scholarly journals ADOLESCENT PATIENTS AND THE CLINICAL DECISION ABOUT THEIR HEALTH

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-509
Author(s):  
Marlene Pereira Garanito ◽  
Vera Lucia Zaher-Rutherford
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Electronic Library ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
The Individual

ABSTRACT Objective: To carry out a review of the literature on adolescents’ participation in decision making for their own health. Data sources: Review in the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and PubMed databases. We consider scientific articles and books between 1966 and 2017. Keywords: adolescence, autonomy, bioethics and adolescence, autonomy, ethics, in variants in the English, Portuguese and Spanish languages. Inclusion criteria: scientific articles, books and theses on clinical decision making by the adolescent patient. Exclusion criteria: case reports and articles that did not address the issue. Among 1,590 abstracts, 78 were read in full and 32 were used in this manuscript. Data synthesis: The age at which the individual is able to make decisions is a matter of debate in the literature. The development of a cognitive and psychosocial system is a time-consuming process and the integration of psychological, neuropsychological and neurobiological research in adolescence is fundamental. The ability to mature reflection is not determined by chronological age; in theory, a mature child is able to consent or refuse treatment. Decision-making requires careful and reflective analysis of the main associated factors, and the approach of this problem must occur through the recognition of the maturity and autonomy that exists in the adolescents. To do so, it is necessary to “deliberate” with them. Conclusions: International guidelines recommend that adolescents participate in discussions about their illness, treatment and decision-making. However, there is no universally accepted consensus on how to assess the decision-making ability of these patients. Despite this, when possible, the adolescent should be included in a serious, honest, respectful and sincere process of deliberation.

Causal inference for clinicians

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven D Stovitz ◽  
Ian Shrier
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Causal Inference ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Causal Effect ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Directed Acyclic Graphs ◽  
Causal Effects ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Inference Methods

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) calls on clinicians to incorporate the ‘best available evidence’ into clinical decision-making. For decisions regarding treatment, the best evidence is that which determines the causal effect of treatments on the clinical outcomes of interest. Unfortunately, research often provides evidence where associations are not due to cause-and-effect, but rather due to non-causal reasons. These non-causal associations may provide valid evidence for diagnosis or prognosis, but biased evidence for treatment effects. Causal inference aims to determine when we can infer that associations are or are not due to causal effects. Since recommending treatments that do not have beneficial causal effects will not improve health, causal inference can advance the practice of EBM. The purpose of this article is to familiarise clinicians with some of the concepts and terminology that are being used in the field of causal inference, including graphical diagrams known as ‘causal directed acyclic graphs’. In order to demonstrate some of the links between causal inference methods and clinical treatment decision-making, we use a clinical vignette of assessing treatments to lower cardiovascular risk. As the field of causal inference advances, clinicians familiar with the methods and terminology will be able to improve their adherence to the principles of EBM by distinguishing causal effects of treatment from results due to non-causal associations that may be a source of bias.

scholarly journals A sociodental approach in prosthodontic treatment decision making

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cláudio Rodrigues Leles ◽  
Maria do Carmo Matias Freire
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Critical Problem ◽  
Practice Model ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

A critical problem in the decision making process for dental prosthodontic treatment is the lack of reliable clinical parameters. This review discusses the limits of traditional normative treatment and presents guidelines for clinical decision making. There is a need to incorporate a sociodental approach to help determine patient's needs. Adoption of the evidence-based clinical practice model is also needed to assure safe and effective clinical practice in prosthetic dentistry.

Interactive Video Assists in Clinical Decision Making

1998 ◽  
Vol 37 (02) ◽  
pp. 201-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. E. Waitzfelder ◽  
E. P. Gramlich
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Interactive Video ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Interactive Videodisk

AbstractThe Hawaii Quality and Cost Consortium began a project in 1993 to implement and evaluate interactive videodisk programs to assist in clinical decision-making for breast cancer. Communication problems between physicians and patients, limitations of available outcomes data and varying preferences of individual patients can result in treatment outcomes that are less than satisfactory. Shared Decision-making Programs (SDPs) were developed by the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making (FIMDM) in Hanover, New Hampshire, to assist in the treatment decision-making process. Utilizing interactive videodisks, the programs provide patients with clear, unbiased information about available treatment options. With this information, patients can become more active participants in making treatment decisions. The SDPs for breast cancer were implemented at two sites in Hawaii. Evaluation data from 103 patients overwhelmingly indicate that patients find the programs clear, balanced and very good or excellent in terms of the amount of information presented and overall rating.

scholarly journals Immunohistochemistry for Prostate Biopsy—Impact on Histological Prostate Cancer Diagnoses and Clinical Decision Making

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 2123-2133
Author(s):  
Philipp Mandel ◽  
Mike Wenzel ◽  
Benedikt Hoeh ◽  
Maria N. Welte ◽  
Felix Preisser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Purpose ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Prostate Biopsies ◽  
Impact On Treatment ◽  
Baseline Characteristics

