Rating the preferences for potential harms of treatments for cardiovascular disease: a survey of community-dwelling adults
- PMID: 23407665
- PMCID: PMC3749300
- DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13475717
Rating the preferences for potential harms of treatments for cardiovascular disease: a survey of community-dwelling adults
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: health state preferences; patient decision making; shared decision making; survey methods; utilities; valuations.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors report no potential conflicts of interest
Similar articles
-
Incorporating patient preferences into clinical trial design: results of the opinions of patients on treatment implications of new studies (OPTIONS) project.Am Heart J. 2015 Jan;169(1):122-31.e22. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.10.002. Epub 2014 Oct 13. Am Heart J. 2015. PMID: 25497257
-
Nontraditional Risk Factors in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment: A Systematic Evidence Report for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2018 Jul. Report No.: 17-05225-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2018 Jul. Report No.: 17-05225-EF-1. PMID: 30234933 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Aspirin Use in Adults: Cancer, All-Cause Mortality, and Harms: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2015 Sep. Report No.: 13-05193-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2015 Sep. Report No.: 13-05193-EF-1. PMID: 26491756 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2015 Sep. Report No.: 13-05195-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2015 Sep. Report No.: 13-05195-EF-1. PMID: 26491760 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Shared decision-making about cardiovascular disease medication in older people: a qualitative study of patient experiences in general practice.BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 20;9(3):e026342. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026342. BMJ Open. 2019. PMID: 30898831 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Age, knowledge, preferences, and risk tolerance for invasive cardiac care.Am Heart J. 2020 Jan;219:99-108. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2019.09.008. Epub 2019 Oct 23. Am Heart J. 2020. PMID: 31733450 Free PMC article.
-
General Population vs. Patient Preferences in Anticoagulant Therapy: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Patient. 2019 Apr;12(2):235-246. doi: 10.1007/s40271-018-0329-1. Patient. 2019. PMID: 30242575
References
-
- Pauker SG. Medical decision making: how patients choose. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:8S–10S. - PubMed
-
- Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the Twenty-First Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
-
- Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Paterson JM, et al. Primary prevention drug therapy: can it meet patients’ requirements for reduced risk? Med Decis Making. 2002;22:326–9. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
