Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to browse AJSM online!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Deber, R. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Deber, R. B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Determinants of Treatment Choice in End-stage Renal Disease

Can We Generalize about Decision Making from Specific Studies?

Raisa B. Deber, PHD

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)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 6, No. 4, 231-238 (1986)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8600600408


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
T. G. Tape, P. S. Heckerling, J. P. Ornato, and R. S. Wigton
Use of Clinical Judgment Analysis to Explain Regional Variations in Physicians' Accuracies in Diagnosing Pneumonia
Med Decis Making, August 1, 1991; 11(3): 189 - 197.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Intern MedHome page
R. B. Deber and G. G. Thompson
Who Still Prefers Aggressive Surgery for Breast Cancer? Implications for the Clinical Applications of Clinical Trials
Arch Intern Med, September 1, 1987; 147(9): 1543 - 1547.
[Abstract] [PDF]