IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eurjdp/v8y2020i3d10.1007_s40070-020-00116-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What does it mean to provide decision support to a responsible and competent expert?

Author

Listed:
  • Antoine Richard

    (Université Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University
    GIE Hopsis Lyon)

  • Brice Mayag

    (Université Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University)

  • François Talbot

    (DSII Bron, Hospices Civils de Lyon)

  • Alexis Tsoukias

    (Université Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University)

  • Yves Meinard

    (Université Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University)

Abstract

Decision support consists in helping a decision-maker to improve his/her decisions. However, clients requesting decision support are often themselves experts and are often taken by third parties and/or the general public to be responsible for the decisions they make. This predicament raises complex challenges for decision analysts, who have to avoid infringing upon the expertise and responsibility of the decision-maker. The case of diagnosis decision support in healthcare contexts is particularly illustrative. To support clinicians in their work and minimize the risk of medical error, various decision support systems have been developed, as part of information systems that are now ubiquitous in healthcare contexts. To develop, in collaboration with the hospitals of Lyon, a diagnostic decision support system for day-to-day customary consultations, we propose in this paper a critical analysis of current approaches to diagnostic decision support, which mainly consist in providing them with guidelines or even full-fledged diagnosis recommendations. We highlight that the use of such decision support systems by physicians raises responsibility issues, but also that it is at odds with the needs and constraints of customary consultations. We argue that the historical choice to favor guidelines or recommendations to physicians implies a very specific vision of what it means to support physicians, and we argue that the flaws of this vision partially explain why current diagnostic decision support systems are not accepted by physicians in their application to customary situations. Based on this analysis, we propose that decision support to physicians for customary cases should be deployed in an “adjustive” approach, which consists in providing physicians with the data on patients they need, when they need them, during consultations. The rationale articulated in this article has a more general bearing than clinical decision support and bears lessons for decision support activities in other contexts where decision-makers are competent and responsible experts.

