Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 15520733

Using net present value as a decision-making tool.

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael A Law. Using net present value as a decision-making tool.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amj.2004.08.025

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Randomized clinical trials for cancer screening: rationale and design considerations for imaging tests.

Since the 1960s, there have been revolutionary developments in imaging technology. Undoubtedly, these advances in imaging technology have made it possible to detect most cancers much earlier than they would have presented with clinical signs or symptoms. However, there are harms from screening, including false-positive results and overdiagnosis, and the costs of screening can be substantial. Therefore, screening for cancer must be rigorously evaluated to ensure that it provides more benefit than harm at an acceptable cost. Unfortunately, the evaluation of cancer screening is difficult and susceptible to several forms of bias. Randomized clinical trials are the most valid study design for cancer screening, but they cannot be expected to answer all the questions that arise with the implementation of screening. Decision modeling can be used to extrapolate the results of randomized clinical trials to help inform public policy and individual decision making.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

Physician assistants and nurse practitioners: the United States experience.

Physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) were introduced in the United States in 1967. As of 2006, there are 110 000 clinically active PAs and NPs (comprising approximately one sixth of the US medical workforce). Approximately 11 200 new PAs and NPs graduate each year. PAs and NPs are well distributed throughout primary care and specialty care and are more likely than physicians to practise in rural areas and where vulnerable populations exist. The productivity of NPs and PAs, based on traditional doctor services, is comparable, and the range of services approaches 90% of what primary care physicians provide. The education time is approximately half that of a medical doctor and entry into the workforce is less restrictive. The interprofessional skill mix provided by PAs and NPs may enhance medical care in comparison with that provided by a doctor alone.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