IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i2p183-190.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Fallacy of a Single Diagnosis

Author

Listed:
  • Donald A. Redelmeier

    (Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Evaluative Clinical Sciences Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Division of General Internal Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Eldar Shafir

    (Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
    Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA)

Abstract

Background Diagnostic reasoning requires clinicians to think through complex uncertainties. We tested the possibility of a bias toward an available single diagnosis in uncertain cases. Design We developed 5 different surveys providing a succinct description of a hypothetical individual patient scenaric. Each scenario was formulated in 2 versions randomized to participants, with the versions differing only in whether an alternative diagnosis was present or absent. The 5 scenarios were designed as separate tests of robustness using diverse cases, including a cautious scenario, a risky scenario, a sophisticated scenario, a validation scenario, and a comparative scenario (each survey containing only 1 version of 1 scenario). Participants included community members ( n = 1104) and health care professionals ( n = 200) who judged the chances of COVID infection in an individual patient. Results The first scenario described a cautious patient and found a 47% reduction in the estimated odds of COVID when a flu diagnosis was present compared with absent (odds ratio = 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.94, P = 0.003). The second scenario described a less cautious patient and found a 70% reduction in the estimated odds of COVID in the presence of a flu diagnosis (odds ratio = 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.70, P

Suggested Citation

  • Donald A. Redelmeier & Eldar Shafir, 2023. "The Fallacy of a Single Diagnosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(2), pages 183-190, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:2:p:183-190
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221121343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221121343
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221121343?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donald A. Redelmeier & Eldar Shafir & Prince S. Aujla, 2001. "The Beguiling Pursuit of More Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(5), pages 376-381, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luippold, Benjamin L. & Kida, Thomas & Piercey, M. David & Smith, James F., 2015. "Managing audits to manage earnings: The impact of diversions on an auditor’s detection of earnings management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 39-54.
    2. Ori Shen & Ron Rabinowitz & Ruth R. Geist & Eldar Shafir, 2010. "Effect of Background Case Characteristics on Decisions in the Delivery Room," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(4), pages 518-522, July.
    3. Jörn Sebastian Basel & Rolf Brühl, 2016. "Choice reversal in management decisions: the seductive force of new information," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(4), pages 343-359, May.
    4. Eldar Shafir, 2003. "Context, conflict, weights, and identities: some psychological aspects of decision making," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 48(Jun).
    5. Dai, Xianchi & Fishbach, Ayelet, 2013. "When waiting to choose increases patience," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 256-266.
    6. Eliaz, Kfir & Schotter, Andrew, 2010. "Paying for confidence: An experimental study of the demand for non-instrumental information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 304-324, November.
    7. Jinkyung Choi, 2019. "The Association Between Health Conditions, Consciousness, Involvement, and Knowledge and Dietary Supplement Intake among University Students in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-12, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:2:p:183-190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.