Suggested Citation

  • Antoine Richard & Brice Mayag & François Talbot & Alexis Tsoukias & Yves Meinard, 2020. "What does it mean to provide decision support to a responsible and competent expert?," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 8(3), pages 205-236, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eurjdp:v:8:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s40070-020-00116-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40070-020-00116-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40070-020-00116-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40070-020-00116-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ferretti, Valentina & Pluchinotta, Irene & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2019. "Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 353-363.
    2. Giada Marchi & Giulia Lucertini & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2016. "From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 15-38, January.
    3. Andrey A. Povyakalo & Eugenio Alberdi & Lorenzo Strigini & Peter Ayton, 2013. "How to Discriminate between Computer-Aided and Computer-Hindered Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 98-107, January.
    4. Giada Marchi & Giulia Lucertini & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2016. "From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 15-38, January.
    5. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    6. James Zou & Londa Schiebinger, 2018. "AI can be sexist and racist — it’s time to make it fair," Nature, Nature, vol. 559(7714), pages 324-326, July.
    7. Maxwell Ayindenaba Dalaba & Patricia Akweongo & John Williams & Happiness Pius Saronga & Pencho Tonchev & Rainer Sauerborn & Nathan Mensah & Antje Blank & Jens Kaltschmidt & Svetla Loukanova, 2014. "Costs Associated with Implementation of Computer-Assisted Clinical Decision Support System for Antenatal and Delivery Care: Case Study of Kassena-Nankana District of Northern Ghana," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-10, September.
    8. Meinard, Y. & Tsoukiàs, A., 2019. "On the rationality of decision aiding processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1074-1084.
    9. Andre Esteva & Brett Kuprel & Roberto A. Novoa & Justin Ko & Susan M. Swetter & Helen M. Blau & Sebastian Thrun, 2017. "Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks," Nature, Nature, vol. 542(7639), pages 115-118, February.
    10. Alexis Tsoukiàs & Gilberto Montibeller & Giulia Lucertini & Valérie Belton, 2013. "Policy Analytics: An Agenda for Research and Practice," Working Papers hal-00874307, HAL.
    11. Fieschi, M., 1986. "Expert systems for medical consultation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 159-173.
    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. Irene Pluchinotta & Akin O. Kazakçi & Raffaele Giordano & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2019. "Design Theory for Generating Alternatives in Public Decision Making Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 341-375, April.
    2. Maria Franca Norese & Diana Rolando & Rocco Curto, 2023. "DIKEDOC: a multicriteria methodology to organise and communicate knowledge," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 1049-1082, June.
    3. Justin Longo & Alan Rodney Dobell, 2018. "The Limits of Policy Analytics: Early Examples and the Emerging Boundary of Possibilities," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 5-17.
    4. Simonofski, Anthony & Handekyn, Phebe & Vandennieuwenborg, Celien & Wautelet, Yves & Snoeck, Monique, 2023. "Smart mobility projects: Towards the formalization of a policy-making lifecycle," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    5. Ferretti, Valentina & Pluchinotta, Irene & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2019. "Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 353-363.
    6. Nicolas Fayard & Chabane Mazri & Alexis Tsouki`as, 2021. "Is the Capability approach a useful tool for decision aiding in public policy making?," Papers 2101.09357, arXiv.org.
    7. Fancello, Giovanna & Congiu, Tanja & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2020. "Mapping walkability. A subjective value theory approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    8. Benedict E. DeDominicis, 2021. "Multinational Enterprises And Economic Nationalism: A Strategic Analysis Of Culture," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 15(1), pages 19-66.
    9. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    10. Raffaele Giordano & Marcela Brugnach & Irene Pluchinotta, 2017. "Ambiguity in Problem Framing as a Barrier to Collective Actions: Some Hints from Groundwater Protection Policy in the Apulia Region," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 911-932, September.
    11. Giliberto Capano & Anna Malandrino, 2022. "Mapping the use of knowledge in policymaking: barriers and facilitators from a subjectivist perspective (1990–2020)," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 399-428, September.
    12. Hannigan, Timothy R. & Briggs, Anthony R. & Valadao, Rodrigo & Seidel, Marc-David L. & Jennings, P. Devereaux, 2022. "A new tool for policymakers: Mapping cultural possibilities in an emerging AI entrepreneurial ecosystem," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(9).
    13. Craig Scott & Jennifer Zwicker, 2020. "Health innovation and commercialization ecosystems and public health emergency response systems," SPP Communique, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 13(6), April.
    14. Dell’Anna, Federico & Dell’Ovo, Marta, 2022. "A stakeholder-based approach managing conflictual values in urban design processes. The case of an open prison in Barcelona," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    15. Lu, Chao & Liu, Hu-Chen & Tao, Jie & Rong, Ke & Hsieh, Ying-Che, 2017. "A key stakeholder-based financial subsidy stimulation for Chinese EV industrialization: A system dynamics simulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-14.
    16. Lorraine Eden & M. Fernanda Wagstaff, 0. "Evidence-based policymaking and the wicked problem of SDG 5 Gender Equality," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 0, pages 1-30.
    17. Lami, Isabella M. & Todella, Elena, 2023. "A multi-methodological combination of the strategic choice approach and the analytic network process: From facts to values and vice versa," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 802-812.
    18. Lorraine Eden & M. Fernanda Wagstaff, 2021. "Evidence-based policymaking and the wicked problem of SDG 5 Gender Equality," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 28-57, March.
    19. Yves Meinard & Irene Pluchinotta, 2022. "C-KE/I: A pragmatic framework for policy innovation," Post-Print hal-03881635, HAL.
    20. Richard John Ormerod, 2022. "The economic logic of OR consulting practice: Towards a foundational view," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 685-707, July.

    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:spr:eurjdp:v:8:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s40070-020-00116-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.