IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v18y1998i4p412-417.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical Diagnosis and the Order of Information

Author

Listed:
  • George R. Bergus
  • Gretchen B. Chapman
  • Barcey T. Levy
  • John W. Ely
  • Robert A. Oppliger

Abstract

Background. Information order can influence judgment. However, it remains unclear whether the order of clinical data affects physicians' interpretations of these data when they are engaged in familiar diagnostic tasks. Methods. Of 400 randomly selected family physicians who were given a questionnaire involving a brief written scenario about a young woman with acute dysuria, 315 (79%) returned usable responses. The physicians had been randomized into two groups, and both groups had received the same clinical information but in different orders. After learning the patient's chief com plaint, physicians received either the patient's history and physical examination results followed by the laboratory data (the H&P-first group) or the laboratory data followed by the history and physical examination results (the H&P-last group). The results of the history and physical examination were supportive of the diagnosis of UTI, while the laboratory data were not. All physicians judged the probability of a urinary tract infection (UTI) after each piece of information. Results. The two groups had similar mean estimates of the probability of a UTI after learning the chief complaint (67.4% vs 67.8%, p = 0.85). At the end of the scenario, the H&P-first group judged UTI to be less likely than did the H&P-last group (50.9% vs 59.1 %, p = 0.03) despite having identical information. Comparison of the mean likelihood ratios attributed to the clinical information showed that the H&P-first group gave less weight to the history and phys ical than did the H&P-last group (p = 0.04). Conclusions. The order in which clinical information was presented influenced physicians' estimates of the probability of dis ease. The clinical history and physical examination were given more weight by phy sicians who received this information last. Key words: diagnosis; urinary tract infec tions ; judgment; primary care; clinical decision making. (Med Decis Making 1998;18: 412-417)

Suggested Citation

  • George R. Bergus & Gretchen B. Chapman & Barcey T. Levy & John W. Ely & Robert A. Oppliger, 1998. "Clinical Diagnosis and the Order of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(4), pages 412-417, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:18:y:1998:i:4:p:412-417
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9801800409
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9801800409?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. Adelman, Leonard & Tolcott, Martin A. & Bresnick, Terry A., 1993. "Examining the Effect of Information Order on Expert Judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 348-369, December.
    2. Jay J. J. Christensen-Szalanski & Paula H. Diehr & James B. Bushyhead & Robert W. Wood, 1982. "Two Studies of Good Clinical Judgment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 2(3), pages 275-283, August.
    3. Shawn P. Curley & Mark J. Young & Margaret J. Kingry & J. Frank Yates, 1988. "Primacy Effects in Clinical Judgments of Contingency," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 8(3), pages 216-222, August.
    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. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    2. Johnson, Eric N., 1995. "Effects of information order, group assistance, and experience on auditors' sequential belief revision," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 137-160, March.
    3. Jean Baratgin & Guy Politzer, 2007. "The psychology of dynamic probability judgment: order effect, normative theories, and experimental methodology," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 6(1), pages 53-66, June.
    4. John A. Baron, 1994. "Uncertainty in Bayes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 46-51, February.
    5. Priti Pradhan Shah & John P. Bechara & Joseph Kolars & Monica Drefahl & Nicholas LaRusso & Douglas Wood & Barbara Spurrier, 2014. "Temporal Elements in Career Selection Decisions: An Archival Study Investigating Career Decisions in Medicine," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 245-261, February.

    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:18:y:1998:i:4:p:412-417. 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.