Back to Authors

Gafni, Amiram

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8279-8172

Mayo Clinic

McMaster University

Citations 2

Should Clinicians Deliver Decision Aids? Further Exploration of the Statin Choice Randomized Trial Results
Jones, Lesley A., Weymiller, Audrey, Shah, Nilay D. , Bryant, Sandra C. , Christianson, Teresa J., Gafni, Amiram , Smith, Steven A., Montori, Víctor M. , Guyatt, Gordon , Montori, Victor M

Medical Decision Making | July 15, 2009 | Volume: 29 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 468-474

10.1177/0272989x09333120 Get It

Background. Statin Choice is a decision aid about taking statins. The optimal mode of delivering Statin Choice (or any other decision aid) in clinical practice is unknown. Methods. To investigate the effect of mode of delivery on decision aid efficacy, the authors further explored the results of a concealed 2 × 2 factorial clustered randomized trial enrolling 21 endocrinologists and 98 diabetes patients and randomizing them to 1) receive either the decision aid or pamphlet about cholesterol, and 2) have these delivered either during the office visit (by the clinician) or before the visit (by a researcher). We estimated between-group differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for acceptability of information delivery (1—7), knowledge about statins and coronary risk (0—9), and decisional conflict about statin use (0—100) assessed immediately after the visit. Follow-up was 99%. Results. The relative efficacy of the decision aid v. pamphlet interacted with the mode of delivery. Compared with the pamphlet, patients whose clinicians delivered the decision aid during the office visit showed significant improvements in knowledge (difference of 1.6 of 9 questions, CI 0.3, 2.8) and nonsignificant trends toward finding the decision aid more acceptable (odds ratio 3.1, CI 0.9, 11.2) and having less decisional conflict (difference of 7 of 100 points, CI - 4, 18) than when a researcher delivered the decision aid just before the office visit. Conclusions. Delivery of decision aids by clinicians during the visit improves knowledge and shows a trend toward better acceptability and less decisional conflict.
The Economic Implications of Three Biochemical Screening Algorithms for Pheochromocytoma
Sawka, Anna M. , Gafni, Amiram , Thabane, Lehana , Young, William F. , Thabane, Lehana

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism | June 4, 2004 | Volume: 89 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 2859-2866

10.1210/jc.2003-031127 Get It

Abstract Pheochromocytoma is a rare, life-threatening condition. Using a modeling technique, we studied the economic implications of detection strategies for pheochromocytoma (third-party payer perspective). The diagnostic efficacy of biochemical tests was based on Mayo Clinic Rochester data. In all hypothetical algorithms, positive biochemical tests were followed by abdominal computerized tomography and, if negative, metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy. In each hypothetical algorithm, imaging would be indicated after positive biochemical testing as follows: algorithm A, fractionated plasma metanephrine measurements above the laboratory reference range; or algorithm B, abnormal measurements of 24-h urinary total metanephrines or catecholamines. In algorithm C, subjects with fractions of plasma metanephrine at or above 0.5 nmol/liter or normetanephrine at or above 1.80 nmol/liter would undergo imaging, whereas those with values between the reference range and these cutoffs would undergo 24-h urinary measurements (total metanephrines and fractionated catecholamines) and be imaged if positive. We determined that, if 100,000 hypertensive patients (including 500 patients with pheochromocytoma) were tested, algorithm A (measurement of fractionated plasma metanephrines alone) would detect 489 pheochromocytoma patients at a cost of 56.6 million dollars, whereas B (24-h urinary measurements) would detect 457 pheochromocytoma patients for 39.5 million dollars, and C (combination of measurements of fractionated plasma metanephrines and urines) would detect 478 patients for 28.6 million dollars. None of the screening strategies for pheochromocytoma described are affordable if implemented on a routine basis in extremely low-risk patients. However, algorithm C may be the least costly, and at a reasonable level of sensitivity, for subjects in whom the suspicion of disease is moderate.