PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10265981

Two techniques for alternatives analysis.

J E McDaniel
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The two techniques described span the range of problem-solving and decision-making techniques. Brainstorming is a very personal and innovative tool when a fresh viewpoint and creativity are called for. It can strengthen individual and organizational relationships by making staff a part of the solution to problems. In contrast, linear programming is a planning tool that enables a manager to organize facts about problems and alternatives, aiding the manager in planning the action required to translate the conclusions into operational reality. It is an efficient procedure that is particularly effective when results must be precise and will find growing application in health care as we enter the era of contracting for patient populations, prospective payment systems and limited resources.

Explore related subjects

Decision MakingGroup ProcessesHospital DepartmentsHumansProblem SolvingRadiology Department, HospitalJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J E McDaniel. 1984. Two techniques for alternatives analysis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10265981/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Defining patient-based minimal clinically important effect sizes: a study in palliative radiotherapy for painful unresectable pelvic recurrences from rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To measure patient-based minimal clinically important effect sizes (minimal incremental benefit that an individual would require to accept one treatment option over another) for pain relief between two contrasting palliative radiotherapy regimens for painful pelvic recurrences from rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-three patients with a history of cancer pain without prior pelvic radiotherapy participated in decision aid-facilitated trade-off exercises. The clinical scenario and treatment options of a 5-day vs. a 20-day course of radiotherapy were described. The duration of pain relief for the 20-day regimen was increased until the respondents' preferences switched to the 20-day regimen. The exercises were repeated for different probabilities of benefit and pain intensity at the time of decision making. RESULTS: When the probability of pain relief was unchanged, the median switch point for the duration of pain relief was 6.7 and 7.2 months for severe and mild pain, respectively. The cumulative percentage frequency curve for the switch points approximated a sigmoid distribution. CONCLUSION: Determining the minimal clinically important effect sizes for symptom relief for palliative therapies is feasible. This type of information can be used to incorporate patient values into clinical trial designs. Modification of this method can be used to improve our understanding of shared (physician and patient) decision making.

Decision Making↗