IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v16y1996i4p357-366.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Discrepancy between Daily Practice and the Policy of a Decision-analytic Model

Author

Listed:
  • Danielle R.M. Timmermans
  • Arwen J. Sprij
  • Chris E. De Bel

Abstract

The optimal treatment of children with fever of unknown origin is controversial, in spite of two decision analyses that advise treatment with antibiotics for all such children. The aim of this study was to analyze the differences between pediatricians' diagnostic and therapeutic decisions and the outcomes of the decision-analytic models. Thirty- six pediatricians were asked to evaluate 30 patient cases and to give their diagnostic and therapeutic judgments. In addition, the pediatricians were asked questions about the epidemiology of fever of unknown origin. Analyses showed that the differences in policy between pediatricians and the models could not be explained by the reasons mentioned in the literature, i.e., 1) differences in epidemiologic data used, 2) differ ences in the weighting of clinical information, and 3) differences in the evaluation of outcomes. The differences in policy might be due to a difference between the objective of the models and pediatricians' aim. In a curative setting, pediatricians are not trying to prevent meningitis (or another serious disease) by treating possible occult bacter emia, but rather aim to detect meningitis in an early stage. A decision analysis deter mining the most cost-effective strategy for early detection of meningitis might therefore be more easily accepted by pediatricians. Key words: diagnostic and therapeutic de cisions ; decision-analytic models; fever of unknown origin. (Med Decis Making 1996; 16:357-366)

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:4:p:357-366
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9601600406
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9601600406?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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:134-145 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Michael L. DeKay & John C. Hershey & Mark D. Spranca, & Peter A. Ubel & David A. Asch, 2006. "Are medical treatments for individuals and groups like single-play and multiple-play gambles?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 134-145, November.

    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. Ulf Böckenholt & Elke U. Weber, 1992. "Use of formal Methods in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 12(4), pages 298-306, December.

    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:16:y:1996:i:4:p:357-366. 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.