IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v6y1986i4p231-238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Determinants of Treatment Choice in End-stage Renal Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Raisa B. Deber

Abstract

Practitioner judgments about treatments for hypothetical end-stage renal disease patients were examined by two mailed surveys. It was hypothesized that treatment choice was a function of four hierarchically arranged sets of factors: disease- and treatment-specific, pa tient-specific, environment- and institution-specific, and practitioner-specific. The first survey identified six vignettes for which the case-specific factors alone did not yield a generally accepted treatment decision. These six cases were used in the second survey, whose results are reported here. Practitioner-specific characteristics were found to be only weakly related to treatment choice. Guttman scale analysis showed no significant practitioner propensity to use any given treatment. Instead, the number of colleagues in a respondent's renal unit picking a given therapy for a given patient was the strongest predictor of an individual's choice. Contextual factors—clinical details of the case and decision rules within the insti tution—appeared to overwhelm provider-specific tendencies; characteristics of the decision generally outweighed characteristics of the decision maker. This framework of factors may be useful for analyzing inter-provider variation. Consequences for certain approaches to the study of decision making (especially single-site studies and regression-based models) are noted. Key words: choice behavior; health services research; kidney failure, chronic; he modialysis ; peritoneal dialysis; transplantation. (Med Decis Making 6:231-238, 1986)

Suggested Citation

  • Raisa B. Deber, 1986. "The Determinants of Treatment Choice in End-stage Renal Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 6(4), pages 231-238, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:6:y:1986:i:4:p:231-238
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8600600408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X8600600408
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X8600600408?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. Einhorn, Hj & Hogarth, Rm, 1981. "Behavioral Decision-Theory - Processes Of Judgment And Choice," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 1-31.
    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. Breslin, F. Curtis & Gladwin, Christina H. & Borsoi, Diane & Cunningham, John A., 2000. "Defacto client-treatment matching: how clinicians make referrals to outpatient treatments for substance use," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 281-291, August.

    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. Mingyue Li & Jingjing Wang & Kai Chen & Lianbei Wu, 2020. "Willingness and Behaviors of Farmers’ Green Disposal of Pesticide Packaging Waste in Henan, China: A Perceived Value Formation Mechanism Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-18, May.
    2. Gerd Gigerenzer, 1997. "Bounded Rationality: Models of Fast and Frugal Inference," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 133(II), pages 201-218, June.
    3. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    4. S. Larsson & G. R. Chesley, 1986. "An analysis of the auditor's uncertainty about probabilities," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 259-282, March.
    5. Yu‐Lin Hsu & Gavin C. Reid, 2021. "Two‐stage decision‐making within the firm: Analysis and case studies," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(6), pages 1355-1373, September.
    6. Karen Green & Benson Wier, 2015. "Influence of Ethical Position and Information Asymmetry on Transfer Price Negotiations," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-30, February.
    7. Arnold, Vicky & Bedard, Jean C. & Phillips, Jillian R. & Sutton, Steve G., 2011. "Do section 404 disclosures affect investors' perceptions of information systems reliability and stock price predictions?," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 243-258.
    8. Sahay, Arvind, 2013. "A Customer Oriented Approach To Identifying Competitive Advantage," IIMA Working Papers WP2013-05-08, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    9. Christina Fang & Daniel Levinthal, 2009. "Near-Term Liability of Exploitation: Exploration and Exploitation in Multistage Problems," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 538-551, June.
    10. Gafari Lukumon & Mark Klein, 2023. "Crowd-sourced idea filtering with Bag of Lemons: the impact of the token budget size," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 50(2), pages 205-219, June.
    11. Eva Tebbe & Korbinian von Blanckenburg, 2018. "Does willingness to pay increase with the number and strictness of sustainability labels?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(1), pages 41-53, January.
    12. Eom, Sean B, 1998. "The Intellectual Development and Structure of Decision Support Systems (1991-1995)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 639-657, October.
    13. Arthur S. Elstein, 1983. "Analytic Methods and Medical Education," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 3(3), pages 279-284, August.
    14. Roel Plant & Spike Boydell & Jason Prior & Joanne Chong & Aleta Lederwasch, 2017. "From liability to opportunity: An institutional approach towards value-based land remediation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 197-220, March.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Brundin, Ethel & Gustavsson, Veronica, 2008. "Escalation of Commitment in Investment Decisions: The Role of Emotions under Uncertainty," CISEG Working Papers Series 3, Jönköping International Business School, Centre for Innovation Systems, Entrepreneurship and Growth.
    17. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2014. "Uncovering unknown unknowns: Towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 268-283.
    18. Hong Wu & Zhaohua Deng & Bin Wang & Sumeet Gupta, 2021. "How does service price influence patients’ decisions? An examination of the free-market pricing mechanism in online health communities," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(4), pages 877-893, December.
    19. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    20. Levesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2005. "Intuitive optimizing: experimental findings on time allocation decisions with newly formed ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 313-342, May.
    21. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger, 1989. "Should Social Scientists Care about Choice Anomalies?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 1(1), pages 101-122, July.

    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:6:y:1986:i:4:p:231-238. 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.