IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v28y2008i4p540-553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Is Diagnostic Testing Inappropriate or Irrational? Acceptable Regret Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Iztok Hozo

    (Department of Mathematics, Indiana University Northwest, Gary)

  • Benjamin Djulbegovic

    (Department of Interdisciplinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute at the University of South Florida, Tampa, benjamin.djulbegovic@moffitt.org)

Abstract

The authors provide a new model within the framework of theories of bounded rationality for the observed physicians' behavior that their ordering of diagnostic tests may not be rational. Contrary to the prevailing thinking, the authors find that physicians do not act irrationally or inappropriately when they order diagnostic tests in usual clinical practice. When acceptable regret (i.e., regret that a decision maker finds tolerable upon making a wrong decision) is taken into account, the authors show that physicians tend to order diagnostic tests at a higher level of pretest probability of disease than predicted by expected utility theory. They also show why physicians tend to overtest when regret about erroneous decisions is extremely small. Finally, they explain variations in the practice of medicine. They demonstrate that in the same clinical situation, different decision makers might have different acceptable regret thresholds for withholding treatment, for ordering a diagnostic test, or for administering treatment. This in turn means that for some decision makers, the most rational strategy is to do nothing, whereas for others, it may be to order a diagnostic test, and still for others, choosing treatment may be the most rational course of action.

Suggested Citation

  • Iztok Hozo & Benjamin Djulbegovic, 2008. "When Is Diagnostic Testing Inappropriate or Irrational? Acceptable Regret Approach," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(4), pages 540-553, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:540-553
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08315249
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08315249
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08315249?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. Smith, Richard David, 1996. "Is Regret Theory an alternative basis for estimating the value of healthcare interventions?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 105-115, August.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. J. Jeffrey Inman & James S. Dyer & Jianmin Jia, 1997. "A Generalized Utility Model of Disappointment and Regret Effects on Post-Choice Valuation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 97-111.
    4. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    5. Loomes, Graham, 1988. "When Actions Speak Louder Than Prospects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(3), pages 463-470, June.
    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. Stefan Felder & Thomas Mayrhofer, 2018. "Threshold analysis in the presence of both the diagnostic and the therapeutic risk," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(7), pages 1019-1026, September.

    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. Krähmer, Daniel & Stone, Rebecca, 2005. "Regret in Dynamic Decision Problems," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 71, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    2. Andersson, Henrik & Scholtz, Henrik & Zheng, Jiakun, 2023. "Measuring regret theory in the health and financial domain," TSE Working Papers 23-1449, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    3. Martín Egozcue & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2015. "Optimal output for the regret-averse competitive firm under price uncertainty," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 279-295, December.
    4. Enrico Diecidue & Haim Levy & Moshe Levy, 2020. "Probability Dominance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(5), pages 1006-1020, December.
    5. Ben Irons & Cameron Hepburn, 2007. "Regret Theory and the Tyranny of Choice," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 83(261), pages 191-203, June.
    6. Han Bleichrodt & Peter P. Wakker, 2015. "Regret Theory: A Bold Alternative to the Alternatives," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(583), pages 493-532, March.
    7. Michenaud, Sébastien & Solnik, Bruno, 2008. "Applying regret theory to investment choices: Currency hedging decisions," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 677-694, September.
    8. Carlos Laciana & Elke Weber, 2008. "Correcting expected utility for comparisons between alternative outcomes: A unified parameterization of regret and disappointment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Gürtler, Marc & Hartmann, Nora, 2003. "Behavioral dividend policy," Working Papers FW04V1, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Institute of Finance.
    10. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Johannes Kasinger & Dmitrij Schneider, 2024. "Skewness Preferences: Evidence from Online Poker," CESifo Working Paper Series 10977, CESifo.
    11. Roland T. Rust & J. Jeffrey Inman & Jianmin Jia & Anthony Zahorik, 1999. "What You Know About Customer-Perceived Quality: The Role of Customer Expectation Distributions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 77-92.
    12. Lim, Jooyoung & Hahn, Minhi, 2020. "Regulatory focus and decision rules: Are prevention-focused consumers regret minimizers?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 343-350.
    13. Lin, Chien-Huang & Huang, Wen-Hsien & Zeelenberg, Marcel, 2006. "Multiple reference points in investor regret," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 781-792, December.
    14. Diecidue, Enrico & Somasundaram, Jeeva, 2017. "Regret theory: A new foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 88-119.
    15. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    16. Colson, Gérard, 1993. "Prenons-nous assez de risque dans les théories du risque?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(1), pages 111-141, mars.
    17. Qin, Jie, 2015. "A model of regret, investor behavior, and market turbulence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 150-174.
    18. Sugden, Robert & Wang, Mengjie & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2019. "Take it or leave it: Experimental evidence on the effect of time-limited offers on consumer behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 1-23.
    19. Faria, Joao & Jellal, Mohamed, 2009. "A Siocio-Psychological Theory of Efficiency Wage Growth," MPRA Paper 17184, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. 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.

    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:28:y:2008:i:4:p:540-553. 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.