Skip to main content

Individualized Decision-Making for Preventive Medicine in Older Adults

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Geriatric Practice

Abstract

Older adults require an individualized approach for preventive care decisions. While preventive guidelines are often written taking into account a patient’s age, clinicians also need to consider factors other than age—such as life expectancy, functional status, and patient preferences—when determining whether a given preventive test or treatment is appropriate for their older patients. In this chapter, we present a five-step, person-centered framework for making screening decisions in older adults, using cancer screening as a paradigm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Walter LC, Covinsky KE. Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making. JAMA. 2001;285(21):2750–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Welch HG, Albertsen PC, Nease RF, Bubolz TA, Wasson JH. Estimating treatment benefits for the elderly: the effect of competing risks. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:577–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Justice AC, Covinsky KE, Berlin JA. Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information. Ann Intern Med. 1999:130(6):515–24.

    Google Scholar 

  4. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics.

  5. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org.

  6. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564–75. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.5989.

  7. https://www.cancer.org/healthy/find-cancer-early/cancer-screening-guidelines/american-cancer-society-guidelines-for-the-early-detection-of-cancer.html.

  8. https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Practice-Advisories/Practice-Advisory-Cervical-Cancer-Screening.

  9. https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/Statements/2016/ACOG-Statement-on-Breast-Cancer-Screening-Guidelines.

  10. https://gi.org/guideline/colorectal-cancer-screening/.

  11. http://www.auanet.org/guidelines/early-detection-of-prostate-cancer-(2013-reviewed-and-validity-confirmed-2015).

  12. Lee SJ, Leipzig RM, Walter LC. “When will it help?” incorporating lagtime to benefit into prevention decisions for older adults. JAMA. 2013;310(24):2609–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee SJ, Boscardin WJ, Stijacic-Cenzer I, Conell-Price J, O’Brien S, Walter LC. Time lag to benefit after screening for breast and colorectal cancer: meta-analysis of survival data from the United States, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Denmark. BMJ. 2013;346

    Google Scholar 

  14. Van Zee KJ, Manasseh DM, Bevilacqua JL, et al. A nomogram for predicting the likelihood of additional nodal metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(10):1140–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ross PL, Gerigk C, Gonen M, et al. Comparisons of nomograms and urologists’ predictions in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol. 2002;20(2):82–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Justice AC, Covinsky KE, Berlin JA. Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(6):515–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Inouye SK, Bogardus ST Jr, Vitagliano G, et al. Burden of illness score for elderly persons: risk adjustment incorporating the cumulative impact of diseases, physiologic abnormalities, and functional impairments. Med Care. 2003;41(1):70–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schonberg MA, Davis RB, McCarthy EP, Marcantonio ER. External validation of an index to predict up to 9-year mortality of community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(8):1444–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Flaherty JH, Morley JE, Murphy DJ, et al. The development of outpatient clinical glidepaths. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(11):1886–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Keeler E, Guralnik JM, Tian H, Wallace RB, Reuben DB. The impact of functional status on life expectancy in older persons. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2010;65(7):727–33. PMID: 20363833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roopali Gupta .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Yourman, L.C., Guan, J.Y., Gupta, R. (2020). Individualized Decision-Making for Preventive Medicine in Older Adults. In: Chun, A. (eds) Geriatric Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19625-7_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19625-7_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19624-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19625-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics