Andrea R Beyer1, Barbara Fasolo2, P A de Graeff3, H L Hillege3. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; European Medicines Agency, London, UK. Electronic address: a.r.m.beyer@umcg.nl. 2. London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk attitudes and personality traits are known predictors of decision making among laypersons, but very little is known of their influence among experts participating in organizational decision making. METHODS: Seventy-five European medical assessors were assessed in a field study using the Domain Specific Risk Taking scale and the Big Five Inventory scale. Assessors rated the risks and benefits for a mock "clinical dossier" specific to their area of expertise, and ordinal regression models were used to assess the odds of risk attitude or personality traits in predicting either the benefit or the risk ratings. RESULTS: An increase in the "conscientiousness" score predicted an increase in the perception of the drug's benefit, and male assessors gave higher scores for the drug's benefit ratings than did female assessors. Extraverted assessors saw fewer risks, and assessors with a perceived neutral-averse or averse risk profile saw greater risks. CONCLUSIONS: Medical assessors perceive the benefits and risks of medicines via a complex interplay of the medical situation, their personality traits and even their gender. Further research in this area is needed to determine how these potential biases are managed within the regulatory setting.
BACKGROUND: Risk attitudes and personality traits are known predictors of decision making among laypersons, but very little is known of their influence among experts participating in organizational decision making. METHODS: Seventy-five European medical assessors were assessed in a field study using the Domain Specific Risk Taking scale and the Big Five Inventory scale. Assessors rated the risks and benefits for a mock "clinical dossier" specific to their area of expertise, and ordinal regression models were used to assess the odds of risk attitude or personality traits in predicting either the benefit or the risk ratings. RESULTS: An increase in the "conscientiousness" score predicted an increase in the perception of the drug's benefit, and male assessors gave higher scores for the drug's benefit ratings than did female assessors. Extraverted assessors saw fewer risks, and assessors with a perceived neutral-averse or averse risk profile saw greater risks. CONCLUSIONS: Medical assessors perceive the benefits and risks of medicines via a complex interplay of the medical situation, their personality traits and even their gender. Further research in this area is needed to determine how these potential biases are managed within the regulatory setting.