image theory's counting rule in clinical decision making: does it describe how clinicians make patient-specific forecasts?

Clicks: 394
ID: 210198
2012
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #4 of 47 articles by views in nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The field of clinical decision making is polarized by two predominate views. One holds that treatment recommendations should conform with guidelines; the other emphasizes clinical expertise in reaching case-specific judgments. Previous work developed a test for a proposed alternative, that clinical judgment should systematically incorporate both general knowledge and patient-specific information. The test was derived from image theory's two phase-account of decision making and its ``simple counting rule'', which describes how possible courses of action are pre-screened for compatibility with standards and values. The current paper applies this rule to clinical forecasting, where practitioners indicate how likely a specific patient will respond favorably to a recommended treatment. Psychiatric trainees evaluated eight case vignettes that exhibited from 0 to 3 incompatible attributes. They made two forecasts, one based on a guideline recommendation, the other based on their own alternative. Both forecasts were predicted by equally- and unequally-weighted counting rules. Unequal weighting provided a better fit and exhibited a clearer rejection threshold, or point at which forecasts are not diminished by additional incompatibilities. The hypothesis that missing information is treated as an incompatibility was not confirmed. There was evidence that the rejection threshold was influenced by clinician preference. Results suggests that guidelines may have a de-biasing influence on clinical judgment. Subject to limitations pertaining to the subject sample and population, clinical paradigm, guideline, and study procedure, the data support the use of a compatibility test to describe how clinicians make patient-specific forecasts.
Reference Key
garman2012judgmentimage Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Melissa Garman;Paul R. Falzer
Journal nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde
Year 2012
DOI
DOI not found
URL
http://journal.sjdm.org/11/111123/jdm111123.pdf
Keywords
Evidence based medicine schizophrenia decision making patient-centered care mental illness clinical training forecasting Treatment guidelines nakeywordspsychologyeconomics as a science naturalistic decision making

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.