Background: To test the value of immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining in prostate biopsies for changes in biopsy results and its impact on treatment decision-making. Methods: Between January 2017–June 2020, all patients undergoing prostate biopsies were identified and evaluated regarding additional IHC staining for diagnostic purpose. Final pathologic results after radical prostatectomy (RP) were analyzed regarding the effect of IHC at biopsy. Results: Of 606 biopsies, 350 (58.7%) received additional IHC staining. Of those, prostate cancer (PCa) was found in 208 patients (59.4%); while in 142 patients (40.6%), PCa could be ruled out through IHC. IHC patients harbored significantly more often Gleason 6 in biopsy (p < 0.01) and less suspicious baseline characteristics than patients without IHC. Of 185 patients with positive IHC and PCa detection, IHC led to a change in biopsy results in 81 (43.8%) patients. Of these patients with changes in biopsy results due to IHC, 42 (51.9%) underwent RP with 59.5% harboring ≥pT3 and/or Gleason 7–10. Conclusions: Patients with IHC stains had less suspicious characteristics than patients without IHC. Moreover, in patients with positive IHC and PCa detection, a change in biopsy results was observed in >40%. Patients with changes in biopsy results partly underwent RP, in which 60% harbored significant PCa.

scholarly journals The Influence of Personalised Sarcoma Care (PERSARC) Prediction Modelling on Clinical Decision Making in a Multidisciplinary Setting

Sarcoma ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
H. S. Femke Hagenmaier ◽  
Annelies G. K. van Beeck ◽  
Rick L. Haas ◽  
Veroniek M. van Praag ◽  
Leti van Bodegom-Vos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Heterogenous Group ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Made In

Background. With soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremity (ESTS) representing a heterogenous group of tumors, management decisions are often made in multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. To optimize outcome, nomograms are more commonly used to guide individualized treatment decision making. Purpose. To evaluate the influence of Personalised Sarcoma Care (PERSARC) on treatment decisions for patients with high-grade ESTS and the ability of the MDT to accurately predict overall survival (OS) and local recurrence (LR) rates. Methods. Two consecutive meetings were organised. During the first meeting, 36 cases were presented to the MDT. OS and LR rates without the use of PERSARC were estimated by consensus and preferred treatment was recorded for each case. During the second meeting, OS/LR rates calculated with PERSARC were presented to the MDT. Differences between estimated OS/LR rates and PERSARC OS/LR rates were calculated. Variations in preferred treatment protocols were noted. Results. The MDT underestimated OS when compared to PERSARC in 48.4% of cases. LR rates were overestimated in 41.9% of cases. With the use of PERSARC, the proposed treatment changed for 24 cases. Conclusion. PERSARC aids the MDT to optimize individualized predicted OS and LR rates, hereby guiding patient-centered care and shared decision making.

Patellar fractures in cats: Repair techniques and treatment decision-making

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 649-661
Author(s):  
Sorrel J Langley-Hobbs
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Treatment Technique ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Fracture Types ◽  
Patellar Fractures ◽  
Repair Techniques

Practical relevance: While feline patellar fractures are not commonly encountered in practice, they tend to be found more often in younger cats; no breed or sex predispositions are recognised. If there is no evidence of a traumatic aetiology, the cat may be suspected of having patellar fracture and dental anomaly syndrome (PADS). Patellar fractures are easy to diagnose on lateral radiographs and there are several different fracture types. The type of fracture, the age of the cat at fracture occurrence and whether there is suspicion of a pathological aetiology are all relevant when considering treatment technique. Clinical challenges: While some cats with patellar fractures will do well with conservative management, surgical treatment is often indicated and decision-making can be challenging. Evidence base: Information and recommendations provided in this review are based on the literature and the author’s own clinical experience. There are several publications on PADS, but there is limited evidence as to what the underlying cause of this condition is, and the best method for managing patellar fractures is still an area where more research is needed. Aim: This review aims to gather the papers, case series and case reports published over the past few decades in order to discuss how best to manage different types of patellar fractures.

