Bachmann Lucas M, Mühleisen Andrea, Bock Annekatrin, ter Riet Gerben, Held Ulrike, Kessels Alfons G H
Horten Centre, University of Zurich, Bolleystrasse 40, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Jul 30;8:50. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-50.
Vignette studies of medical choice and judgement have gained popularity in the medical literature. Originally developed in mathematical psychology they can be used to evaluate physicians' behaviour in the setting of diagnostic testing or treatment decisions. We provide an overview of the use, objectives and methodology of these studies in the medical field.
Systematic review. We searched in electronic databases; reference lists of included studies. We included studies that examined medical decisions of physicians, nurses or medical students using cue weightings from answers to structured vignettes. Two reviewers scrutinized abstracts and examined full text copies of potentially eligible studies. The aim of the included studies, the type of clinical decision, the number of participants, some technical aspects, and the type of statistical analysis were extracted in duplicate and discrepancies were resolved by consensus.
30 reports published between 1983 and 2005 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. 22 studies (73%) reported on treatment decisions and 27 (90%) explored the variation of decisions among experts. Nine studies (30%) described differences in decisions between groups of caregivers and ten studies (33%) described the decision behaviour of only one group. Only six studies (20%) compared decision behaviour against an empirical reference of a correct decision. The median number of considered attributes was 6.5 (IQR 4-9), the median number of vignettes was 27 (IQR 16-40). In 17 studies, decision makers had to rate the relative importance of a given vignette; in six studies they had to assign a probability to each vignette. Only ten studies (33%) applied a statistical procedure to account for correlated data.
Various studies of medical choice and judgement have been performed to depict weightings of the value of clinical information from answers to structured vignettes of care givers. We found that the design and analysis methods used in current applications vary considerably and could be improved in a large number of cases.
关于医疗选择和判断的案例研究在医学文献中越来越普遍。这些研究最初是在数学心理学领域发展起来的,可用于评估医生在诊断测试或治疗决策过程中的行为。我们概述了这些研究在医学领域的用途、目标和方法。
系统评价。我们检索了电子数据库以及纳入研究的参考文献列表。纳入的研究需使用对结构化案例的回答中的线索权重来考察医生、护士或医学生的医疗决策。两名评审员仔细审查摘要,并检查潜在合格研究的全文副本。纳入研究的目的、临床决策类型、参与者数量、一些技术方面以及统计分析类型均进行了双人提取,如有差异则通过协商解决。
1983年至2005年间发表的30篇报告符合纳入标准。22项研究(73%)报告了治疗决策,27项研究(90%)探讨了专家之间决策的差异。9项研究(30%)描述了不同护理人员群体之间决策的差异,10项研究(33%)仅描述了一个群体的决策行为。只有6项研究(20%)将决策行为与正确决策的实证参考进行了比较。考虑的属性中位数为6.5(四分位间距4 - 9),案例中位数为27(四分位间距16 - 40)。在17项研究中,决策者必须对给定案例的相对重要性进行评分;在6项研究中,他们必须为每个案例分配一个概率。只有10项研究(33%)应用了统计程序来处理相关数据。
已经开展了各种关于医疗选择和判断的研究,以描述护理人员对结构化案例回答中临床信息价值的权重。我们发现,当前应用中使用的设计和分析方法差异很大,在许多情况下可以改进。