Literature DB >> 18480041

When is diagnostic testing inappropriate or irrational? Acceptable regret approach.

Iztok Hozo1, Benjamin Djulbegovic.   

Abstract

The authors provide a new model within the framework of theories of bounded rationality for the observed physicians' behavior that their ordering of diagnostic tests may not be rational. Contrary to the prevailing thinking, the authors find that physicians do not act irrationally or inappropriately when they order diagnostic tests in usual clinical practice. When acceptable regret (i.e., regret that a decision maker finds tolerable upon making a wrong decision) is taken into account, the authors show that physicians tend to order diagnostic tests at a higher level of pretest probability of disease than predicted by expected utility theory. They also show why physicians tend to overtest when regret about erroneous decisions is extremely small. Finally, they explain variations in the practice of medicine. They demonstrate that in the same clinical situation, different decision makers might have different acceptable regret thresholds for withholding treatment, for ordering a diagnostic test, or for administering treatment. This in turn means that for some decision makers, the most rational strategy is to do nothing, whereas for others, it may be to order a diagnostic test, and still for others, choosing treatment may be the most rational course of action.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18480041     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08315249

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  20 in total

1.  Global Health Education as a Translational Science in Graduate Medical Education.

Authors:  Corey B Bills; James Ahn
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2015-06

2.  Threshold analysis in the presence of both the diagnostic and the therapeutic risk.

Authors:  Stefan Felder; Thomas Mayrhofer
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-12-26

Review 3.  Regret in Surgical Decision Making: A Systematic Review of Patient and Physician Perspectives.

Authors:  Ana Wilson; Sean M Ronnekleiv-Kelly; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  A regret theory approach to decision curve analysis: a novel method for eliciting decision makers' preferences and decision-making.

Authors:  Athanasios Tsalatsanis; Iztok Hozo; Andrew Vickers; Benjamin Djulbegovic
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 2.796

5.  When is it rational to participate in a clinical trial? A game theory approach incorporating trust, regret and guilt.

Authors:  Benjamin Djulbegovic; Iztok Hozo
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Extensions to regret-based decision curve analysis: an application to hospice referral for terminal patients.

Authors:  Athanasios Tsalatsanis; Laura E Barnes; Iztok Hozo; Benjamin Djulbegovic
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 2.796

7.  Regrets associated with providing healthcare: qualitative study of experiences of hospital-based physicians and nurses.

Authors:  Delphine S Courvoisier; Thomas Agoritsas; Thomas V Perneger; Ralph E Schmidt; Stéphane Cullati
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-02       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Dual processing model of medical decision-making.

Authors:  Benjamin Djulbegovic; Iztok Hozo; Jason Beckstead; Athanasios Tsalatsanis; Stephen G Pauker
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2012-09-03       Impact factor: 2.796

9.  Dual Processing Model for Medical Decision-Making: An Extension to Diagnostic Testing.

Authors:  Athanasios Tsalatsanis; Iztok Hozo; Ambuj Kumar; Benjamin Djulbegovic
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  How much diagnostic safety can we afford, and how should we decide? A health economics perspective.

Authors:  David E Newman-Toker; Kathryn M McDonald; David O Meltzer
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 7.035

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.