Exploring physicians and patients’ perspectives for current interventions on thyroid nodules using a MCDA method

BACKGROUND: The detection of thyroid cancer has rapidly increased over last few decades without an increase in disease specific mortality. Several studies claim that the diagnose of thyroid nodules through routine ultrasound imaging is often the trigger for cascade effects leading to unnecessary follow-up over many years or to invasive treatment. The objective of this study was to explore physicians’ and patients’ insights and preferences regarding the current interventions on thyroid nodules. METHODS: An online survey was developed using a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework, the EVIdence based Decision-Making (EVIDEM). The EVIDEM core model used in this study encompassed 13 quantitative criteria and four qualitative criteria. Participants were asked to provide weights referring to what matters most important in general for each criterion, performance scores for appraising the interventions on thyroid nodules and their consideration of impact of contextual criteria. Normalized weights and standardized scores were combined to calculate a value contribution across all participants, additionally differences across physicians and patients’ group were explored. RESULTS: 48 patients and 31 physicians were included in the analysis. The value estimate of the interventions on thyroid nodules reached 0.549 for patients’ group and 0.5 was reported by the physicians’ group, compared to 0.543 for all participants. The highest value contributor was ‘Comparative effectiveness’ (0.073 ± 0.020). For the physicians’ group, ‘Comparative safety’ (0.050 ± 0.023) was given with higher value. And for the patients’ group, ‘Type of preventive benefits’ (0.059 ± 0.022) contributed more positively to the value estimation. 51% participants considered ‘Population priorities and access’ having a negative impact on the interventions of nodules.66% participants thought that the ‘system capacity’ had a negative impact. CONCLUSION: Our study shows participants’ preferences on each criterion, i.e., physician indicated keeping the interventions safe and effective more important, patients indicated quality of life after receiving interventions more important. Through comparison among participants, differences have been highlighted, which can make better communication between physicians and patients. This study provides a supportive decision-making for healthcare providers when they explored the interventions on thyroid nodules.