The payoff time: a flexible framework to help clinicians decide when patients with comorbid disease are not likely to benefit from practice guidelines
- PMID: 19433991
- PMCID: PMC3077952
- DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819748d5
The payoff time: a flexible framework to help clinicians decide when patients with comorbid disease are not likely to benefit from practice guidelines
Abstract
Background: Practice guidelines rarely consider comorbid illness, and resulting overuse of health services may increase costs without conferring benefit.
Objective: To individualize a framework for inferring when patients with comorbid illness are not likely to benefit from colorectal cancer screening guidelines.
Methods: We modified the "payoff time" framework (the minimum time until a guideline's cumulative benefits exceed its cumulative harms) to increase its applicability to a wide range of primary care patients. We show how it may inform colorectal (CR) cancer screening decisions for 3 typical patients in general practice for whom CR screening would be recommended by current guidelines: (1) 60-year-old man with diabetes, congestive heart failure, lung disease, stroke, and substantial frailty; (2) 60-year-old woman with diabetes and obesity, without other comorbidity or frailty; and (3) 50-year-old woman with inflammatory bowel disease.
Results: For patient 1, the payoff time for CR screening (minimum time until benefits exceed harms) is 7.3 years, and for patient 2, the payoff time for CR screening is 5.4 years. Evidence is insufficient to estimate the payoff time for patient 3. Because patient 1's estimated life expectancy is 3.7 years (less than his payoff time), he is unlikely to benefit from CR screening. Because patient 2's estimated life expectancy exceeds 10 years (greater than her payoff time), she may benefit from CR screening. Because evidence is insufficient to estimate the payoff time for patient 3, the payoff time framework does not inform decision making.
Conclusion: The payoff time framework may identify patients for whom particular clinical guidelines are unlikely to confer benefit, and has the potential to decrease unnecessary health care.
Figures
Comment in
-
Comorbidities, frailty, and "pay-off time".Med Care. 2009 Jun;47(6):607-9. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a5c629. Med Care. 2009. PMID: 19433990 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Can life expectancy and QALYs be improved by a framework for deciding whether to apply clinical guidelines to patients with severe comorbid disease?Med Decis Making. 2011 Jul-Aug;31(4):582-95. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10386117. Epub 2011 Feb 10. Med Decis Making. 2011. PMID: 21310855
-
A framework for tailoring clinical guidelines to comorbidity at the point of care.Arch Intern Med. 2007 Nov 26;167(21):2361-5. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.21.2361. Arch Intern Med. 2007. PMID: 18039996 Free PMC article.
-
Comorbidities, frailty, and "pay-off time".Med Care. 2009 Jun;47(6):607-9. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a5c629. Med Care. 2009. PMID: 19433990 No abstract available.
-
Cutting cost and increasing access to colorectal cancer screening: another approach to following the guidelines.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Jan;15(1):108-13. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0198. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006. PMID: 16434595 Review.
-
Impact of comorbidity on colorectal cancer screening cost-effectiveness study in diabetic populations.J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27(6):730-8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1972-6. Epub 2012 Jan 12. J Gen Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 22237663 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
The application of machine learning for identifying frailty in older patients during hospital admission.BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024 Sep 27;24(1):270. doi: 10.1186/s12911-024-02684-z. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024. PMID: 39334179 Free PMC article.
-
Machine learning for identification of frailty in Canadian primary care practices.Int J Popul Data Sci. 2021 Sep 10;6(1):1650. doi: 10.23889/ijpds.v6i1.1650. eCollection 2021. Int J Popul Data Sci. 2021. PMID: 34541337 Free PMC article.
-
Validation of a 5-Year Mortality Prediction Model among U.S. Medicare Beneficiaries.J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 Dec;68(12):2898-2902. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16816. Epub 2020 Sep 5. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020. PMID: 32889756 Free PMC article.
-
Patient-centred and not disease-focused: a review of guidelines and multimorbidity.Singapore Med J. 2020 Nov;61(11):584-590. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2019109. Epub 2019 Sep 6. Singapore Med J. 2020. PMID: 31489434 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Improving Care for the Frail in Nova Scotia: An Implementation Evaluation of a Frailty Portal in Primary Care Practice.Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019 Feb 1;8(2):112-123. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.102. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019. PMID: 30980624 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Walter LC, Covinsky KE. Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making. JAMA. 2001;285:2750–2756. - PubMed
-
- Tinetti ME, Bogardus ST, Jr, Agostini JV. Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2870–2874. - PubMed
-
- Durso SC. Using clinical guidelines designed for older adults with diabetes mellitus and complex health status. JAMA. 2006;295:1935–1940. - PubMed
-
- Sultan S, Conway J, Edelman D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening in young patients with poor health and severe comorbidity. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:2209–2214. - PubMed
-
- Walter LC, Bertenthal D, Lindquist K, et al. PSA screening among elderly men with limited life expectancies. JAMA. 2006;296:2336–2342. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
