IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i1p58-65.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiattribute Utility Scores for Predicting Family Physicians' Decisions Regarding Sinusitis

Author

Listed:
  • Geertruida H. de Bock
  • Sijmen A. Reijneveld
  • Johannes C. van Houwelingen
  • J. André Knottnerus
  • Job Kievit

Abstract

To examine whether multiattribute utility (MAU) scores can be used to predict family physicians' decisions regarding patients suspected to have sinusitis and rhinitis, 100 randomly selected family physicians from the Leiden area (The Netherlands) were asked to rank a set of six attributes regarding their importance, yielding attribute weights. Next, the physicians were asked to rate the degrees to which five decision alternatives optimized each attribute, yielding utilities, regarding three case vignettes about a patient suspected to have acute maxillary sinusitis and rhinitis, with a brief clinical history. By combining attribute weights and utilities, a MAU score was calcu lated for each decision alternative regarding each case vignette. Finally, for each case vignette the physicians' treatment preferences were assessed by means of an open ended question. For the clear-cut sinusitis case, management strategies and highest MAU scores were concordant for 80% of the physicians. Regarding the dubious si nusitis and rhinitis case, concordance was 50%. The latter was associated with small differences in values between the highest MAU scores. Because agreement among the physicians regarding the management strategies and weight ranks was high and there was little variation in the highest MAU scores, the kappas between the reported management strategies and weight ranks were poor (0.24 and lower). It is concluded that MAU scores may be used to predict family physicians' decisions regarding the management of patients suspected of having sinusitis where there are significant dif ferences in values between the highest MAU scores. Key words: multiattribute utilities; sinusitis; rhinitis; family physician; decision making. (Med Decis Making 1999;19:58- 65)

Suggested Citation

  • Geertruida H. de Bock & Sijmen A. Reijneveld & Johannes C. van Houwelingen & J. André Knottnerus & Job Kievit, 1999. "Multiattribute Utility Scores for Predicting Family Physicians' Decisions Regarding Sinusitis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(1), pages 58-65, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:1:p:58-65
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900108
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900108?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. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    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. James Dolan, 2010. "Multi-Criteria Clinical Decision Support," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 229-248, December.

    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. Ahrens, Heinz & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2007. "Integrating Ecological And Economic Aspects In Land Use Concepts: Some Conclusions From A Regional Land Use Concept For Bayerisches Donauried," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7986, Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2020. "Maximum likelihood solutions for multicriterial choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 299-308.
    3. Kavitha, S. & Satheeshkumar, J. & Amudha, T., 2024. "Multi-label feature selection using q-rung orthopair hesitant fuzzy MCDM approach extended to CODAS," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 148-173.
    4. P P Sutton & R H Green, 2007. "Choice is a value statement. On inferring optimal multiple attribute portfolios from non-optimal nominations," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(11), pages 1526-1533, November.
    5. Deparis, Stéphane & Mousseau, Vincent & Öztürk, Meltem & Huron, Caroline, 2015. "The effect of bi-criteria conflict on matching-elicited preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 951-959.
    6. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    7. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Improving European Air Traffic Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1395-1409, August.
    8. Andrzej Pacana & Dominika Siwiec & Robert Ulewicz & Malgorzata Ulewicz, 2024. "A Novelty Model Employing the Quality Life Cycle Assessment (QLCA) Indicator and Frameworks for Selecting Qualitative and Environmental Aspects for Sustainable Product Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-24, September.
    9. Yin-Yin Huang & Ruey-Chyn Tsaur & Nei-Chin Huang, 2022. "Sustainable Fuzzy Portfolio Selection Concerning Multi-Objective Risk Attitudes in Group Decision," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(18), pages 1-15, September.
    10. Carlos Bana e Costa & Paula Antão da Silva & Francisco Nunes Correia, 2004. "Multicriteria Evaluation of Flood Control Measures: The Case of Ribeira do Livramento," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 18(3), pages 263-283, June.
    11. Karen Holm Olsen & Fatemeh Bakhtiari & Virender Kumar Duggal & Jørge Villy Fenhann, 2019. "Sustainability labelling as a tool for reporting the sustainable development impacts of climate actions relevant to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 225-251, April.
    12. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    13. Parreiras, R.O. & Kokshenev, I. & Carvalho, M.O.M. & Willer, A.C.M. & Dellezzopolles, C.F. & Nacif, D.B. & Santana, J.A., 2019. "A flexible multicriteria decision-making methodology to support the strategic management of Science, Technology and Innovation research funding programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(2), pages 725-739.
    14. Ramiro Sanchez-Lopez & Carlos Bana e Costa & Bernard Baets, 2012. "The MACBETH approach for multi-criteria evaluation of development projects on cross-cutting issues," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 199(1), pages 393-408, October.
    15. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller, 2006. "A Multiple-Objective Decision Analysis for Terrorism Protection: Potassium Iodide Distribution in Nuclear Incidents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 76-93, June.
    16. Thalles Vitelli Garcez & Helder Tenório Cavalcanti & Adiel Teixeira de Almeida, 2021. "A hybrid decision support model using Grey Relational Analysis and the Additive-Veto Model for solving multicriteria decision-making problems: an approach to supplier selection," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 304(1), pages 199-231, September.
    17. C-C Chang & R-S Chen, 2007. "Project advancement and its applications to multi-air-route quality budget allocation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(8), pages 1008-1020, August.
    18. Yahui Lv & Chao Zhang & Jiani Ma & Wenju Yun & Lulu Gao & Pengshan Li, 2019. "Sustainability Assessment of Smallholder Farmland Systems: Healthy Farmland System Assessment Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, August.
    19. Liesio, Juuso & Mild, Pekka & Salo, Ahti, 2007. "Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1488-1505, September.
    20. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2005. "Simple Models for Multiattribute Choice with Many Alternatives: When It Does and Does Not Pay to Face Trade-offs with Binary Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1860-1872, 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:19:y:1999:i:1:p:58-65. 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.