Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0272989X08317013v1
28/6/888    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bossema, E. R.
Right arrow Articles by Stiggelbout, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bossema, E. R.
Right arrow Articles by Stiggelbout, A. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Evaluation of the Treatment Tradeoff Method in Rectal Cancer Patients: Is Surgery Preference Related to Outcome Utilities?

Ercolie R. Bossema, PhD, Corrie A. M. Marijnen, MD, PhD, Monique C. M. Baas-Thijssen, Cock J. H. van de Velde, MD, PhD, and Anne M. Stiggelbout*

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: a.m.stiggelbout{at}lumc.nl.


   Abstract
Background. The treatment tradeoff method (TTM) has been developed specifically for decision making at the level of the individual patient. The task is tailored to the clinical decision problem at hand and may therefore be more relevant to patients than methods of outcome valuation. Despite its wide use in oncology research, few methodological studies regarding validity have been conducted. Objective and Methods. The present study evaluates the validity of the TTM in rectal cancer patients who had undergone either 1 of 2 surgery types: 1 requiring a permanent stoma (stoma group) and 1 involving a postoperative risk of fecal incontinence (no-stoma group). The authors relate the surgery preference scores to the utilities of the 2 main surgery outcome states as well as to their utility difference. Results. Surgery preference was more strongly associated with the utility difference (r > 0.54 in the total patient group) than with the utilities of the surgery outcome states per se (r < 0.44 in the total patient group). In the stoma group, surgery preference was especially related to the utility of incontinence and in the no-stoma group especially to the utility of a permanent stoma. Conclusions. Patients indeed use their valuations of treatment outcomes states, especially those they are less familiar with, in determining their preference for one treatment over another. In clinical practice, the TTM may be used to obtain an indication of the treatment preference of an individual patient and may also be helpful to detect patients’ motives to choose one treatment over another. Key words: patient preferences; treatment tradeoff; probability tradeoff; time tradeoff; utilities. <I>(Med Decis Making XXXX;XX:xx</I><I>xx)</I>

First published on June 2, 2008, doi:10.1177/0272989X08317013

Medical Decision Making 2008;28:888.

A more recent version of this article appeared on November 1, 2008


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