This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Nease, R. F. Articles by Owens, D. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Nease, R. F. Articles by Owens, D. K. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A Method for Estimating the Cost- Effectiveness of Incorporating Patient Preferences into Practice Guidelines

Douglas K. Owens

Many clinical practice guidelines fail to account for the preferences of the individual patient. Approaches that seek to include the preferences of the individual patient in the decision- making process (e.g., interactive videodisks for patient education), however, may incur sub stantial incremental costs. Developers of clinical practice guidelines must therefore determine whether it is appropriate to make their guidelines flexible with regard to patient preferences. The authors present a formal method for determining the cost-effectiveness of incorporating the preferences of individual patients into clinical practice guidelines. Based on utilities assessed from 37 patients, they apply the method in the setting of mild hypertension. In this example, they estimate that the cost-effectiveness ratio for individualized utility assessment is $48,565 per quality-adjusted year of life, a ratio that compares favorably with other health interventions that are promoted actively. This approach, which can be applied to any clinical domain, offers a formal method for determining whether the incorporation of individual patient preferences is important clinically and is justified economically. Key words: cost-effective ness analysis; cost-utility analysis; utility assessment; decision analysis; practice guidelines; patient preferences. (Med Decis Making 1994;14:382-392)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 14, No. 4, 382-392 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400409


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. D. Sanders, R. F. Nease JR, and D. K. Owens Design and Pilot Evaluation of a System to Develop Computer-based Site-specific Practice Guidelines from Decision Models Med Decis Making, April 1, 2000; 20(2): 145 - 159. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. D. Sanders, C. G. Hagerty, F. A. Sonnenberg, M. A. Hlatky, and D. K. Owens Distributed Decision Support Using a Web-based Interface: Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death Med Decis Making, April 1, 1999; 19(2): 157 - 166. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Richter, M. L. Brandeau, and D. K. Owens An Analysis of Optimal Resource Allocation for Prevention of Infection with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Injection Drug Users and Non-Users Med Decis Making, April 1, 1999; 19(2): 167 - 179. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. K. Owens and R. F. Nease Jr. A Normative Analytic Framework for Development of Practice Guidelines for Specific Clinical Populations Med Decis Making, October 1, 1997; 17(4): 409 - 426. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. F. Gage, A. B. Cardinalli, and D. K. Owens The Effect of Stroke and Stroke Prophylaxis With Aspirin or Warfarin on Quality of Life Arch Intern Med, September 9, 1996; 156(16): 1829 - 1836. [Abstract] [PDF]