IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/32656.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Do Physicians Respond to New Medical Research?

Author

Listed:
  • Philip DeCicca
  • Maripier Isabelle
  • Natalie Malak

Abstract

What happens when the findings of a prominent medical study are overturned? Using a medical trial on breech births, we estimate the effect of the reversal of such a medical study on physician choices and infant health outcomes. Using the United States Birth Certificate Records from 1995-2010, we employ a difference-in-differences estimator for C-sections, low Apgar, and low birth weight measures. We find that the reversal of a multi-site, high profile, randomized control trial on the appropriate delivery of term breech births, the Term Breech Trial (TBT), led to a 15-23 percent decline in C-sections for such births at a time when the overall trend in C-sections was rising. We find our largest estimated effects amongst traditionally disadvantaged groups. However, we do not find that such a change in practice had significant impacts on infant health. Contrary to prior studies, we find that physicians updated their beliefs quickly, and do indeed adjust to new medical research, particularly young physicians, prior to mandatory policy or professional guidelines.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip DeCicca & Maripier Isabelle & Natalie Malak, 2024. "How Do Physicians Respond to New Medical Research?," NBER Working Papers 32656, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:32656
    Note: EH
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w32656.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nbr:nberwo:32656. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.