PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 3593912

Prescriptive models to support decision making in genetics.

Abstract

Formal prescriptive models can help patients and clinicians better understand the risks and uncertainties they face and better formulate well-reasoned decisions. Using Bayes rule, the clinician can interpret pedigrees, historical data, physical findings and laboratory data, providing individualized probabilities of various diagnoses and outcomes of pregnancy. With the advent of screening programs for genetic disease, it becomes increasingly important to consider the prior probabilities of disease when interpreting an abnormal screening test result. Decision trees provide a convenient formalism for structuring diagnostic, therapeutic and reproductive decisions; such trees can also enhance communication between clinicians and patients. Utility theory provides a mechanism for patients to understand the choices they face and to communicate their attitudes about potential reproductive outcomes in a manner which encourages the integration of those attitudes into appropriate decisions. Using a decision tree, the relevant probabilities and the patients' utilities, physicians can estimate the relative worth of various medical and reproductive options by calculating the expected utility of each. By performing relevant sensitivity analyses, clinicians and patients can understand the impact of various soft data, including the patients' attitudes toward various health outcomes, on the decision making process. Formal clinical decision analytic models can provide deeper understanding and improved decision making in clinical genetics.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S G Pauker, S P Pauker. 1987. Prescriptive models to support decision making in genetics.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3593912/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Antenatal maternal serum screening for Down's syndrome: results of a demonstration project.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the implementation of antenatal screening for Down's syndrome in practice, using individual risk estimates based on maternal age and the three serum markers: alpha fetoprotein, unconjugated oestriol, and human chorionic gonadotrophin. DESIGN: Demonstration project of Down's syndrome screening; women with a risk estimate at term of 1 in 250 or greater were classified as "screen positive" and offered diagnostic amniocentesis. SETTING: Hospital and community antenatal clinics in four health districts in London. SUBJECTS: 12,603 women of all ages with singleton pregnancies seen between February 1989 and the end of May 1991, with follow up of the outcome of pregnancy completed to the end of 1991. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Uptake of screening, detection rate for Down's syndrome, false positive rate, odds of being affected given a positive result, and uptake of amniocentesis in women with positive screening results, together with the costs of the screening programme. RESULTS: The uptake of screening was 74%. The detection rate was 48% (12/25), and the false positive rate was 4.1%, consistent with results expected from previous work based on observational studies. There was a loss of detection due to the selective use of ultrasound scans among women with positive screening results. One affected pregnancy occurred among 205 reclassified as negative; this illustrated the danger of false negatives occurring in this group and lends weight to the view that if an ultrasound estimate of gestational age is used it should be carried out routinely on all women rather than selectively among those with positive results. The estimated cost of avoiding the birth of a baby with Down's syndrome was about 38,000 pounds, substantially less than the lifetime costs of care. CONCLUSION: Antenatal maternal serum screening for Down's syndrome is effective in practice and can be readily integrated into routine antenatal care. It is cost effective and performs better than selection for amniocentesis on the basis of maternal age alone.

Amniocentesis