Saltar al contenido principal

ETHNOS_APP

Inicio • Búsqueda • Revistas • Lista 0

The Payoff Time

A Flexible Framework to Help Clinicians Decide When Patients With Comorbid Disease are not Likely to Benefit From Practice Guidelines

Datos Bibliográficos

ID9102287
AutoresR Scott Braithwaite (0000-0001-7067-3655, Yale University), David A Fiellin (0000-0002-4006-010X, VA Connecticut Healthcare System), David Fiellin, Amy C Justice (0000-0003-0139-5502, VA Connecticut Healthcare System)
Año2009
Volumen47
Número6
Páginas610-617
Fecha de publicación2009-06-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaMedical Care (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0025-7079 • E-ISSN: 1537-1948
EditorialOvid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1097/mlr.0b013e31819748d5
PMID19433991
PMCIDPMC3077952
OpenAlexW1993794116
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas1
Referencias citadas28

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines rarely consider comorbid illness, and resulting overuse of health services may increase costs without conferring benefit. OBJECTIVE: To individualize a framework for inferring when patients with comorbid illness are not likely to benefit from colorectal cancer screening guidelines. METHODS: We modified the "payoff time" framework (the minimum time until a guideline's cumulative benefits exceed its cumulative harms) to increase its applicability to a wide range of primary care patients. We show how it may inform colorectal (CR) cancer screening decisions for 3 typical patients in general practice for whom CR screening would be recommended by current guidelines: (1) 60-year-old man with diabetes, congestive heart failure, lung disease, stroke, and substantial frailty; (2) 60-year-old woman with diabetes and obesity, without other comorbidity or frailty; and (3) 50-year-old woman with inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: For patient 1, the payoff time for CR screening (minimum time until benefits exceed harms) is 7.3 years, and for patient 2, the payoff time for CR screening is 5.4 years. Evidence is insufficient to estimate the payoff time for patient 3. Because patient 1's estimated life expectancy is 3.7 years (less than his payoff time), he is unlikely to benefit from CR screening. Because patient 2's estimated life expectancy exceeds 10 years (greater than her payoff time), she may benefit from CR screening. Because evidence is insufficient to estimate the payoff time for patient 3, the payoff time framework does not inform decision making. CONCLUSION: The payoff time framework may identify patients for whom particular clinical guidelines are unlikely to confer benefit, and has the potential to decrease unnecessary health care

Comorbidity · Disease · Economics · Guideline · Intensive care medicine · Life expectancy · Psychiatry · Stochastic game · Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention · Healthcare cost, quality, practices · Internal Medicine · Medicine · Primary Care and Health Outcomes

  • Comorbidities, Frailty, and “Pay-off Time”

    Anne E Sales•Medical Care•2009

  • Frailty in Relation to the Accumulation of Deficits

    Kenneth Rockwood, Arnold Mitnitski•The Journals of Gerontology…•2007

  • Clinical Practice Guidelines and Quality of Care for Older Patients With Multiple Comorbid Diseases

    Cynthia M Boyd, Jonathan Darer et al.•JAMA•2005

  • Primary Care

    Kimberly S H Yarnall, Kathryn I Pollak et al.•American Journal of Public Health•2003

Obras citantes distintas1
Citas por año0,06
Intervalo de citas2009 - 2009 (1)
Velocidad de citaciónhistorical
Altamente citadoNo
Tipos de citaNeutras: 1
Ethnos_APP • Proyecto Open Source • Licencia MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidad y Cookies • Documentación de la API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código de la API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código del Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae