IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v12y1992i4p298-306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of formal Methods in Medical Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Ulf Böckenholt
  • Elke U. Weber

Abstract

Apparent low usage of formal decision techniques by general clinicians has raised questions about dissemination methods and about the techniques' perceived usefulness. Two literature searches examined whether use of formal decision techniques among clinicians had indeed failed to increase from the 1970s to the 1980s. A general MEDLINE search for the period 1983-87 relative to 1973-77 indicated that usage of formal decision techniques had more than doubled. This increase, however, was due to increased coverage of formal decision techniques in specialist methods journals. A manual search of seven major clinical journals and a MEDLINE search restricted to the clinical journals of the manual search disclosed no increase in overall usage for the same time periods. MEDLINE detected only a small subset of the actual instances of formal method usage found by the manual search. Individual medical subspecialties were found to utilize different formal decision techniques to different degrees. The authors suggest interventions that may increase the usage of formal decision techniques among general clinicians. Key words: decision analysis; decision automation; decision trees; Bayes'theorem; sensitivity analysis; ROC analysis; formal modeling. (Med Decis Making 1992;12:298-306)

Suggested Citation

  • Ulf Böckenholt & Elke U. Weber, 1992. "Use of formal Methods in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 12(4), pages 298-306, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:12:y:1992:i:4:p:298-306
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9201200409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9201200409
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9201200409?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. Randall D. Cebul, 1984. "'A Look at the Chief Complaints' Revisited," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(3), pages 271-283, August.
    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. Boatsman, James R. & Moeckel, Cindy & Pei, Buck K. W., 1997. "The Effects of Decision Consequences on Auditors' Reliance on Decision Aids in Audit Planning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 211-247, August.
    2. Chiara Longoni & Andrea Bonezzi & Carey K Morewedge, 2019. "Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 46(4), pages 629-650.
    3. Huang, Xiaozhi & Wu, Xitong & Cao, Xin & Wu, Jifei, 2023. "The effect of medical artificial intelligence innovation locus on consumer adoption of new products," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).

    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. John C. Hershey & Randall D. Cebul & Sankey V. Williams, 1986. "Clinical Guidelines for Using Two Dichotomous Tests," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 6(2), pages 68-78, June.
    2. Danielle R.M. Timmermans & Arwen J. Sprij & Chris E. De Bel, 1996. "The Discrepancy between Daily Practice and the Policy of a Decision-analytic Model," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(4), pages 357-366, October.

    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:12:y:1992:i:4:p:298-306. 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.