Evaluation & the Health Professions

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here for free access to the SAGE eReference platform!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Straus, S. E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Straus, S. E
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 25, No. 2, 210-224 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/016327870202500206

Individualizing Treatment Decisions

The Likelihood of Being Helped or Harmed

Sharon E Straus

University of Toronto

Clinical decision making cannot rely on evidence alone. Although significant advances have occurred in the development of high-quality evidence, similar efforts must be made to develop and evaluate tools that can be used at the bedside to individualize treatment decisions and to facilitate the incorporation of our patients’ unique values and circumstances into the decision-making process. These tools should express the helpful and harmful effects of treatment, and it must be possible to modify these statements using patients’ values. Finally, this process should be accomplished in real time in a busy clinical practice. In this article, the author outlines some of these decision support tools, describes an attempt to meet some of the challenges inherent in the goal of achieving effective shared decision making, and proposes a patient-centered measure of the likelihood of being helped and harmed by an intervention and discusses its derivation and an evaluation of its usefulness.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Evid. Based Med.Home page
D. Bassler, J. W Busse, P. J Karanicolas, and G. H Guyatt
Evidence-based medicine targets the individual patient, part 1: how clinicians can use study results to determine optimal individual care
Evid. Based Med., August 1, 2008; 13(4): 101 - 102.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Adv. Psychiatr. Treat.Home page
J. Geddes
Providing the best available evidence: INVITED COMMENTARY ON... THE ANTIDEPRESSANT TALE
Advan. Psychiatr. Treat., September 1, 2006; 12(5): 327 - 328.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
L. Wen, R. Badgett, and J. Cornell
Number needed to treat: A descriptor for weighing therapeutic options
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., October 1, 2005; 62(19): 2031 - 2036.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Evid. Based Med.Home page
A. Marx and H. C Bucher
Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analysis: a word of caution
Evid. Based Med., March 1, 2003; 8(2): 36 - 37.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
S. E. Straus, S. R. Majumdar, and F. A. McAlister
New Evidence for Stroke Prevention: Clinical Applications
JAMA, September 18, 2002; 288(11): 1396 - 1398.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]