A Multi-Criteria Decision Support Tool for Shared Decision Making in Clinical Consultation

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Pub Date : 2024-11-23 DOI:10.1002/mcda.70001
Ceren Tuncer Şakar, Chloe Keith-Jopp, Barbaros Yet, Christopher Joyner, Adele Hill, James Roberts, William Marsh, Dylan Morrissey
{"title":"A Multi-Criteria Decision Support Tool for Shared Decision Making in Clinical Consultation","authors":"Ceren Tuncer Şakar,&nbsp;Chloe Keith-Jopp,&nbsp;Barbaros Yet,&nbsp;Christopher Joyner,&nbsp;Adele Hill,&nbsp;James Roberts,&nbsp;William Marsh,&nbsp;Dylan Morrissey","doi":"10.1002/mcda.70001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>In clinical consultation, Shared Decision Making (SDM) between the patient and clinician can inform the patient about available treatment options, likely harms and benefits in order to reach a joint decision that accommodates the patient's preferences. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) can be beneficial for this complex problem by offering systematic approaches to elicit preferences for multiple conflicting criteria and evaluate alternatives accordingly. We propose an online SDM tool based on MCDA to guide decisions in clinical consultation where there are multiple treatment options whose outcomes in different factors vary according to the patient. The tool was designed with a panel of domain experts and it enables rapid elicitation of patient preferences and clinician judgements. It is based on Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations II (PROMETHEE II) to produce a comprehensive evaluation of the options. The patient-specific outcomes used in the SDM tool are derived from predictive machine learning models or published evidence. The tool was firstly qualitatively evaluated using a fictitious shoulder pain scenario with three focus groups of consultant and specialist physiotherapists. It was evaluated further with patients via structured interview format. The general response was positive; stating that the tool was informative about options and their performance in multiple criteria, and also useful in making a joint decision. The tool is ready to be incorporated into clinical care and evaluated by clinicians and patients in parallel with existing processes.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":45876,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis","volume":"31 5-6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mcda.70001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In clinical consultation, Shared Decision Making (SDM) between the patient and clinician can inform the patient about available treatment options, likely harms and benefits in order to reach a joint decision that accommodates the patient's preferences. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) can be beneficial for this complex problem by offering systematic approaches to elicit preferences for multiple conflicting criteria and evaluate alternatives accordingly. We propose an online SDM tool based on MCDA to guide decisions in clinical consultation where there are multiple treatment options whose outcomes in different factors vary according to the patient. The tool was designed with a panel of domain experts and it enables rapid elicitation of patient preferences and clinician judgements. It is based on Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations II (PROMETHEE II) to produce a comprehensive evaluation of the options. The patient-specific outcomes used in the SDM tool are derived from predictive machine learning models or published evidence. The tool was firstly qualitatively evaluated using a fictitious shoulder pain scenario with three focus groups of consultant and specialist physiotherapists. It was evaluated further with patients via structured interview format. The general response was positive; stating that the tool was informative about options and their performance in multiple criteria, and also useful in making a joint decision. The tool is ready to be incorporated into clinical care and evaluated by clinicians and patients in parallel with existing processes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于临床咨询中共同决策的多标准决策支持工具
在临床咨询中,患者和临床医生之间的共同决策(SDM)可以让患者了解现有的治疗方案、可能的危害和益处,从而达成一个符合患者偏好的共同决策。多标准决策分析(MCDA)提供了系统化的方法,可针对多个相互冲突的标准征求偏好,并据此评估替代方案,从而有助于解决这一复杂问题。我们提出了一种基于 MCDA 的在线 SDM 工具,用于指导临床咨询中的决策。该工具是与一个领域专家团共同设计的,它能快速激发患者的偏好和临床医生的判断。该工具基于 "富集评估偏好排序组织法 II"(PROMETHEE II),可对各种方案进行综合评估。SDM 工具中使用的患者特异性结果来自预测性机器学习模型或已发表的证据。首先,由顾问和专科物理治疗师组成的三个焦点小组利用一个虚构的肩痛场景对该工具进行了定性评估。通过结构化访谈的形式,对患者进行了进一步评估。得到的总体评价是积极的;他们表示该工具提供了关于各种方案及其在多种标准中的表现的信息,而且有助于共同做出决定。该工具已准备好纳入临床护理,并由临床医生和患者与现有流程同时进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis was launched in 1992, and from the outset has aimed to be the repository of choice for papers covering all aspects of MCDA/MCDM. The journal provides an international forum for the presentation and discussion of all aspects of research, application and evaluation of multi-criteria decision analysis, and publishes material from a variety of disciplines and all schools of thought. Papers addressing mathematical, theoretical, and behavioural aspects are welcome, as are case studies, applications and evaluation of techniques and methodologies.
期刊最新文献
A Multi-Objective Optimization for Determination of Sustainable Crop Pattern Using Game Theory A Multi-Criteria Decision Support Tool for Shared Decision Making in Clinical Consultation Issue Information A Bibliometric Exploration of Multiple Criteria Decision Aid and Clustering—A Conceptual Taxonomy Monitoring Sustainable Development Goals: Stepwise Benchmarking Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1