This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Smith, K. J. Articles by Roberts, M. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Smith, K. J. Articles by Roberts, M. S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Teaching Medical Decision Modeling: A Qualitative Description of Student Errors and Curriculum Responses

Decision Sciences and Clinical Systems Modeling, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 200 Meyran Avenue, 2nd Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; smithkj2{at}upmc.edu

Amber E. Barnato, MD, MPH, MS

Mark S. Roberts, MD, MPP

Background. Novice medical decision modelers are prone to errors. The purpose of this article is to describe the common errors committed by decision modeling students and the changes made to a structured decision modeling project course in response. Curriculum. The decision modeling curriculum includes month-long segments in decision analysis, cost-effectiveness analyses, and a project course. In the project course, students solve a decision problem with prespecified assumptions and input variable values, with the expectation that all reach the same answer. At first, students worked in groups of 2 or 3 but more recently work individually; over time, there have been other changes in the course. Originally, the only assignment was an abstract and 10-minute presentation describing their solution, but now periodic homework monitors progress. Outcomes. Students' results frequently differed significantly from the expected answers. Errors were common in sensitivity analyses and model construction, among other areas. Defensible differences in structural programming decisions were rare. More recently, result ranges have narrowed as stepwise homework ensures progress and areas prone to error are emphasized. Student communication is timelier, facilitated by homeworkrelated questions. Individual, rather than group, work avoids potential problems with weaker students being carried by the more advanced. Student satisfaction has increased, with more beginning their own projects afterward. Conclusion. Solving a common decision problem is an efficient teaching tool. Closer supervision leads to increased satisfaction and decreased frustration, facilitated by a more structured approach and the anticipation of common errors.

Key Words: decision analysis • costeffectiveness analysis • education

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 26, No. 6, 583-588 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06295360


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?