IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v44y1998i2p149-161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining Expert Judgment by Hierarchical Modeling: An Application to Physician Staffing

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph Lipscomb

    (Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

  • Giovanni Parmigiani

    (Institute of Statistics and Decision Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

  • Vic Hasselblad

    (Center for Health Policy, Law, and Management, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

Abstract

Expert panels are playing an increasingly important role in U.S. health policy decision making. A fundamental issue in these applications is how to synthesize the judgments of individual experts into a group judgment. In this paper we propose an approach to synthesis based on Bayesian hierarchical models, and apply it to the problem of determining physician staffing at medical centers operated by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). Our starting point is the supra-Bayesian approach to synthesis, whose principal motivation in the present context is to generate an estimate of the uncertainty associated with a panel's evaluation of the number of physicians required under specified conditions. Hierarchical models are particularly natural in this context since variability in the experts' judgments results in part from heterogeneity in their baseline experiences at different VA medical centers. We derive alternative hierarchical Bayes synthesis distributions for the number of physicians required to handle the (service-mix specific) daily workload in internal medicine at a given VA medical center (VAMC). The analysis appears to be the first to provide a statistical treatment of expert judgment processes for evaluating the appropriate use of resources in health care. Also, while hierarchical models are well established, their application to the synthesis of expert judgment is novel.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph Lipscomb & Giovanni Parmigiani & Vic Hasselblad, 1998. "Combining Expert Judgment by Hierarchical Modeling: An Application to Physician Staffing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(2), pages 149-161, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:44:y:1998:i:2:p:149-161
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.44.2.149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.2.149
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.44.2.149?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. Park, R.E. & Fink, A. & Brook, R.H. & Chassin, M.R. & Kahn, K.L. & Merrick, N.J. & Kosecoff, J. & Solomon, D.H., 1986. "Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 76(7), pages 766-772.
    2. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1985. "Limits for the Precision and Value of Information from Dependent Sources," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 427-442, April.
    3. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1990. "Unanimity and Compromise Among Probability Forecasters," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 767-779, July.
    4. Dennis Lindley, 1983. "Reconciliation of Probability Distributions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 866-880, October.
    5. Robert L. Winkler & Roy M. Poses, 1993. "Evaluating and Combining Physicians' Probabilities of Survival in an Intensive Care Unit," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(12), pages 1526-1543, December.
    6. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1993. "Aggregating Point Estimates: A Flexible Modeling Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(4), pages 501-515, April.
    7. Robert L. Winkler, 1968. "The Consensus of Subjective Probability Distributions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 61-75, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pennings, Clint L.P. & van Dalen, Jan & Rook, Laurens, 2019. "Coordinating judgmental forecasting: Coping with intentional biases," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 46-56.
    2. Utkin, Lev V., 2006. "A method for processing the unreliable expert judgments about parameters of probability distributions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 385-398, November.
    3. Stephan M. Wagner & Christian Rau & Eckhard Lindemann, 2010. "Multiple Informant Methodology: A Critical Review and Recommendations," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 38(4), pages 582-618, May.
    4. Jason R. W. Merrick, 2008. "Getting the Right Mix of Experts," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 43-52, March.
    5. Zaharias Xanthopulos & Emanuel Melachrinoudis & Marius M. Solomon, 2000. "Interactive Multiobjective Group Decision Making with Interval Parameters," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(12), pages 1585-1601, December.
    6. van Bruggen, G.H. & Lilien, G.L. & Kacker, M., 2000. "Informants in Organizational Marketing Research," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2000-32-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    7. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1999. "Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 187-203, April.
    8. Hurley, W. J. & Lior, D. U., 2002. "Combining expert judgment: On the performance of trimmed mean vote aggregation procedures in the presence of strategic voting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 142-147, July.
    9. Shady ALY & Ivan VRANA, 2011. "Combining the crisp outputs of multiple fuzzy expert systems using the MPDI along with the AHP," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 57(5), pages 217-225.

    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. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1999. "Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 187-203, April.
    2. Paola Monari & Patrizia Agati, 2001. "Fiducial inference in combining expert judgements," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 10(1), pages 81-97, January.
    3. Hurley, W. J. & Lior, D. U., 2002. "Combining expert judgment: On the performance of trimmed mean vote aggregation procedures in the presence of strategic voting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 142-147, July.
    4. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    5. Wang, Xiaoqian & Hyndman, Rob J. & Li, Feng & Kang, Yanfei, 2023. "Forecast combinations: An over 50-year review," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1518-1547.
    6. Patrizio Frederic & Mario Di Bacco & Frank Lad, 2012. "Combining expert probabilities using the product of odds," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 605-619, October.
    7. Joseph Kadane & Javier Girón & Daniel Peña & Peter Fishburn & Simon French & D. Lindley & Giovanni Parmigiani & Robert Winkler, 1993. "Several Bayesians: A review," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 2(1), pages 1-32, December.
    8. David M. Pennock & Michael P. Wellman, 2005. "Graphical Models for Groups: Belief Aggregation and Risk Sharing," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 148-164, September.
    9. James Taylor & Derek Bunn, 1998. "Combining forecast quantiles using quantile regression: Investigating the derived weights, estimator bias and imposing constraints," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 193-206.
    10. James K. Hammitt & Alexander I. Shlyakhter, 1999. "The Expected Value of Information and the Probability of Surprise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 135-152, February.
    11. Li, Yongquan & Zhu, Kaijie, 2009. "Information acquisition in new product introduction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(2), pages 618-625, October.
    12. Esteban Fernández-Vázquez & Blanca Moreno, 2017. "Entropy Econometrics for combining regional economic forecasts: A Data-Weighted Prior Estimator," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 349-370, October.
    13. Fu, Qi & Zhu, Kaijie, 2010. "Endogenous information acquisition in supply chain management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(2), pages 454-462, March.
    14. James K. Hammitt & Yifan Zhang, 2013. "Combining Experts’ Judgments: Comparison of Algorithmic Methods Using Synthetic Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 109-120, January.
    15. Julia R. Falconer & Eibe Frank & Devon L. L. Polaschek & Chaitanya Joshi, 2022. "Methods for Eliciting Informative Prior Distributions: A Critical Review," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 189-204, September.
    16. Weyant John, 2014. "Integrated assessment of climate change: state of the literature," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 377-409, December.
    17. Juliane E. Kämmer & Wolf E. Hautz & Stefan M. Herzog & Olga Kunina-Habenicht & Ralf H. J. M. Kurvers, 2017. "The Potential of Collective Intelligence in Emergency Medicine: Pooling Medical Students’ Independent Decisions Improves Diagnostic Performance," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 715-724, August.
    18. Knut Are Aastveit & James Mitchell & Francesco Ravazzolo & Herman van Dijk, 2018. "The Evolution of Forecast Density Combinations in Economics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-069/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    19. David V. Budescu & Hsiu-Ting Yu, 2006. "To Bayes or Not to Bayes? A Comparison of Two Classes of Models of Information Aggregation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 145-162, September.
    20. Robert J. Budnitz & George Apostolakis & David M. Boore & Lloyd S. Cluff & Kevin J. Coppersmith & C. Allin Cornell & Peter A. Morris, 1998. "Use of Technical Expert Panels: Applications to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 463-469, August.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:44:y:1998:i:2:p:149-161. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.