Rational decision-making in medicine: implications for overuse and underuse

open access articleIn spite of substantial spending and resource utilization, today's health care remains characterized by poor outcomes, largely due to overuse (over-testing/treatment) or underuse (under-testing/treatment) of services. To a significant extent, this is a consequence of low-quality decision-making that appears to violate various rationality criteria. Such sub-optimal decision-making is considered a leading cause of death and is responsible for more than 80% of health expenses. In this paper, we address the issue of overuse or underuse of healthcare interventions from the perspective of rational choice theory. We show that what is considered rational under one decision theory may not be considered rational under a different theory. We posit that the questions and concerns regarding both underuse and overuse have to be addressed within a specific theoretical framework. The applicable rationality criterion, and thus the “appropriateness” of health care delivery choices, depends on theory selection that is appropriate to specific clinical situations. We provide a number of illustrations showing how the choice of theoretical framework influences both our policy and individual decision-making. We also highlight the practical implications of our analysis for the current efforts to measure the quality of care and link such measurements to the financing of healthcare services

Impact of quality of evidence on the strength of recommendations: an empirical study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence is necessary but not sufficient for decision-making, such as making recommendations by clinical practice guideline panels. However, the fundamental premise of evidence-based medicine (EBM) rests on the assumed link between the quality of evidence and "truth" and/or correctness in making guideline recommendations. If this assumption is accurate, then the quality of evidence ought to play a key role in making guideline recommendations. Surprisingly, and despite the widespread penetration of EBM in health care, there has been no empirical research to date investigating the impact of quality of evidence on the strength of recommendations made by guidelines panels.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The American Association of Blood Banking (AABB) has recently convened a 12 member panel to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for the use of fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) for 6 different clinical indications. The panel was instructed that 4 factors should play a role in making recommendation: quality of evidence, uncertainty about the balance between desirable (benefits) and undesirable effects (harms), uncertainty or variability in values and preferences, and uncertainty about whether the intervention represents a wise use of resources (costs). Each member of the panel was asked to make his/her final judgments on the strength of recommendation and the overall quality of the body of evidence. "Voting" was anonymous and was based on the use of GRADE (Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations) system, which clearly distinguishes between quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Despite the fact that many factors play role in formulating CPG recommendations, we show that when the quality of evidence is higher, the probability of making a strong recommendation for or against an intervention dramatically increases. Probability of making strong recommendation was 62% when evidence is "moderate", while it was only 23% and 13% when evidence was "low" or "very low", respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We report the first empirical evaluation of the relationship between quality of evidence pertinent to a clinical question and strength of the corresponding guideline recommendations. Understanding the relationship between quality of evidence and probability of making (strong) recommendation has profound implications for the science of quality measurement in health care.</p

Thinking styles and regret in physicians

Background Decision-making relies on both analytical and emotional thinking. Cognitive reasoning styles (e.g. maximizing and satisficing tendencies) heavily influence analytical processes, while affective processes are often dependent on regret. The relationship between regret and cognitive reasoning styles has not been well studied in physicians, and is the focus of this paper. Methods A regret questionnaire and 6 scales measuring individual differences in cognitive styles (maximizing-satisficing tendencies; analytical vs. intuitive reasoning; need for cognition; intolerance toward ambiguity; objectivism; and cognitive reflection) were administered through a web-based survey to physicians of the University of South Florida. Bonferroni’s adjustment was applied to the overall correlation analysis. The correlation analysis was also performed without Bonferroni’s correction, given the strong theoretical rationale indicating the need for a separate hypothesis. We also conducted a multivariate regression analysis to identify the unique influence of predictors on regret. Results 165 trainees and 56 attending physicians (age range 25 to 69) participated in the survey. After bivariate analysis we found that maximizing tendency positively correlated with regret with respect to both decision difficulty (r=0.673; p<0.001) and alternate search strategy (r=0.239; p=0.002). When Bonferroni’s correction was not applied, we also found a negative relationship between satisficing tendency and regret (r=-0.156; p=0.021). In trainees, but not faculty, regret negatively correlated with rational-analytical thinking (r=-0.422; p<0.001), need for cognition (r=-0.340; p<0.001), and objectivism (r=-0.309; p=0.003) and positively correlated with ambiguity intolerance (r=0.285; p=0.012). However, after conducting a multivariate regression analysis, we found that regret was positively associated with maximizing only with respect to decision difficulty (r=0.791; p<0.001), while it was negatively associated with satisficing (r=-0.257; p=0.020) and objectivism (r=-0.267; p=0.034). We found no statistically significant relationship between regret and overall accuracy on conditional inferential tasks. Conclusion Regret in physicians is strongly associated with their tendency to maximize; i.e. the tendency to consider more choices among abundant options leads to more regret. However, physicians who exhibit satisficing tendency – the inclination to accept a “good enough” solution – feel less regret. Our observation that objectivism is a negative predictor of regret indicates that the tendency to seek and use empirical data in decision-making leads to less regret. Therefore, promotion of evidence-based reasoning may lead to lower regret

