IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v17y1997i4p427-430.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Survey of Clinicians' Opinions Regarding the Value of Published Decision Analyses as Sources of Clinically Useful Information

Author

Listed:
  • James G. Dolan

Abstract

Published decision analyses avoid many of the practical problems thought to be con tributing to the slow acceptance of clinical decision analysis. To assess clinicians' opinions regarding the usefulness of published decision analyses, 46 physicians at a large community teaching hospital judged how useful 13 proposed interventions would be in helping them make better clinical decisions. Although 48% of the respondents indicated that they clearly understood decision analysis, easy access to a published decision analysis was the lowest-ranked intervention, with 28% of the respondents indicating that it would be helpful. In contrast, 87% indicated that easy access to the latest review article, the highest-rated intervention, would be helpful. This finding sug gests that the proposed practical barners to the acceptance of clinical decision analysis are relatively ummportant. The success of efforts to foster clinical decision analysis will depend on the identification of the key factors impeding its acceptance by clinicians and the development of effective techniques to overcome them. Key words: decision analysis, continmng medical education. (Med Decis Making 1997;17:427-430)

Suggested Citation

  • James G. Dolan, 1997. "A Survey of Clinicians' Opinions Regarding the Value of Published Decision Analyses as Sources of Clinically Useful Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(4), pages 427-430, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:17:y:1997:i:4:p:427-430
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9701700407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9701700407
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9701700407?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
    ---><---

    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:17:y:1997:i:4:p:427-430. 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: 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.