Medical Decision Making最新文献

{"title":"Perceptions of Clinical Experience and Scientific Evidence in Medical Decision Making: A Survey of a Stratified Random Sample of Swedish Health Care Professionals.","authors":"Barry Dewitt, Johannes Persson, Annika Wallin","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241234318","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X241234318","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence-based medicine recognizes that clinical expertise gained through experience is essential to good medical practice. However, it is not known what beliefs clinicians hold about how personal clinical experience and scientific knowledge contribute to their clinical decision making and how those beliefs vary between professions, which themselves vary along relevant characteristics, such as their evidence base.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We investigate how years in the profession influence health care professionals' beliefs about science and their clinical experience through surveys administered to random samples of Swedish physicians, nurses, occupational therapists, dentists, and dental hygienists. The sampling frame was each profession's most recent occupational registry.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants (<i>N</i> = 1,627, 46% response rate) viewed science as more important for decision making, more certain, and more systematic than experience. Differences among the professions were greatest for systematicity, where physicians saw the largest gap between the 2 types of knowledge across all levels of professional experience. The effect of years in the profession varied; it had little effect on assessments of importance across all professions but otherwise tended to decrease the difference between assessments of science and experience. Physicians placed the greatest emphasis on science over clinical experience among the 5 professions surveyed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Health care professions appear to share some attitudes toward professional knowledge, despite the variation in the age of the professions and the scientific knowledge base available to practitioners. Training and policy making about clinical decision making might improve by accounting for the ways in which knowledge is understood across the professions.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Study participants, representing 5 health care professions-medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, dentistry, and dental hygiene-viewed science as more important for decision making, more certain, and more systematic than their personal clinical experience.Of all the professions represented in the study, physicians saw the greatest differences between the 2 types of knowledge.The effect of years of professional experience varied but tended to be small, attenuating the differences seen between science and clinical experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"335-345"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10988987/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140141029","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.","authors":"N Morrish, T Snowsill, S Dodman, A Medina-Lara","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241227425","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X241227425","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Understanding service user preferences is key to effective health care decision making and efficient resource allocation. It is of particular importance in the management of high-risk patients in whom predictive genetic testing can alter health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This review aims to identify the relative importance and willingness to pay for attributes of genetic testing in hereditary cancer syndromes.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, Web of Science, and EconLit using discrete choice experiment (DCE) terms combined with terms related to hereditary cancer syndromes, malignancy synonyms, and genetic testing.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Following independent screening by 3 reviewers, 7 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, being a DCE investigating patient or public preferences related to predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Extracted data included study and respondent characteristics, DCE attributes and levels, methods of data analysis and interpretation, and key study findings.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>Studies covered colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer syndromes. Results were summarized in a narrative synthesis and the quality assessed using the Lancsar and Louviere framework.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>This review focuses only on DCE design and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes rather than other complex diseases. Challenges also arose from heterogeneity in attributes and levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Test effectiveness and detection rates were consistently important to respondents and thus should be prioritized by policy makers. Accuracy, cost, and wait time, while also important, showed variation between studies, although overall reduction in cost may improve uptake. Patients and the public would be willing to pay for improved detection and clinician over insurance provider involvement. Future studies should seek to contextualize findings by considering the impact of sociodemographic characteristics, health system coverage, and insurance policies on preferences.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Test effectiveness and detection rates are consistently important to respondents in genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.Reducing the cost of genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes may improve uptake.Individuals are most willing to pay for a test that improves detection rates, identifies multiple cancers, and for which results are shared with a doctor rather than with an insurance provider.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"252-268"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10988993/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139698785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"45th Annual North American Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, 22-25 October 2023","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/0272989x241236400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x241236400","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":"157 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140034383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data","authors":"Sascha M. Keij, Megan E. Branda, Victor M. Montori, Juan P. Brito, Marleen Kunneman, Arwen H. Pieterse","doi":"10.1177/0272989x241231721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x241231721","url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundThe occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.ObjectiveTo assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed.Main MeasuresIn the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION<jats:sup>12 item</jats:sup>) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION<jats:sup>12</jats:sup> as a dependent variable.ResultsWe included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION<jats:sup>12</jats:sup> scores was 7.7 of 100 points ( P &lt; 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION<jats:sup>12</jats:sup> score except for education level ( p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION<jats:sup>12</jats:sup> score ( P = 0.033).ConclusionsMost characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used.HighlightsMost sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making. Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used. SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140034586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Can the General Public Be a Proxy for an \"At-Risk\" Group in a Patient Preference Study? A Disease Prevention Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis.","authors":"R L DiSantostefano, G Simons, M Englbrecht, Jennifer H Humphreys, Ian N Bruce, K Schölin Bywall, C Radawski, K Raza, M Falahee, J Veldwijk","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231218265","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X231218265","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When selecting samples for patient preference studies, it may be difficult or impractical to recruit participants who are eligible for a particular treatment decision. However, a general public sample may not be an appropriate proxy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study compares preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments between members of the general public and first-degree relatives (FDRs) of confirmed RA patients to assess whether a sample of the general public can be used as a proxy for FDRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were asked to imagine they were experiencing arthralgia and had screening tests indicating a 60% chance of developing RA within 2 yrs. Using a discrete choice experiment, participants were offered a series of choices between no treatment and 2 unlabeled hypothetical treatments to reduce the risk of RA. To assess data quality, time to complete survey sections and comprehension questions were assessed. A random parameter logit model was used to obtain attribute-level estimates, which were used to calculate relative importance, maximum acceptable risk (MAR), and market shares of hypothetical preventive treatments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The FDR sample (<i>n</i> = 298) spent more time completing the survey and performed better on comprehension questions compared with the general public sample (<i>n</i> = 982). The relative importance ranking was similar between the general public and FDR participant samples; however, other relative preference measures involving weights including MARs and market share differed between groups, with FDRs having numerically higher MARs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the context of RA prevention, the general public (average risk) may be a reasonable proxy for a more at-risk sample (FDRs) for overall relative importance ranking but not weights. The rationale for a proxy sample should be clearly justified.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Participants from the general public were compared to first-degree relatives on their preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments using a discrete choice experiment.Preferences were similar between groups in terms of the most important and least important attributes of preventive treatments, with effectiveness being the most important attribute. However, relative weights differed.Attention to the survey and predicted market shares of hypothetical RA preventive treatments differed between the general public and first-degree relatives.The general public may be a reasonable proxy for an at-risk group for patient preferences ranks but not weights in the disease prevention context; however, care should be taken in sample selection for patient preference studies when choosing nonpatients.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"189-202"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10865770/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139491998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"International Systematic Review of Utility Values Associated with Cardiovascular Disease and Reflections on Selecting Evidence for a UK Decision-Analytic Model.","authors":"Rob Hainsworth, Alexander J Thompson, Bruce Guthrie, Katherine Payne, Gabriel Rogers","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231214782","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X231214782","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Evaluating interventions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) requires estimates of its effect on utility. We aimed to 1) systematically review utility estimates for CVDs published since 2013 and 2) critically appraise UK-relevant estimates and calculate corresponding baseline utility multipliers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE and Embase (April 22, 2021) using CVD and utility terms. We screened results for primary studies reporting utility distributions for people with experience of heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease, stable angina, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or unstable angina. We extracted characteristics from studies included. For UK estimates based on the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) measure, we assessed risk of bias and applicability to a decision-analytic model, pooled arms/time points as appropriate, and estimated baseline utility multipliers using predicted utility for age- and sex- matched populations without CVD. We sought utility sources from directly applicable studies with low risk of bias, prioritizing plausibility of severity ordering in our base-case model and highest population ascertainment in a sensitivity analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most of the 403 studies identified used EQ-5D (<i>n</i> = 217) and most assessed Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development populations (<i>n</i> = 262), although measures and countries varied widely. UK studies using EQ-5D (<i>n</i> = 29) produced very heterogeneous baseline utility multipliers for each type of CVD, precluding meta-analysis and implying different possible severity orderings. We could find sources that provided a plausible ordering of utilities while adequately representing health states.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We cataloged international CVD utility estimates and calculated UK-relevant baseline utility multipliers. Modelers should consider unreported sources of heterogeneity, such as population differences, when selecting utility evidence from reviews.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Published systematic reviews have summarized estimates of utility associated with cardiovascular disease published up to 2013.We 1) reviewed utility estimates for 7 types of cardiovascular disease published since 2013, 2) critically appraised UK-relevant studies, and 3) estimated the effect of each cardiovascular disease on baseline utility.Our review 1) recommends a consistent and reliable set of baseline utility multipliers for 7 types of cardiovascular disease and 2) provides systematically identified reference information for researchers seeking utility evidence for their own context.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"217-234"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10865747/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139089195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Overestimation of Survival Rates of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Is Associated with Higher Preferences to Be Resuscitated: Evidence from a National Survey of Older Adults in Switzerland.","authors":"Clément Meier, Sarah Vilpert, Maud Wieczorek, Gian Domenico Borasio, Ralf J Jox, Jürgen Maurer","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231218691","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X231218691","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many widely used advance directives templates include direct questions on individuals' preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in case of decision-making incapacity during medical emergencies. However, as knowledge of the survival rates of CPR is often limited, individuals' advance decisions on CPR may be poorly aligned with their preferences if false beliefs about the survival rates of CPR shape stated preferences for CPR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed nationally representative data from 1,469 adults aged 58+ y who responded to wave 8 (2019/2020) of the Swiss version of the Survey on Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) to assess the partial association between knowledge of CPR survival rates and stated preferences for CPR using multivariable probit regression models that adjust for social, health, and regional characteristics. Knowledge of CPR survival rates was assessed by asking how likely it is in general in Switzerland for a 70-y-old to survive until hospital discharge from a CPR performed outside of a hospital. Preferences for CPR were measured by asking respondents if they would wish to be resuscitated in case of cardiac arrest.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 9.3% of respondents correctly assessed the chances for a 70-y-old to survive until hospital discharge from a CPR performed outside of a hospital, while 65.2% indicated a preference to be resuscitated in case of a cardiac arrest. Respondents who correctly assessed CPR survival were significantly more likely to wish not to be resuscitated (average marginal effect: 0.18, <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reducing misconceptions concerning the survival rates of CPR could change older adults' preferences for CPR and make them more likely to forgo such treatments.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Many older adults in Switzerland overestimate the survival rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).The study reveals that individuals with accurate knowledge of CPR survival rates are more likely to refuse resuscitation in case of cardiac arrest.Overestimation of CPR survival rates may lead to a mismatch between individuals' preferences for CPR and their actual end-of-life care decisions.Improving the general population's knowledge of CPR survival rates is crucial to ensure informed decision making and effective advance care planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"129-134"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10865767/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139075731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance: A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences.","authors":"J Veldwijk, I P Smith, S Oliveri, S Petrocchi, M Y Smith, L Lanzoni, R Janssens, I Huys, G A de Wit, C G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231222421","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X231222421","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences and to determine the relative importance of attributes but can be complex and costly to administer. Simpler methods that measure relative importance exist, such as swing weighting with direct rating (SW-DR), but there is little empirical evidence comparing the two. This study aimed to directly compare attribute relative importance rankings and weights elicited using a DCE and SW-DR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 307 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in Italy and Belgium completed an online survey assessing preferences for cancer treatment using DCE and SW-DR. The relative importance of the attributes was determined using a random parameter logit model for the DCE and rank order centroid method (ROC) for SW-DR. Differences in relative importance ranking and weights between the methods were assessed using Cohen's weighted kappa and Dirichlet regression. Feedback on ease of understanding and answering the 2 tasks was also collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most respondents (>65%) found both tasks (very) easy to understand and answer. The same attribute, survival, was ranked most important irrespective of the methods applied. The overall ranking of the attributes on an aggregate level differed significantly between DCE and SW-ROC (<i>P</i> < 0.01). Greater differences in attribute weights between attributes were reported in DCE compared with SW-DR (<i>P</i> < 0.01). Agreement between the individual-level attribute ranking across methods was moderate (weighted Kappa 0.53-0.55).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Significant differences in attribute importance between DCE and SW-DR were found. Respondents reported both methods being relatively easy to understand and answer. Further studies confirming these findings are warranted. Such studies will help to provide accurate guidance for methods selection when studying relative attribute importance across a wide array of preference-relevant decisions.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Both DCEs and SW tasks can be used to determine attribute relative importance rankings and weights; however, little evidence exists empirically comparing these methods in terms of outcomes or respondent usability.Most respondents found the DCE and SW tasks very easy or easy to understand and answer.A direct comparison of DCE and SW found significant differences in attribute importance rankings and weights as well as a greater spread in the DCE-derived attribute relative importance weights.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"203-216"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10865764/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139099092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effect of Mortality alongside 5-Year Survival Rates and Incidence on the Public's Perceived Benefits of Cancer Screening and Screening Intention: A Web-Based Experimental Study.","authors":"Soyun Kim","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231218278","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X231218278","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mortality is critical information in evaluating the benefits of cancer screening. However, 5-y survival rates and incidence, without mortality, have been frequently communicated to the public. Based on the literature that people's perceptions and judgments can be altered by the way of presenting health statistics, the current study examined whether mortality alongside 5-y survival and incidence would influence laypeople's perceptions of the effectiveness of cancer screening and screening intention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In an online-based experimental survey conducted in South Korea in October 2022, 300 adults were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups (mortality: no v. yes) to be presented with 3 different cancers (A, B, and C). The perceived effectiveness of cancer screening and screening intention were measured using 7-point scales for each cancer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across all cancers, participants in the no-mortality group perceived cancer screening to be more effective and were more willing to undergo screening compared with those in the mortality group, although the results were not statistically significant on the intention.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In general, mortality had an effect of decreasing the perceived effectiveness of cancer screening and screening intention compared with no mortality, although the effect on the intention was not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>When communicating the benefits of cancer screening to the public, mortality statistics may play a role in mitigating the potentially inflated perception of the benefits of cancer screening and screening intention.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Five-year survival rates, either alone or with incidence rates, are frequently communicated to the public in the context of the benefits of cancer screening.However, 5-y survival rates can sometimes be inflated without a reduction in mortality.Including mortality statistics in communications decreased the perceived effectiveness of cancer screening and screening intentions.Mortality information needs to be communicated in the benefits of cancer screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"135-140"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139075730","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reporting Economic Evaluations with Value of Information Analyses Using the CHEERS Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI) Reporting Guideline.","authors":"Natalia Kunst, Annisa Siu, Michael Drummond, Sabine Grimm, Janneke Grutters, Don Husereau, Hendrik Koffijberg, Claire Rothery, Edward C F Wilson, Anna Heath","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231214791","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X231214791","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"127-128"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138806859","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}