IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v22y2002i5p394-402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Choosing a Treatment Depend on Making a Diagnosis? US and French Physicians’ Decision Making about Acute Otitis Media

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Clay Sorum

    (Departments of Medicine and Pediatrics, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York)

  • Thomas R. Stewart

    (Center for Policy Research, University of Albany, Albany, New York)

  • Etienne Mullet

    (École Pratique des Hautes Études, Toulouse, France)

  • Claudia González-Vallejo

    (Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio)

  • Junseop Shim

    (Center for Policy Research, University of Albany, Albany, New York)

  • Gérard Chasseigne

    (Département de Psychologie, Université François-Rabelais, Tours, France)

  • María Teresa Muñoz Sastre

    (Département de Psychologie, Université du Mirail, Toulouse, France)

  • Bernard Grenier

    (Faculté de Médecine, Tours, France)

Abstract

Background . The classic sequential processing model of clinical decision making—in which the treatment choice follows and depends on the diagnostic judgment—may in some cases be replaced by a processing model in which the treatment choice depends on an independent assessment of the diagnostic and other cues. The aim of this study was to determine which processing model would better describe physicians’ treatment choices in a simulated clinical task. Methods . Seventy-five US and French primary care physicians were presented twice, in a different order, with the same set of 46 scenarios of 15-month-old children suspected of having acute otitis media (AOM). They rated in one set the probability of AOM and in the other set whether they would treat the child with antibiotics (and how confident they felt in their decision). Linear regression analyses revealed the individuals’ 2 judgment policies. Hierarchical discriminant analysis was used to analyze the variance explained in the treatment choice by, 1st, the diagnostic judgment, 2nd, the cues specific to treatment, and 3rd, the cues specific to diagnosis. Results . Even when choosing treatment, the participants placed greatest weight on diagnostic cues, especially the ear findings. Only 28% used the cues that reflected parental issues. For 36%, the diagnostic cues had an effect on the treatment choice independent of the effect (if any) of the diagnostic judgment. Conclusion . In deciding how to treat AOM, the majority of the participating US and French primary care physicians followed the classic sequential processing model, but a substantial minority used instead an independent processing model.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Clay Sorum & Thomas R. Stewart & Etienne Mullet & Claudia González-Vallejo & Junseop Shim & Gérard Chasseigne & María Teresa Muñoz Sastre & Bernard Grenier, 2002. "Does Choosing a Treatment Depend on Making a Diagnosis? US and French Physicians’ Decision Making about Acute Otitis Media," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(5), pages 394-402, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:22:y:2002:i:5:p:394-402
    DOI: 10.1177/027298902236941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/027298902236941
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/027298902236941?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. Goldstein,William M. & Hogarth,Robin M. (ed.), 1997. "Research on Judgment and Decision Making," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521483346.
    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. Yoav Ganzach & Moshe Leshno, 2007. "On the appropriateness of appropriateness judgments: The case of interferon treatment for melanoma," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 70-78, February.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:70-78 is not listed 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. Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "Investigating intuitive and deliberate processes statistically: The multiple-measure maximum likelihood strategy classification method," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(3), pages 186-199, April.
    2. McKenzie, Craig R.M. & Liersch, Michael J. & Yaniv, Ilan, 2008. "Overconfidence in interval estimates: What does expertise buy you?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 179-191, November.
    3. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How Distinct are Intuition and Deliberation? An Eye-Tracking Analysis of Instruction-Induced Decision Modes," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    4. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Reasonable patient care under uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1397-1421, October.
    5. Momi Dahan & Tehila Kogut & Moshe Shalem, 2009. "Do Economic Policymakers Practice what they Preach? The Case of Pension Decisions," CESifo Working Paper Series 2783, CESifo.
    6. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2006. "Regions of Rationality: Maps for Bounded Agents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 124-144, September.
    7. Andersson, Patric, 2005. "Overconfident but yet well-calibrated and underconfident : a research not on judgmental miscalibration and flawed self-assessment," Papers 05-37, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    8. Charles F. Manski, 2016. "Credible Ecological Inference for Personalized Medicine: Formalizing Clinical Judgment," NBER Working Papers 22643, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Yoav Ganzach, 2009. "Coherence and correspondence in the psychological analysis of numerical predictions: How error-prone heuristics are replaced by ecologically valid heuristics," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(2), pages 175-185, March.
    10. Ben Newell & Arndt Bröder, 2008. "Cognitive processes, models and metaphors in decision research," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 195-204, March.
    11. D.Dragone, 2005. "Incoerenza Dinamica ed Autocontrollo: Proposta per un'Analisi Interdisciplinare," Working Papers 549, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    12. Engel, Christoph & Weber, Elke U., 2007. "The impact of institutions on the decision how to decide," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 323-349, December.
    13. Dubard Barbosa, Saulo & Fayolle, Alain & Smith, Brett R., 2019. "Biased and overconfident, unbiased but going for it: How framing and anchoring affect the decision to start a new venture," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 528-557.
    14. Jongbin Jung & Connor Concannon & Ravi Shroff & Sharad Goel & Daniel G. Goldstein, 2020. "Simple rules to guide expert classifications," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(3), pages 771-800, June.
    15. Jean Stockard & Robert M. O'Brien & Ellen Peters, 2007. "The use of mixed models in a modified Iowa Gambling Task and a prisoner's dilemma game," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 9-22, February.
    16. Michel Barabel & Olivier Meier, 2002. "Biais cognitifs du dirigeant, conséquences et facteurs de renforcement lors de fusions-acquisitions:synthèse et illustrations," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 5(1), pages 5-42, March.
    17. Vandegrift, Donald & Brown, Paul, 2005. "Gender differences in the use of high-variance strategies in tournament competition," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 834-849, December.
    18. Andersson, Patric, 2003. "Winning decisions: How to make the right decision the first time, J. Edward Russo and Paul J.H. Schoemaker, 2002, Piatkus Publishing Limited, London (paperback), p. 340, ISBN: 07499 2285 0, [UK pound]," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 795-797, December.
    19. Lívia Markóczy & Jeff Goldberg, 1999. "Management, organization and human nature: an introduction," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(7-8), pages 387-409.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:195-204 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:5:p:335-354 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Clintin P. Davis-Stober & Nicholas Brown, 2011. "A shift in strategy or "error"? Strategy classification over multiple stochastic specifications," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 800-813, December.

    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:22:y:2002:i:5:p:394-402. 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.