IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v10y1990i1p47-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowing for the Sake of Knowing

Author

Listed:
  • David A. Asch
  • James P. Patton
  • John C. Hershey

Abstract

In evaluating diagnostic tests, traditional methods in decision analysis often emphasize how the results of the test will or will not affect patient management. Clinicians are advised to avoid testing if the results will not alter treatment strategy or other management plans. But patients may be interested in the prognostic information that testing provides even if it is not used to guide treatment. The authors present a model that defines this prognostic information as the expected deviation from the prior probability of disease. The model generates utility functions that are curvilinear over prior probabilities. Whereas the traditional threshold ap proach to medical decision making produces at most three zones of management strategy (withhold, test, and treat), the incorporation of prognostic information into threshold analysis produces two additional zones (test but withhold anyway, and test but treat anyway). Con ditions under which one or both of these additional zones will appear are described. The model justifies the practice of performing tests that cannot alter management plans; it explains the unwillingness of some patients to undergo diagnostic testing when they fear unwanted results; and it provides a method for quantifying the sensitive nature of confidential tests. The model is illustrated using the antibody test for the Smith antigen. This test has a high specificity but a low sensitivity for lupus erythematosus. Clinicians may use the test because a positive result will support their prior suspicion of disease even though they may not change their management strategy if the test result is negative. The advantage of testing in this setting lies in the test's potential for establishing with virtual certainty that the disease is present. Thus, the test is valued for the prognostic information it provides apart from its effect on patient management. Key words : confidentiality; decision making; diagnostic tests; in formation theory; privacy; probability; prognosis; utility analysis. (Med Decis Making 1990;10:47-57)

Suggested Citation

  • David A. Asch & James P. Patton & John C. Hershey, 1990. "Knowing for the Sake of Knowing," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(1), pages 47-57, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:10:y:1990:i:1:p:47-57
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9001000108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9001000108
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9001000108?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. David E. Bell, 1985. "Disappointment in Decision Making Under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, February.
    2. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    3. Brian E. Forst, 1974. "Decision Analysis and Medical Malpractice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 1-12, February.
    4. Harold Bursztajn & Robert M. Hamm & Thomas G. Gutheil & Archie Brodsky, 1984. "The Decision-Analytic Approach to Medical Malpractice Law," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(4), pages 401-414, December.
    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. Russell Golman & George Loewenstein & Andras Molnar & Silvia Saccardo, 2022. "The Demand for, and Avoidance of, Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(9), pages 6454-6476, September.
    2. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    3. Steven J. Kachelmeier, 1996. "Discussion of “Tax Advice and Reporting Under Uncertainty: Theory and Experimental Evidence†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 81-89, March.
    4. Bernd Lütkenhöner & Türker Basel, 2013. "Predictive Modeling for Diagnostic Tests with High Specificity, but Low Sensitivity: A Study of the Glycerol Test in Patients with Suspected Menière’s Disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    5. Peter J. Neumann & Joshua T. Cohen & James K. Hammitt & Thomas W. Concannon & Hannah R. Auerbach & ChiHui Fang & David M. Kent, 2012. "Willingness‐to‐pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 238-251, March.

    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. Raisa B. Deber & Vivek Goel, 1990. "Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(3), pages 181-194, August.
    2. van Dijk, Wilco W. & van der Pligt, Joop, 1997. "The Impact of Probability and Magnitude of Outcome on Disappointment and Elation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 277-284, March.
    3. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    4. Verme, Paolo, 2009. "Happiness, freedom and control," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 146-161, August.
    5. Pierpaolo Battigalli & Martin Dufwenberg, 2019. "Psychological Game Theory," Working Papers 646, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    6. Patricia H. Born & E. Tice Sirmans, 2019. "Regret in health insurance post‐purchase behavior," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 22(2), pages 207-219, July.
    7. Servaas van Bilsen & Roger J. A. Laeven & Theo E. Nijman, 2020. "Consumption and Portfolio Choice Under Loss Aversion and Endogenous Updating of the Reference Level," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3927-3955, September.
    8. Corina Birghila & Tim J. Boonen & Mario Ghossoub, 2023. "Optimal insurance under maxmin expected utility," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 467-501, April.
    9. Zeelenberg, M. & van Dijk, W.W. & Manstead, A.S.R., 1998. "Reconsidering the relation between regret and responsibility," Other publications TiSEM fa17bcac-aab0-4f37-8183-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Chi, Yichun & Zhuang, Sheng Chao, 2022. "Regret-based optimal insurance design," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 22-41.
    11. Lisheng He & Pantelis P. Analytis & Sudeep Bhatia, 2022. "The Wisdom of Model Crowds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3635-3659, May.
    12. van der Swaluw, Koen & Lambooij, Mattijs S & Mathijssen, Jolanda & Zeelenberg, Marcel & Polder, Johan & Prast, Henriette, 2018. "Emotional Responses to Behavioral Economic Incentives for Health Behavior Change," Discussion Paper 2018-008, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    13. Jiakun Zheng, 2020. "Optimal insurance design under narrow framing," Post-Print hal-04227370, HAL.
    14. Zheng, Jiakun, 2020. "Optimal insurance design under narrow framing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 596-607.
    15. Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans & Elena Katok, 2008. "Regret and Feedback Information in First-Price Sealed-Bid Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 808-819, April.
    16. van Dijk, W.W. & van der Pligt, J. & Zeelenberg, M., 1999. "Effort invested in vain : The impact of effort on the intensity of disappointment and regret," Other publications TiSEM 4746cce1-ce4d-4fea-b3c4-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    17. Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 169-188, March.
    18. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2009. "Dynamic psychological games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 1-35, January.
    19. Christian Knoller, 2016. "MULTIPLE REFERENCE POINTS AND THE DEMAND FOR PRINCIPAL-PROTECTED LIFE ANNUITIES: An EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 163-179, January.
    20. Graham Loomes & Ganna Pogrebna, 2014. "Testing for independence while allowing for probabilistic choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 189-211, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:10:y:1990:i:1:p:47-57. 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.