Choosing a control intervention for a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled clinical trials are performed to resolve uncertainty concerning comparator interventions. Appropriate acknowledgment of uncertainty enables the concurrent achievement of two goals : the acquisition of valuable scientific knowledge and an optimum treatment choice for the patient-participant. The ethical recruitment of patients requires the presence of clinical equipoise. This involves the appropriate choice of a control intervention, particularly when unapproved drugs or innovative interventions are being evaluated. DISCUSSION: We argue that the choice of a control intervention should be supported by a systematic review of the relevant literature and, where necessary, solicitation of the informed beliefs of clinical experts through formal surveys and publication of the proposed trial's protocol. SUMMARY: When clinical equipoise is present, physicians may confidently propose trial enrollment to their eligible patients as an act of therapeutic beneficence

Management of cancer-associated anemia with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: ASCO/ASH clinical practice guideline update.

PURPOSE: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/American Society of Hematology (ASH) recommendations for use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with cancer. METHODS: PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs in patients with cancer published from January 31, 2010, through May 14, 2018. For biosimilar ESAs, the literature search was expanded to include meta-analyses and RCTs in patients with cancer or chronic kidney disease and cohort studies in patients with cancer due to limited RCT evidence in the cancer setting. ASCO and ASH convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed. RESULTS: The primary literature review included 15 meta-analyses of RCTs and two RCTs. A growing body of evidence suggests that adding iron to treatment with an ESA may improve hematopoietic response and reduce the likelihood of RBC transfusion. The biosimilar literature review suggested that biosimilars of epoetin alfa have similar efficacy and safety to reference products, although evidence in cancer remains limited. RECOMMENDATIONS: ESAs (including biosimilars) may be offered to patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia whose cancer treatment is not curative in intent and whose hemoglobin has declined to \u3c 10 g/dL. RBC transfusion is also an option. With the exception of selected patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, ESAs should not be offered to most patients with nonchemotherapy-associated anemia. During ESA treatment, hemoglobin may be increased to the lowest concentration needed to avoid transfusions. Iron replacement may be used to improve hemoglobin response and reduce RBC transfusions for patients receiving ESA with or without iron deficiency. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.hematology.org/guidelines

What is the psychological impact of mammographic screening on younger women with a family history of breast cancer? Findings from a prospective cohort study (PIMMS)

PURPOSE: Studies are underway to establish the clinical effectiveness of annual mammographic screening in women younger than 50 years with a family history of breast cancer. This study investigated both the positive and negative psychological effects of screening on these women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women who received an immediate all-clear result after mammography (n = 1,174) and women who were recalled for additional tests before receiving an all-clear result (false positive; n = 112) completed questionnaires: 1 month before mammography, and 1 and 6 months after receiving final results. The questionnaires included measures of cancer worry, psychological consequences, and perceived benefits of breast screening. RESULTS: Women who received an immediate all-clear result experienced a decrease in cancer worry and negative psychological consequences immediately after the result, whereas women who were recalled for additional tests did not. By 6 months this cancer-specific distress had reduced significantly in both groups. Changes in levels of distress were significantly different between the two groups, but in absolute terms the differences were not large. Recalled women reported significantly greater positive psychological consequences of screening immediately after the result, and were also more positive about the benefits of screening compared with women who received an immediate all-clear result. CONCLUSION: For women receiving an immediate all-clear result, participating in annual mammographic screening is psychologically beneficial. Furthermore, women who are recalled for additional tests do not appear to be harmed by screening: these women's positive views about mammography suggest that they view any distress caused by recall as an acceptable part of screening

Structured decision-making drives guidelines panels’ recommendations ‘for’ but not ‘against’ health interventions

Background: The determinants of guideline panels’ recommendations remain uncertain. Objective: To investigate factors considered by members of 8 panels convened by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) to develop guidelines using GRADE system. Study Design and Setting: web-based survey of the participants in the ASH guidelines panels. Analysis: two level hierarchical, random-effect, multivariable regression analysis to explore the relation between GRADE and non-GRADE factors and strength of recommendations (SOR). Results: In the primary analysis, certainty in evidence [OR=1.83; (95CI% 1.45 to 2.31)], balance of benefits and harms [OR=1.49 (95CI% 1.30 to 1.69)] and variability in patients’ values and preferences [OR=1.47 (95CI% 1.15 to 1.88)] proved the strongest predictors of SOR. In a secondary analysis, certainty of evidence was associated with a strong recommendation [OR=3.60 (95% CI 2.16 to 6.00)] when panel members recommended “for” interventions but not when they made recommendations “against” [OR=0.98 (95%CI: 0.57 to 1.8)] consistent with “yes” bias. Agreement between individual members and the group in rating SOR varied (kappa ranged from -0.01 to 0.64). Conclusion: GRADE’s conceptual framework proved, in general, highly associated with SOR. Failure of certainty of evidence to be associated with SOR against an intervention, suggest the need for improvements in the process