» Articles » PMID: 22196308

Extensions to Regret-based Decision Curve Analysis: an Application to Hospice Referral for Terminal Patients

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2011 Dec 27
PMID 22196308
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Despite the well documented advantages of hospice care, most terminally ill patients do not reap the maximum benefit from hospice services, with the majority of them receiving hospice care either prematurely or delayed. Decision systems to improve the hospice referral process are sorely needed.

Methods: We present a novel theoretical framework that is based on well-established methodologies of prognostication and decision analysis to assist with the hospice referral process for terminally ill patients. We linked the SUPPORT statistical model, widely regarded as one of the most accurate models for prognostication of terminally ill patients, with the recently developed regret based decision curve analysis (regret DCA). We extend the regret DCA methodology to consider harms associated with the prognostication test as well as harms and effects of the management strategies. In order to enable patients and physicians in making these complex decisions in real-time, we developed an easily accessible web-based decision support system available at the point of care.

Results: The web-based decision support system facilitates the hospice referral process in three steps. First, the patient or surrogate is interviewed to elicit his/her personal preferences regarding the continuation of life-sustaining treatment vs. palliative care. Then, regret DCA is employed to identify the best strategy for the particular patient in terms of threshold probability at which he/she is indifferent between continuation of treatment and of hospice referral. Finally, if necessary, the probabilities of survival and death for the particular patient are computed based on the SUPPORT prognostication model and contrasted with the patient's threshold probability. The web-based design of the CDSS enables patients, physicians, and family members to participate in the decision process from anywhere internet access is available.

Conclusions: We present a theoretical framework to facilitate the hospice referral process. Further rigorous clinical evaluation including testing in a prospective randomized controlled trial is required and planned.

Citing Articles

Decision threshold models in medical decision making: a scoping literature review.

Scarffe A, Coates A, Brand K, Michalowski W BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024; 24(1):273.

PMID: 39334341 PMC: 11429414. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-024-02681-2.


Making Decisions When no Further Diagnostic Testing is Available (Expected Regret Theory Threshold Model).

Djulbegovic B, Hozo I Cancer Treat Res. 2023; 189:39-52.

PMID: 37789159 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-37993-2_3.


Regret in Surgical Decision Making: A Systematic Review of Patient and Physician Perspectives.

Wilson A, Ronnekleiv-Kelly S, Pawlik T World J Surg. 2017; 41(6):1454-1465.

PMID: 28243695 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-017-3895-9.


Expected utility versus expected regret theory versions of decision curve analysis do generate different results when treatment effects are taken into account.

Hozo I, Tsalatsanis A, Djulbegovic B J Eval Clin Pract. 2016; 24(1):65-71.

PMID: 27981695 PMC: 5900988. DOI: 10.1111/jep.12676.


Dying within dying: Ethical dilemmas of treating terminally ill patients with acute life-threatening illnesses.

Siddiqui S Indian J Crit Care Med. 2016; 20(5):308-9.

PMID: 27275083 PMC: 4876656. DOI: 10.4103/0972-5229.182206.


References
1.
Tsalatsanis A, Hozo I, Vickers A, Djulbegovic B . A regret theory approach to decision curve analysis: a novel method for eliciting decision makers' preferences and decision-making. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010; 10:51. PMC: 2954854. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-10-51. View

2.
Teno J, Lynn J, Phillips R, Murphy D, Youngner S, Bellamy P . Do formal advance directives affect resuscitation decisions and the use of resources for seriously ill patients? SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. J Clin Ethics. 1994; 5(1):23-30. View

3.
GREER D, Mor V . An overview of National Hospice Study findings. J Chronic Dis. 1986; 39(1):5-7. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(86)90102-5. View

4.
Mack J, Weeks J, Wright A, Block S, Prigerson H . End-of-life discussions, goal attainment, and distress at the end of life: predictors and outcomes of receipt of care consistent with preferences. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(7):1203-8. PMC: 2834470. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.4672. View

5.
Astrow A, Popp B . The Palliative Care Information Act in real life. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(20):1885-7. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1102392. View