We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Invited Commentary |

Resolving the Decision Aid Paradox

Michael J. Barry, MD1,2,3
[+] Author Affiliations
1Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
2Informed Medical Decisions Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts
3Healthwise Inc, Boise, Idaho
JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):799-800. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.72.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


For most medical treatment decisions, there is more than one reasonable choice. Although bacterial meningitis needs antibiotics, decisions about treatments for conditions such as clinically localized prostate cancer have many options, including observation, radiation therapy, and surgery. In turn, each of these broad treatment categories has variants: watchful waiting, active surveillance, brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy, open surgery, and laparoscopic robotic-assisted surgery. Evidence about comparative effectiveness of these treatments is available but limited, and the preferences of informed patients vary. For such preference-sensitive decisions, geographic practice variation is the rule, reflecting physician more than patient preferences.1 For example, in a report2 from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, population-based rates of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer among men in 306 US hospital referral regions ranged almost 10-fold from 2007 to 2012, from a low of 0.5 to a high of 4.7 per 1000 male Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 to 75 years. Shared decision making, in which patients and physicians collaborate to make decisions about preference-sensitive treatments, has been proposed as an approach to reduce unwanted practice variation, but maintain desirable variation, by tailoring decisions to patients’ clinical characteristics and informed preferences.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

2 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
Are the results credible?

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
Was the Choice of Participants or Observations Explicit and Comprehensive?