Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Jun;47(6):610-7.
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

Affiliations

The payoff time: a flexible framework to help clinicians decide when patients with comorbid disease are not likely to benefit from practice guidelines

R Scott Braithwaite et al. Med Care. 2009 Jun.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Conceptual model of how comorbidity and frailty impact life expectancy and a guideline’s payoff time in modified framework. A, Comorbidity and frailty not only impact life expectancy but also may impact the payoff time of a guideline (earliest time when cumulative incremental benefits first exceed cumulative incremental harms). If the life expectancy falls below the payoff time, then the practice guideline is more likely to result in harm than benefit. Frailty may or may not arise from a comorbidity, and even if it does arise from a comorbidity, it may impart an incremental effect on life expectancy distinct from that of the comorbidity. B, Schematic diagram of frailty trajectory in hypothetical patient. As frailty worsens, it increases vulnerability to death, thereby lowering life expectancy and increasing the likelihood that life expectancy will fall below any particular payoff time.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Schematic of decision rules for applying payoff
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
General schematic of how payoff time may inform clinical decision making.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Walter LC, Covinsky KE. Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making. JAMA. 2001;285:2750–2756. - PubMed
    1. 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
    1. Durso SC. Using clinical guidelines designed for older adults with diabetes mellitus and complex health status. JAMA. 2006;295:1935–1940. - PubMed
    1. 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
    1. 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