Puja B. Parikh, Soraya Zabihi and David L. Brown

Medical Decision Making, 2013, vol. 33, issue 4, 502-509

Abstract: Background . The Institute of Medicine has called for a new health care paradigm that integrates patient values into discussions of the risks and benefits of treatment. Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) affects one-third of Americans, little is known about how adults regard the potential harms or complications of treatment. Objective . We sought to determine the preferences of community-dwelling adults for 15 potential harms or complications resulting from treatment of CVD. Methods . In a telephone survey, adults older than 18 years residing on Long Island, New York, were asked to score the preferences for 15 potential harms or complications of treatment of CVD on a scale from 0 to 100. All statistical analyses were based on nonparametric methods. Multivariable general linear model analyses were performed to identify demographic factors associated with the score assigned for each adverse outcome. Results . The 807 individuals surveyed generated 723 unique sequences of scores for the 15 outcomes. The ranking of scores from least to most acceptable was stroke, major myocardial infarction (MI), cognitive dysfunction, renal failure, death, prolonged ventilator support, heart failure, angina, sternal wound infection, major bleeding, reoperation, prolonged recovery in a nursing home, cardiac readmission, minor MI, and percutaneous coronary intervention. Demographic factors accounted for less than 7% of the observed variation in the score attributed to each outcome. Conclusions . Individual community-dwelling adults living on Long Island, New York, assign unique values to their preferences for potential harms encountered following treatment of CVD. Thus, risk-benefit discussions and treatment decisions regarding CVD should be harmonized to the value system of each individual.

Keywords: shared decision making; health state preferences; utilities; valuations; patient decision making; survey methods (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2013
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X13475717 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:4:p:502-509

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13475717

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().