Return to Vaccination News Home Page

Subscribe to the Vaccination NewsLetter

View past & current Scandals (columns by Sandy Mintz)

Search This Site using keywords

http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/archdischild%3b88/6/497

ADC Thorax
 

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Full Text of this Article
Reprint (PDF) Version of this Article
Email this link to a friend
eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Similar articles found in:
ADC Online
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Search PubMed for articles by:
Rakow, T || Bull, C
Alert me when:
new articles cite this article
 
Download to Citation Manager
Collections under which this article appears:
Congenital heart disease
Communication
Other Pediatrics

Archives of Disease in Childhood 2003;88:497-502
© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group & Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

 


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Same patient, different advice: a study into why doctors vary

T Rakow1 and C Bull2

1 Department of Psychology, University of Essex, UK
2 The Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London, UK

 

Correspondence to:
Dr T Rakow, Dept of Psychology, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK;
timrakow@essex.ac.uk

Aim: To understand why doctors differ in their recommendations in situations where there is little certainty about the long term outcomes of the possible treatment options.

Methods: A correlational design was used to examine the relation between preference for different treatment options and beliefs about likely outcomes for these options. Eighty doctors, with a mean of nine years in paediatric cardiology/surgery, attending a conference on serious congenital heart disease were studied. Main outcome measures were: ratings of the extent to which each of four treatment options were favoured; and subjective probabilities for three outcomes—death, survival with "good heart function" (New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) I or II), and survival with "poor heart function" (NYHA III or IV)—for different treatment options over a 20 year time frame.

Results: Preference for one treatment option over another was most closely associated with the subjective estimate of the additional years with "good heart function" that it offered 10–20 years after surgery (Pearson’s r = 0.66, p < 0.001). In influencing a preference, the possibility of early death was subordinate to optimising the late outcome.

Conclusions: Doctors’ treatment preferences are consistent with selecting the option that maximises the chance of the best outcome (long term survival with good heart function). Doctors’ recommendations imply that they place more value on years of life in the child’s far future than on life-years in the immediate future.

 


Keywords: decision making; treatment preferences; univentricular heart; subjective probability of outcomes

Abbreviations: NYHA, New York Heart Association; TCPC, total cavopulmonary connections

 


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

Return to Vaccination News Home Page

DISCLAIMER:    All information, data, and material contained, presented, or provided here is for general information purposes only and is not to be construed as reflecting the knowledge or opinions of the publisher, and is not to be construed or intended as providing medical or legal advice.  The decision whether or not to vaccinate is an important and complex issue and should be made by you, and you alone, in consultation with your health care provider.