Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 238–240

Evidence, Values, Guidelines and Rational Decision-making

Perspectives

Abstract

Medical decision-making involves choices, which can lead to benefits or to harms. Most benefits and harms may or may not occur, and can be minor or major when they do. Medical research, especially randomized controlled trials, provides estimates of chance of occurrence and magnitude of event. Because there is no universally accepted method for weighing harms against benefits, and because the ethical principle of autonomy mandates informed choice by patient, medical decision-making is inherently an individualized process. It follows that the practice of aiming for universal implementation of standardized guidelines is irrational and unethical. Irrational because the possibility of benefits is implicitly valued more than the possibility of comparable harms, and unethical because guidelines remove decision making from the patient and give it instead to a physician, committee or health care system. This essay considers the cases of cancer screening and diabetes management, where guidelines often advocate universal implementation, without regard to informed choice and individual decision-making.

References

  1. 1.
    Guyatt GH, Rennie D. Users' Guides to the Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Chicago: AMA Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Screening for colorectal cancer: Recommendation statement. 2008. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf08/colocancer/colors.htm. (accessed 9/16/11).
  4. 4.
    Tarasenko YN, Wackerbarth SB, Love MM, Joyce JM. Haist SA. Colorectal cancer screening: Patients' and physicians' perspectives on decision-making factors. J. Cancer Educ; 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. The benefits and harms of mammography screening: understanding the trade-offs. JAMA. 2010;303:164–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gotzsche PC. Increased incidence of invasive breast cancer after the introduction of service screening with mammography in Sweden. Int. J. Cancer. 2006;118:2648.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kerlikowske K. A call for evidence of benefits outweighing harms before implementing new technologies: comment on "Diffusion of computer-aided mammography after mandated Medicare coverage". Arch. Intern. Med. 2010;170:990–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Welch HG. Overdiagnosis and mammography screening. BMJ. 2009;339:b1425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Croswell JM, Kramer BS, Kreimer AR, Prorok PC, Xu JL, Baker SG, et al. Cumulative incidence of false-positive results in repeated, multimodal cancer screening. Ann. Fam. Med. 2009;7:212–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ewart RM. The case against aggressive treatment of type 2 diabetes: critique of the UK prospective diabetes study. BMJ. 2001;323:854–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ACCORD authors. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in Type 2 diabetes. N.Engl.J.Med. 2008.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, Neal B, Billot L, Woodward M, et al. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N.Engl.J.Med. 2008;358:2560–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dluhy RG, McMahon GT. Intensive Glycemic Control in the ACCORD and ADVANCE Trials. N.Engl.J.Med. 2008.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brody H, Light DW. The inverse benefit law: how drug marketing undermines patient safety and public health. Am. J. Public Health. 2011;101:399–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barry MJ. Health decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in office practice. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:127–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schroy PC III. Emmons K, Peters E, Glick JT, Robinson PA, Lydotes MA et al. The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: A randomized trial. Med. Decis. Making; 2010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nelson W, Reyna VF, Fagerlin A, Lipkus I, Peters E. Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice. Ann. Behav. Med. 2008;35:261–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galesic M, Gigerenzer G, Straubinger N. Natural frequencies help older adults and people with low numeracy to evaluate medical screening tests. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:368s–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barrett B, McKenna P. Communicating benefits and risks of screening for prostate, colon, and breast cancer. Fam. Med. 2011;43:248–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc. Sci. Med. 1999;49:651–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sandman L, Munthe C. Shared decision-making and patient autonomy. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 2009;30:289–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stacey D, Legare F, Pouliot S, Kryworuchko J. Dunn S. Shared decision making models to inform an interprofessional perspective on decision making: A theory analysis. Patient Educ. Couns; 2009.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cochrane's legacy. Lancet 1992;340:1131–2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Family MedicineUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations