IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/19958581125-1128_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A matter of opinion about hysterectomies: Experts' and practicing community gynecologists' ratings of appropriateness

Author

Listed:
  • Bickell, N.A.
  • Earp, J.
  • Evans, A.T.
  • Bernstein, S.J.

Abstract

The degree to which national expert panel survey rating of the appropriateness of hysterectomy differed from those of a random sample of practicing community gynecologists was determined. Community gynecologists rated hysterectomy as more appropriate on six of eight cervical dysplasia scenarios. Experts agreed among themselves on 19 of 32 indications (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.66); community gynecologists agreed on 12 of 32 indications (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.50). Although few differences of opinion existed between experts and community gynecologists, for common clinical scenarios there was a large variation of opinion about the appropriateness of hysterectomy within each group. For areas of clinical uncertainty in which experts' opinions are used in guideline development, additional measures such as process of care, quality of life, and patient preference should be included in discussions about guidelines.

Suggested Citation

  • Bickell, N.A. & Earp, J. & Evans, A.T. & Bernstein, S.J., 1995. "A matter of opinion about hysterectomies: Experts' and practicing community gynecologists' ratings of appropriateness," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 85(8), pages 1125-1128.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1995:85:8:1125-1128_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:aph:ajpbhl:1995:85:8:1125-1128_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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    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.