IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i1p91-100.html

The Influence of Disease Severity of Preceding Clinical Cases on Pathologists’ Medical Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Paul D. Frederick
  • Heidi D. Nelson
  • Patricia A. Carney
  • Tad T. Brunyé
  • Kimberly H. Allison
  • Donald L. Weaver
  • Joann G. Elmore

Abstract

Background . Medical decision making may be influenced by contextual factors. We evaluated whether pathologists are influenced by disease severity of recently observed cases. Methods . Pathologists independently interpreted 60 breast biopsy specimens (one slide per case; 240 total cases in the study) in a prospective randomized observational study. Pathologists interpreted the same cases in 2 phases, separated by a washout period of >6 months. Participants were not informed that the cases were identical in each phase, and the sequence was reordered randomly for each pathologist and between phases. A consensus reference diagnosis was established for each case by 3 experienced breast pathologists. Ordered logit models examined the effect the pathologists’ diagnoses on the preceding case or the 5 preceding cases had on their diagnosis for the subsequent index case. Results . Among 152 pathologists, 49 provided interpretive data in both phases I and II, 66 from only phase I, and 37 from phase II only. In phase I, pathologists were more likely to indicate a more severe diagnosis than the reference diagnosis when the preceding case was diagnosed as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive cancer (proportional odds ratio [POR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15–1.42). Results were similar when considering the preceding 5 cases and for the pathologists in phase II who interpreted the same cases in a different order compared with phase I (POR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05–1.31). Conclusion . Physicians appear to be influenced by the severity of previously interpreted test cases. Understanding types and sources of diagnostic bias may lead to improved assessment of accuracy and better patient care.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul D. Frederick & Heidi D. Nelson & Patricia A. Carney & Tad T. Brunyé & Kimberly H. Allison & Donald L. Weaver & Joann G. Elmore, 2017. "The Influence of Disease Severity of Preceding Clinical Cases on Pathologists’ Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(1), pages 91-100, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:1:p:91-100
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16638326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16638326
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16638326?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. Jason W. Beckstead, 2008. "Modeling sequential context effects in judgment analysis: A time series approach," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 570-584, October.
    2. Ivo Vlaev & Nick Chater, 2007. "Context effects in games: Local versus global sequential effects on choice in the prisoner's dilemma game," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 380-389, December.
    3. William J. Matthews & Neil Stewart, 2009. "Psychophysics and the judgment of price: Judging complex objects on a non-physical dimension elicits sequential effects like those in perceptual tasks," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(1), pages 64-81, February.
    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. William J. Matthews & Neil Stewart, 2009. "Psychophysics and the judgment of price: Judging complex objects on a non-physical dimension elicits sequential effects like those in perceptual tasks," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(1), pages 64-81, February.
    2. Astrid Matthey & Tobias Regner, 2013. "On the independence of history: experience spill-overs between experiments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(3), pages 403-419, September.
    3. Jang, Seongsoo & Chung, Jaihak, 2021. "What drives add-on sales in mobile games? The role of inter-price relationship and product popularity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 59-68.
    4. Seah Chang & Chai-Youn Kim & Yang Seok Cho, 2017. "Sequential effects in preference decision: Prior preference assimilates current preference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, August.
    5. William J. Skylark & Kieran T. F. Chan & George D. Farmer & Kai W. Gaskin & Amelia R. Miller, 2020. "The delay-reward heuristic: What do people expect in intertemporal choice tasks?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 611-629, September.
    6. William J. Matthews, 2011. "What would judgment and decision making research be like if we took a Bayesian approach to hypothesis testing?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 843-856, December.
    7. Hannah M Darlow & Alexandra S Dylman & Ana I Gheorghiu & William J Matthews, 2013. "Do Changes in the Pace of Events Affect One-Off Judgments of Duration?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    8. William J. Skylark, 2021. "More is easier? Testing the role of fluency in the more-credible effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(3), pages 638-686, May.
    9. Peter D. Lunn & Jason Somerville, 2019. "Consumers' ability to identify a surplus when returns to attributes are nonlinear," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1186-1220, September.
    10. Robin S S Kramer & Alex L Jones & Dinkar Sharma, 2013. "Sequential Effects in Judgements of Attractiveness: The Influences of Face Race and Sex," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    11. Lunn, Pete & Lunn, Mary, 2014. "A Computational Theory of Willingness to Exchange," Papers WP477, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    12. William J. Matthews & Ana I. Gheorghiu & Mitchell J. Callan, 2016. "Why do we overestimate others' willingness to pay?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 21-39, January.
    13. William J. Matthews, 2010. "The gambler's fallacy in retrospect: A supplementary comment on Oppenheimer and Monin (2009)," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 133-137, April.
    14. Shuqi Li & Jane E. Miller & Jillian O’Rourke Stuart & Sean J. Jules & Aaron M. Scherer & Andrew R. Smith & Paul D. Windschitl, 2021. "The effects of tool comparisons when estimating the likelihood of task success," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(1), pages 165-200, January.
    15. repec:plo:pone00:0198723 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Jason W. Beckstead, 2008. "Modeling sequential context effects in judgment analysis: A time series approach," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 570-584, October.
    17. William J. Skylark & Sidharth Prabhu-Naik, 2018. "A new test of the risk-reward heuristic," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 73-78, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:37:y:2017:i:1:p:91-100. 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.