Abstract P214: Patient and Physician Factors Influence Decision-Making in Hypercholesterolemia

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 131 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Krempf ◽  
Ross J Simpson ◽  
Dena R Ramey ◽  
Philippe Brudi ◽  
Hilde Giezek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Goal Attainment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Treatment Recommendations ◽  
Treatment Choice ◽  
Treatment Recommendation ◽  
Double Blind

Objectives: Little is known about how patient factors influence physicians’ treatment decision-making in hypercholesterolemia. We surveyed physicians’ treatment recommendations in high-risk patients with LDL-C not controlled on statin monotherapy. Methods: Physicians completed a questionnaire pre-randomization for each patient in a double-blind trial (NCT01154036) assessing LDL-C goal attainment rates with different treatment strategies. Patients had LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL after 5 weeks’ atorvastatin 10 mg/day and before randomization. Physicians were asked about treatment recommendations for three scenarios: (1) LDL-C near goal (100-105 mg/dL), (2) LDL-C far from goal (120 mg/dL), then (3) known baseline LDL-C of enrolled patients on atorvastatin 10 mg/day. Factors considered in their choice were specified. Physicians had been informed of projected LDL-C reductions for each treatment strategy in the trial. Regression analysis identified prognostic factors associated with each scenario, and projected LDL-C values for physicians’ treatment choices were compared to actual LDL-C values achieved in the trial. Results: Physicians at 296 sites completed questionnaires for 1535 patients. The most common treatment strategies for all three scenarios were: 1) not to change therapy, 2) double atorvastatin dose, 3) add ezetimibe, 4) double atorvastatin dose and add ezetimibe. Doubling atorvastatin dose was the most common treatment recommendation in all scenarios (43-52% of patients). ‘No change in therapy’ was recommended in 6.5% of patients when LDL-C was assumed far from goal. Treatment recommendations were more aggressive if actual LDL-C was known or considered far from goal. When compared with the ‘no change in therapy’ recommendation, CV risk factors and desire to achieve a more aggressive LDL-C goal were generally considered in decision-making for each treatment choice, regardless of LDL-C scenario. Patients randomized to a more aggressive regimen than recommended by physicians had larger reductions in LDL-C: the actual reduction in LDL-C in patients randomized to ‘add ezetimibe’ was -20.8% versus a projected reduction of -10.0% when physicians recommended ‘doubling atorvastatin dose’. Conclusions: This study provides insight into physicians’ perspectives on clinical management of hypercholesterolemia and highlights a gap in knowledge translation from guidelines to clinical practice. Targeting lower LDL-C and CV risk were key drivers in clinical decision-making but, generally, physicians were more conservative in their treatment choice than guidelines recommend, which may result in poorer LDL-C reduction. When compared with actual outcomes, projected LDL-C control was better if physicians used more comprehensive strategies rather than simply doubling the statin dose.

Likelihood Ratio, Skull Roentgenograms, and Clinical Decision-Making

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 673-674
Author(s):  
JOHN C. LEONIDAS ◽  
ANNA BINKIEWICZ ◽  
R. MICHAEL SCOTT ◽  
STEPHEN G. PAUKER
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Clinical Finding ◽  
Posterior Probability ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Skull Fracture ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Negative Finding ◽  
The Individual

In Reply.— We appreciate the thoughtful comments of Leventhal and Lembo and concur with their conclusion that the clinician needs to know "the probability of skull fracture in a patient with head trauma." Unfortunately, their proposed "clinical likelihood ratio" (CR) will not further that end because it compares the predictive value (or, more precisely, the posterior probability) of a skull fracture after a positive clinical finding to the posterior probability after a negative finding. After the patient has been examined, the patient does not have both findings; thus, the CR cannot apply to the individual patient.

scholarly journals QOLP-03. MEASURING CHANGE IN HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE: THE ADDED VALUE OF ANALYSIS ON THE INDIVIDUAL PATIENT LEVEL IN GLIOMA PATIENTS IN CLINICAL DECISION MAKING

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi197-vi198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke Coomans ◽  
Martin Taphoorn ◽  
Neil Aaronson ◽  
Brigitta Baumert ◽  
Martin van den Bent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Scale Item ◽  
Individual Patient Level ◽  
Patient Level ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Abstract BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome in glioma research, reflecting the impact of disease and treatment on a patient’s functioning and wellbeing. Data on changes in HRQoL scores provide important information for clinical decision-making, but different analytical methods may lead to different interpretations of the impact of treatment on HRQoL. This study aimed to study whether different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL result in different interpretations. Methods: HRQoL and sociodemographical/clinical data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined. Change in HRQoL scores was analyzed: (1)at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms over time, (2)at the patient level per scale/item by calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved or remained stable on a scale/item per scale/item, and (3)at the individual patient level combining all scales/items. Results: Data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level (method 1), only the item ‘hair loss’ showed a significant and clinically relevant change (i.e. ≥10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items showed a statistically significant change only (all p< .001, range in change score:0.1–6.2). Analyses on the patient level per scale (method 2) indicated that, while a large proportion of patients had stable HRQoL over time (range:27–84%), many patients deteriorated (range:6–43%) or improved (range:8–32%) on a specific scale/item. At the individual patient level (method 3), the majority of patients (86%) showed both deterioration and improvement, while only 1% of the patients remained stable on all scales. Conclusion: Different analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct interpretations of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for clinical decision-making. Additional information about the joint impact of treatment on all outcomes may help patients and physicians to make the best treatment decision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document