13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      How patients with atrial fibrillation value different health outcomes: a standard gamble study.

      Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
      Anticoagulants, therapeutic use, Atrial Fibrillation, complications, drug therapy, psychology, Female, Great Britain, Health Services Research, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome Assessment (Health Care), methods, Patient Satisfaction, statistics & numerical data, Stroke, prevention & control, Warfarin

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The assessment of any health care intervention should consider both risks and benefits and take patients' preferences about these into account. The study reported in this paper aimed to elicit patient valuations of health states relevant to assessment of the prevention of stroke by warfarin anticoagulation therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation. A sample of patients over the age of 60 years with atrial fibrillation from three family practices in North-East England was interviewed. Their health state values were elicited using the standard gamble method for general practitioner (GP)-managed warfarin treatment, hospital-managed warfarin treatment, major bleed, mild stroke and severe stroke. Of 180 patients, 69 (38%) agreed to participate, of whom 57 (83%) completed interviews. Median (mean) utility values were for GP-managed warfarin treatment 0.986 (0.948), hospital-managed warfarin treatment 0.984 (0.941), major bleed 0.880 (0.841), mild stroke 0.675 (0.641) and severe stroke 0 (0.189). There was wide variation in values between patients and the distributions were highly skewed. The results are of value in applying decision analysis to groups of patients. They should be used with caution in reaching decisions about appropriate treatment for individual patients, but may provide a starting point for necessary further exploration of those patients' individual preferences.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article