Home > Contents >  Companion Items



 
Info and Chapters
Decision Analysis for Healthcare Managers
Farrokh Alemi, PhD
David H. Gustafson, PhD

Chapter 2: Modeling Preferences
1... 2... 3...

Companion Items

Sample Rapid-Analysis Exercises
Yokabid Worku created a severity index for patients with liver cirrhosis
N. Mansour examined point-of-care testing devices
Jennifer Keefe applied MAV models to hiring decisions
Danielle Joiner also analyzed hiring decisions
S.R. evaluated applicants for an informatics director position
Learning Tools
Download slides on modeling preferences
Listen to a narrated presentation on modeling preferences
Watch an animated example on calculating weights from ratio estimates
Watch an animated example on correlating expert’s ratings and model scores using Excel
Access an online tool for generating case scenarios
Websites of Interest
List of articles on applying MAV utility models to healthcare issues
Article abstract on quality-of-life repository
Google Scholar list of applications of MAV utility models in healthcare
List of references from Corner, J. L., and C. W. Kirkwood. 1991. “Decision Analysis Applications in the Operations Research Literature, 1970–1989.” Operations Research 39 (2): 206–19.
Additional Readings
Coffey, J. T., M. Brandle, H. Zhou, D. Marriott, R. Burke, B. P. Tabaei, M. M. Engelgau, R. M. Kaplan, and W. H. Herman. 2002. “Valuing Health-Related Quality of Life in Diabetes.” Diabetes Care 25 (12): 2238–43. This article discusses the use of health utilities for comparisons among medical interventions that lead to distinct clinical results and their impact on life. The analysis delineated health utilities associated with diabetes and its treatments, intricacies, and comorbidities.
Gold, M. R., P. Franks, K. I. McCoy, and D. G. Fryback. 1998. “Toward Consistency in Cost-Utility Analyses: Using National Measures to Create Condition-Specific Values.” Medical Care 36 (6): 778–92. This article presents an “off-the-shelf source of health-related quality of life scores” that can be used by cost analysts who cannot obtain primary data.
Nease, R. F., T. Kneeland, G. T. O’Connor, W. Summer, C. Lumpkins, L. Shaw, D. Pryor, and H. C. Sox. 1995. “Variation in Patient Utilities for Outcomes of the Management of Chronic Stable Angina: Implications for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team.” JAMA 273 (15): 1185–90. Current treatment recommendations for chronic angina are based upon the severity of symptoms. These recommendations often do not take into account patient perceptions of symptoms and their preferences for treatment.
Say, R. E., and R. Thomson. 2003. “The Importance of Patient Preferences in Treatment Decisions—Challenges for Doctors.” BMJ 327 (7414): 542–5. This article discusses the challenges faced by physicians who are encouraged to involve patients in treatment decisions but must also consider their own knowledge and evidence-based guidelines, which may suggest a different course of action. The authors call for innovative research and appropriate professional training to find solutions to such problems, and they discuss how doctors might face the challenge of involving patients in treatment decisions.
 
bottom