IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i1p8-16.html

Partial Personalization of Medical Treatment Decisions: Adverse Effects and Possible Solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Weyant

    (Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA)

  • Margaret L. Brandeau

    (Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA)

Abstract

Background Personalizing medical treatment decisions based on patient-specific risks and/or preferences can improve health outcomes. Decision makers frequently select treatments based on partial personalization (e.g., personalization based on risks but not preferences or vice versa) due to a lack of data about patient-specific risks and preferences. However, partially personalizing treatment decisions based on a subset of patient risks and/or preferences can result in worse population-level health outcomes than no personalization and can increase the variance of population-level health outcomes. Methods We develop a new method for partially personalizing treatment decisions that avoids these problems. Using a case study of antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia, as well as 4 additional illustrative examples, we demonstrate the adverse effects and our method for avoiding them. Results For the schizophrenia treatment case study, using a previously proposed modeling approach for personalizing treatment decisions and using only a subset of patient preferences regarding treatment efficacy and side effects, mean population-level health outcomes decreased by 0.04 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 95% credible interval [crI]: 0.02–0.06) per patient compared with no personalization. Using our new method and considering the same subset of patient preferences, mean population-level health outcomes increased by 0.01 QALYs (95% crI: 0.00–0.03) per patient as compared with no personalization, and the variance decreased. Limitations We assumed a linear and additive utility function. Conclusions Selecting personalized treatments for patients should be done in a way that does not decrease expected population-level health outcomes and does not increase their variance, thereby resulting in worse risk-adjusted, population-level health outcomes compared with treatment selection with no personalization. Our method can be used to ensure this, thereby helping patients realize the benefits of treatment personalization without the potential harms.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Weyant & Margaret L. Brandeau, 2022. "Partial Personalization of Medical Treatment Decisions: Adverse Effects and Possible Solutions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(1), pages 8-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:1:p:8-16
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211013773
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211013773
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211013773?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini, 2016. "In sickness but not in wealth: field evidence on patients’ risk preferences in the financial and health domain," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64764, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Christopher Weyant & Margaret L. Brandeau & Sanjay Basu, 2019. "Personalizing Medical Treatment Decisions: Integrating Meta-analytic Treatment Comparisons with Patient-Specific Risks and Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(8), pages 998-1009, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    2. Izabela Jelovac & Philippe Polomé, 2017. "Incentives to patients versus incentives to health care providers: The users' perspective," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 319-331, December.
    3. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    4. Stefan A. Lipman & Arthur E. Attema, 2019. "Rabin's paradox for health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(8), pages 1064-1071, August.
    5. Biroli, Pietro & Bosworth, Steven J. & Della Giusta, Marina & Di Girolamo, Amalia & Jaworska, Sylvia & Vollen, Jeremy, 2020. "Framing the Predicted Impacts of COVID-19 Prophylactic Measures in Terms of Lives Saved Rather Than Deaths Is More Effective for Older People," IZA Discussion Papers 13753, IZA Network @ LISER.
    6. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini & van der Pol, Marjon, 2016. "Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.
    7. Attema, Arthur E. & L'Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2023. "Decomposing social risk preferences for health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    8. Castro, M.F.; & Guccio, C.; & Romeo, D.;, 2022. "An assessment of physicians’ risk attitudes using laboratory and field data," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 22/26, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    9. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    10. Fredslund, Eskild Klausen & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2018. "Different domains – Different time preferences?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 97-105.
    11. Afschin Gandjour, 2022. "Financial Incentives in the Path to Recovery from the COVID-19 Pandemic," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 5-8, January.
    12. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Machado, Sara R. & Miniaci, Raffaele, 2016. "Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: experimental evidence from a UK representative sample," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67554, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Finocchiaro Castro, Massimo & Guccio, Calogero & Romeo, Domenica, 2025. "Assessing risk attitudes among physicians, medical students, and non-medical students with experimental data," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    14. Lépine, Aurélia & Treibich, Carole, 2020. "Risk aversion and HIV/AIDS: Evidence from Senegalese female sex workers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    15. Martina Björkman Nyqvist & Lucia Corno & Damien de Walque & Jakob Svensson, 2022. "HIV, risk, and time preferences: Evidence from a general population sample in Lesotho," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 904-911, May.
    16. Christopher Weyant & Margaret L. Brandeau, 2022. "Personalization of Medical Treatment Decisions: Simplifying Complex Models while Maintaining Patient Health Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(4), pages 450-460, May.
    17. Stolk-Vos, Aline C. & Attema, Arthur E. & Manzulli, Michele & van de Klundert, Joris J., 2022. "Do patients and other stakeholders value health service quality equally? A prospect theory based choice experiment in cataract care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:1:p:8-16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.