Browsing by Author "Dolan, James G."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Can Streamlined Multicriteria Decision Analysis Be Used to Implement Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening?
    (Sage Publications, 2013-12-03) Dolan, James G.; Boohaker, Emily; Allison, Jeroan; Imperiale, Thomas F.; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    BACKGROUND: Current US colorectal cancer screening guidelines that call for shared decision making regarding the choice among several recommended screening options are difficult to implement. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an established method well suited for supporting shared decision making. Our study goal was to determine whether a streamlined form of MCDA using rank-order-based judgments can accurately assess patients' colorectal cancer screening priorities. METHODS: We converted priorities for 4 decision criteria and 3 subcriteria regarding colorectal cancer screening obtained from 484 average-risk patients using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in a prior study into rank-order-based priorities using rank order centroids. We compared the 2 sets of priorities using Spearman rank correlation and nonparametric Bland-Altman limits of agreement analysis. We assessed the differential impact of using the rank-order-based versus the AHP-based priorities on the results of a full MCDA comparing 3 currently recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies. Generalizability of the results was assessed using Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Correlations between the 2 sets of priorities for the 7 criteria ranged from 0.55 to 0.92. The proportions of differences between rank-order-based and AHP-based priorities that were more than ±0.15 ranged from 1% to 16%. Differences in the full MCDA results were minimal, and the relative rankings of the 3 screening options were identical more than 88% of the time. The Monte Carlo simulation results were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Rank-order-based MCDA could be a simple, practical way to guide individual decisions and assess population decision priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening strategies. Additional research is warranted to further explore the use of these methods for promoting shared decision making.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Patients’ preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening
    (Sage, 2013) Dolan, James G.; Boohaker, Emily; Allison, Jeroan; Imperiale, Thomas F.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: US colorectal cancer screening guidelines for people at average risk for colorectal cancer endorse multiple screening options and recommend that screening decisions reflect individual patient preferences. Methods: The authors used the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to ascertain decision priorities of people at average risk for colorectal cancer attending primary care practices in Rochester, New York; Birmingham, Alabama; and Indianapolis, Indiana. The analysis included 4 decision criteria, 3 subcriteria, and 10 options. Results: Four hundred eighty-four people completed the study; 66% were female, 49% were African American, 9% had low literacy skills, and 27% had low numeracy skills. Overall, preventing cancer was given the highest priority (mean priority 55%), followed by avoiding screening test side effects (mean priority 17%), minimizing false-positive test results (mean priority 15%), and the combined priority of screening frequency, test preparation, and the test procedure(s) (mean priority 14%). Hierarchical cluster analysis revealed 6 distinct priority groupings containing multiple instances of decision priorities that differed from the average value by a factor of 4 or more. More than 90% of the study participants fully understood the concepts involved, 79% met AHP analysis quality standards, and 88% were willing to use similar methods to help make important health care decisions. Conclusion: These results highlight the need to facilitate incorporation of patient preferences into colorectal cancer screening decisions. The large number of study participants able and willing to perform the complex AHP analysis used for this study suggests that the AHP is a useful tool for identifying the patient-specific priorities needed to ensure that screening decisions appropriately reflect individual patient preferences.