Literature DB >> 3054396

Use of linear models to analyze physicians' decisions.

R S Wigton1.   

Abstract

Linear models of judgment are powerful tools for studying medical decision making. The recent increase in applications of these models to medicine reflects more available computing resources and the parallel development of clinical prediction rules derived from multivariate analysis of patient data. Psychological research into expert and novice decision making shows that linear models derived from judges' decisions usually predict future decisions more accurately than either the judge or a mechanical application of the judge's stated policies. Studies of medical decision making have shown similar results, as well as marked variation among experts in how they appear to use clinical information. Cognitive feedback, which is feedback to the learner of the judgment model derived from previous decisions, is highly effective for teaching complex judgment tasks. Many technical problems remain to be mastered in constructing linear models of medical judgment. These include how to select the correct variables, how to provide a selection of variables broad enough to accommodate individual variations in strategy, how to model intercorrelated variables, and how to characterize and aggregate individual strategies. Despite the methodologic challenges, linear models remain a powerful method for studying how physicians combine multiple items of imperfect information to make a judgment. These techniques may provide important insights into variation in physician judgments. In addition, they hold promise in teaching the appropriate integration of complex data in the day-to-day practice of medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3054396     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8800800404

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


  10 in total

1.  The correlation of feature identification and category judgments in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  G R Norman; L R Brooks; C L Coblentz; C J Babcook
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1992-07

2.  Impact of feedback and peer review on prescribing.

Authors:  F M Haaijer-Ruskamp; P Denig
Journal:  Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1995-02

3.  Variability in treatment advice for elderly patients with aortic stenosis: a nationwide survey in The Netherlands.

Authors:  B J Bouma; J H van der Meulen; R B van den Brink; A E Arnold; A Smidts; L H Teunter; K I Lie; J G Tijssen
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 5.994

4.  Understanding surgical decision making in early hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Hari Nathan; John F P Bridges; Richard D Schulick; Andrew M Cameron; Kenzo Hirose; Barish H Edil; Christopher L Wolfgang; Dorry L Segev; Michael A Choti; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-01-04       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Diagnostic judgments of nurse practitioners providing primary gynecologic care: a quantitative analysis.

Authors:  G E Rosenthal; G Mettler; S Pare; M Riegger; M Ward; C S Landefeld
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1992 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Physicians' attitudes toward tube feeding chronically ill nursing home patients.

Authors:  S M Von Preyss-Friedman; R F Uhlmann; K C Cain
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1992 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  How do community practitioners decide whether to prescribe antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections?

Authors:  Robert S Wigton; Carol A Darr; Kitty K Corbett; Devin R Nickol; Ralph Gonzales
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-07-12       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  GPs' decisions on drug treatment for patients with high cholesterol values: a think-aloud study.

Authors:  Lars Backlund; Ylva Skånér; Henry Montgomery; Johan Bring; Lars-Erik Strender
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2004-12-13       Impact factor: 2.796

9.  Theories of truth and teaching clinical reasoning and problem solving.

Authors:  Eugène J F M Custers
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 3.853

10.  Do physician outcome judgments and judgment biases contribute to inappropriate use of treatments? Study protocol.

Authors:  Jamie C Brehaut; Roy Poses; Kaveh G Shojania; Alison Lott; Malcolm Man-Son-Hing; Elise Bassin; Jeremy Grimshaw
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2007-06-07       Impact factor: 7.327

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.